AI: Designed in Europe, Marketed & Sold in America, Assembled in China
The Geopolitics of AI
By 1940, Britain faced an existential threat, standing alone against Nazi Germany after the fall of France. Scant on resources to sustain the fight, Churchill turned to the United States for support. Despite their official neutrality, Roosevelt responded with the Lend-Lease Act in 1941, providing Britain with vital military and economic aid.
When Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa brought Stalin’s Soviet Union into the war, the necessity of a tripartite alliance became evident. Roosevelt and Churchill invited Stalin to join the partnership. However, as the war progressed, Roosevelt engaged with the Soviet Union not as part of a unified Anglo-American approach but as the leader of a distinctly American agenda. This divergence created a fissure in the alliance, which Stalin astutely exploited.
By 1945, as Nazi Germany collapsed, the Soviet Union expanded its control over Eastern Europe under the guise of liberation. Simultaneously, the US and USSR extracted Nazi technologies and expertise, establishing the foundations for their post-war dominance. These actions, shaped by a shaky Anglo-American dynamic, would leave lasting consequences for Europe.
The alliance between the United States and Britain on European soil during the Second World War was indeed a unique strategic collaboration, but it was not the first Anglo-American alliance in a broader historical context. The relationship between the two nations has its roots in a shared heritage, and their geopolitical collaborations have occurred in various forms before their concerted effort on European soil during the 1940s.
While the Anglo-American alliance was critical to Allied success in the Second World War, the relationship between Roosevelt and Churchill was marked by strain, particularly as Roosevelt sought to build a direct relationship with Stalin. Roosevelt’s overtures to Stalin often came at the expense of Churchill’s vision for the alliance, as demonstrated during pivotal moments such as the Tehran Conference in 1943
The Tehran Conference, marked the first time Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met in person. It was here that Roosevelt’s priorities diverged from Churchill’s vision of the alliance. At the conference Roosevelt sought Stalin’s favour by arranging private meetings with Stalin and deliberately distanced himself from Churchill, once jokingly telling Stalin, “If you don’t like Churchill, neither do I.” Churchill’s isolation became evident. Key discussions, such as the planning for the Second Front (D-Day), saw Roosevelt and Stalin aligning against Churchill’s Mediterranean strategy. Churchill’s insistence on focusing operations in Italy and the Balkans was dismissed in favour of the cross-Channel invasion Stalin demanded. While Churchill was committed to maintaining Poland’s sovereignty, Roosevelt’s concessions to Stalin, agreeing in principle to the Soviet Union’s annexation of eastern Poland, undermined Britain’s wartime promises to the Polish government-in-exile. Churchill had entered this war to protect Poland!
Churchill wrote to Roosevelt far more frequently than Roosevelt wrote to him, often seeking reassurance about American commitments. In one letter, Churchill implored Roosevelt to maintain solidarity against Soviet demands for excessive territorial gains. Roosevelt’s responses were often brief and non-committal, reflecting his focus on maintaining good relations with Stalin rather than addressing Churchill’s concerns.
Roosevelt’s preference for direct communication with Stalin further sidelined Churchill, as evidenced by the correspondence between Roosevelt and Stalin during 1944 that bypassed Churchill entirely on issues such as post-war territorial arrangements and the timing of Allied offensives.
By the time of the Yalta Conference, 1945, the Anglo-American alliance had become visibly imbalanced. Roosevelt, already in failing health, sought to secure Soviet support for the invasion of Japan and the establishment of the United Nations. These priorities led him to make further concessions to Stalin. Roosevelt agreed to Stalin’s demand that Poland’s eastern border follow the Curzon Line, effectively conceding much of Poland’s territory to the Soviet Union. While free elections were promised, Stalin’s control over Poland was already solidified. Churchill repeatedly expressed concern over Soviet intentions in Eastern Europe, but his protests were largely sidelined by Roosevelt’s insistence on preserving Allied unity. Roosevelt’s focus on the Pacific War overshadowed Churchill’s efforts to secure fair treatment for Eastern Europe.
When Churchill coins the term 'Iron Curtain' in his famous speech on March 5, 1946, he is still warning of the growing divide between the Western democracies and the Soviet-controlled Eastern Bloc, emphasising the ideological and physical barriers forming across Europe in my opinion emboldened by ambivalence.
The period immediately following the war saw the full extent of this reordering. Both the United States and the Soviet Union turned their attention to the spoils of the conflict, particularly the technological and intellectual resources left behind by Nazi Germany. For the United States, Operation Paperclip became a key mechanism for securing German expertise in rocketry, aviation, and other advanced fields. The integration of figures like Wernher von Braun, who became instrumental in the US missile programme and the development of NASA’s space capabilities into the American scientific establishment marking the beginning of the US’s dominance in aerospace and missile technology.
The Soviet Union, through its parallel efforts such as Operation Osoaviakhim, pursued a similar strategy, forcibly relocating thousands of German scientists and engineers to the USSR. These efforts were not merely about military superiority but also about establishing a long term competitive edge in innovation and industrial capacity. In this context, the ideological divide between the US and USSR masked a shared opportunism that prioritised national advantage over any genuine commitment to rebuilding Europe as an equal partner.
Having been granted access to European affairs through Churchill’s overtures, the US capitalised on Europe’s devastation to secure its own technological, economic, and geopolitical advantages. At this point, the United States begins to capitalise and commercialises Eurasian antisemitism, shaping it to serve its global geopolitical objectives.
Given that the current U.S. administration rose to power with the support of big tech and AI, positioning itself in ways that often contrast with the values Britain and Europe uphold, this moment presents a vital opportunity to bring up Mike Lynch and Britain in Ai.
The case of Michael Lynch, founder of the British AI and data analytics company Autonomy, offers a contemporary example of how the transatlantic relationship continues to be marked by imbalances that disadvantage European actors. The legal saga that followed Autonomy’s 2011 sale to Hewlett-Packard (HP) for $11 billion illustrates how American corporate strategy, governance practices, and legal frameworks can disrupt European innovation while reinforcing US dominance.
Lynch’s sale of Autonomy to HP initially appeared to be a major success for British technology, demonstrating the global competitiveness of a European AI leader. However, HP soon accused Lynch of financial improprieties, claiming he had fraudulently inflated Autonomy’s value. The ensuing legal battle spanned over a decade, with Lynch fighting extradition to the United States and facing charges under American legal frameworks that many in the UK viewed as extraterritorial overreach.
This case illustrates how American corporate strategy can disrupt European innovation. The distraction tactics, the protracted legal proceedings effectively removed Lynch from contributing to the European AI ecosystem during a critical period of technological development. Lynch’s battle against HP exposed the limitations of European firms when faced with the resources and influence of US corporations operating within a globalised legal framework. HP’s then CEO, Meg Whitman, played a central role in the company’s pursuit of legal action against Lynch. As one of the few women to lead a major American corporation, Whitman faced intense scrutiny from both within and outside her company. Her aggressive handling of the Lynch case has been criticised as driven more by a need to assert her leadership than by substantive evidence of wrongdoing. Whitman reversed the valuation of Autonomy shortly after the acquisition, a move that many observers attributed to internal HP challenges rather than fraudulent practices by Lynch. Later rulings by UK courts supported this interpretation, raising questions about the motivations behind HP’s actions.
Whitman’s approach highlights how corporate leadership in the US is shaped by cultural pressures that prioritises aggressive posturing, often at the expense of long-term partnerships or ethical considerations.
This dynamic hints at how systemic misogyny in the US corporate environment influence decision making. Female leaders in the US often operate within patriarchal structures that incentivise combative strategies to prove their legitimacy. The overturning of Roe v. Wade (2022) exemplifies the broader societal regression in women’s rights in the US, with ripple effects that extend into corporate culture. These cultural forces, when exported through multinational corporations, can shape corporate governance in Europe, subtly reinforcing the same inequalities.
By 2024, the United States reached a transformative juncture, with advanced technology and artificial intelligence playing a pivotal role in reshaping its political and economic landscape. Donald Trump’s re-election, bolstered by strategic support from major technology corporations and groundbreaking AI advancements, echoed earlier historical moments where emerging forces disrupted global power dynamics.
US corporate elites, led by figures such as Mark Zuckerberg, aligned themselves closely with the administration. Zuckerberg’s assertion of the need for “more masculine energies in the corporate world” and his public criticism of EU technology regulations, voiced during a high-profile appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, signalled a cultural and ideological shift. This rhetoric, reminiscent of Roosevelt’s selective alliances, positioned US technology leaders at the heart of the administration’s agenda. Consequently, companies like Amazon and Meta saw their market valuations surge by $200 billion, reflecting Wall Street’s approval of this convergence of technology and politics.
However, the emergence of open-source AI by DeepSeek disrupted the carefully constructed dominance of US technology giants. In a single day, over $1 trillion in market value was wiped out, with NVIDIA suffering a record-breaking $600 billion loss, the largest in US stock market history. This upheaval recalled the post-war scramble for supremacy, when the United States and the Soviet Union exploited the collapse of Nazi Germany to secure technological and geopolitical dominance.
Meanwhile, China’s strategic approach to AI and technology development further exposed cracks in Western dominance. Much like Stalin’s exploitation of Allied disunity during the Second World War, China capitalised on the growing fragmentation within the transatlantic alliance, asserting itself as a technological and economic counterbalance.
This moment draws parallels with the fragile wartime alliance between Churchill and Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s concessions to Stalin, such as the acceptance of the Curzon Line and the marginalisation of Churchill’s Mediterranean strategy, ultimately sowed the seeds of the Cold War and Europe’s division.
Recent events highlight the pressing need for Europe to carve out its own path, leveraging its technological, cultural and regulatory strengths to counterbalance US opportunism. As history demonstrates, unequal alliances and the unchecked exploitation of innovation can lead to long-term instability. Europe’s response to this critical moment will determine its role in addressing the challenges of the 21st century, from artificial intelligence to sustainability, ensuring global progress does not come at the cost of its values or the future of the planet.