There is a strong belief that technological sovereignty can be measured by a simple number, placed in a rating table and once and for all determine which country is the leader and which is lagging behind. But the reality, as often happens, is much more complex and paradoxical than it would seem at first glance.

When we look at the official indexes and ratings, we see a clear hierarchy. Some countries take the first places, while others are far behind in this global competition. It would seem that everything is simple: a higher place in the rating means a higher level of sovereignty.

However, this apparent simplicity hides something much more interesting, which makes us rethink the very concept of technological independence of the state.

Two different paths to independence

Imagine two states that have chosen completely opposite paths to achieve the same goal.

One state has decided to integrate into the global ecosystem, become part of the global technological pipeline, develop certain specialized competencies and gain independence through this. Another state has chosen a different strategy: to invest in the creation of its own technological systems independent of external sources, to develop a full cycle of production of critical components, and to create its own technological stack.

These two strategies have fundamentally different characteristics, different costs, and different results. But the most interesting thing is that they lead to the same result: real technological independence of the state. It's just that this independence looks completely different. The first approach creates the appearance of leadership in global rankings.

It boasts high rates of digitalization of public services, an expanded high-speed Internet network, a developed ecosystem of startups, and integration with international standards. All this is measured, calculated, and compared. These are easily proven, visible results that rating authors and international organizations like. The second approach requires huge investments, measured in trillions, requires the creation of entire new industries, requires the cultivation of thousands of specialists in areas that have not yet been created.

It's more expensive, it takes longer, it's less "convenient" in the short term. It is not so easy to show this in the index figures, because the results do not appear in the current year, but in decades. But this creates genuine independence from external factors, the ability to act even in conditions of international isolation.

Sovereignty As an Ability, not an Indice

Technological sovereignty, in its true sense, is not so much a place in the ranking as the ability of a state to act in accordance with its strategic interests, regardless of what external pressures it is experiencing. This is the ability to protect its citizens, develop the economy, and ensure national security, relying on its own technological capabilities or at least on the ability to choose its partners. This is where we discover a striking paradox.

The two countries, which are in completely different positions in global rankings, actually have a very similar level of real independence. It's just that this independence is achieved in different ways, through different mechanisms, using different tools.

One country boasts that its citizens have access to the most modern digital services, that its economy is integrated into global value chains, and that it participates in international projects and standardization. But at the same time, it depends on the import of critical components, on the decisions of foreign companies in the field of system architecture, and on the choice of their global partners.

Another state may have less “beautiful” figures in the field of digitalization and integration into the global ecosystem. But at the same time, it has the ability to develop, produce and maintain critical technologies independently, create a complete technological cycle, and provide itself with the necessary components even in isolation.

Investments as a Mirror of Strategy

When the state invests trillions in the development of technological sovereignty, it is not just a waste of money. This reflects a deep strategic understanding of where vulnerabilities are located and how they can be eliminated. This is the realization that in today's world, geopolitical risks are quite real, and relying solely on global supply chains is risky.

At the same time, when the state integrates into the global ecosystem, developing certain niche competencies, this is also a strategic choice. It is a choice to build your independence not on complete isolation, but on becoming an indispensable partner, having your own competencies that others need, and taking your place in the global division of labor. The scale of these investments shows the seriousness of the intentions.

When a country allocates multi-trillion dollars for the development of microelectronics, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other critical technologies, it demonstrates that it understands the depth of the challenge and is ready for a long struggle for independence.

Human capital: A Real Wealth

But behind all investments, behind all projects, behind all strategies, there is one decisive factor — people. Specialists, scientists, and engineers who can develop, implement, and maintain technological systems. Without them, no investment will bring results. Here we see another level of paradox. Small countries with limited populations often exhibit an amazing concentration of talent in certain fields.

Through education, through attracting investments, through creating a favorable environment for development, they create ecosystems that compete with much larger players. Large countries, on the contrary, often face the problem of talent dispersion, insufficient concentration of efforts, and competition between different projects and areas.

At the same time, they have the opportunity to work simultaneously in several directions, creating multiple points of innovation. Which system to choose is a strategic issue. But both approaches, if implemented correctly, lead to the same result: the state receives technology specialists who can solve critical tasks.

Speed of Adaptation as a Factor of Survival

One of the most interesting characteristics of technological sovereignty is the speed with which a state can adapt its strategy to changing conditions. The world of technology is changing incredibly fast. What was relevant five years ago may become completely irrelevant today. New technologies are emerging, old ones are becoming less important.

A state that is embedded in a global ecosystem often has the advantage of being able to quickly adapt its strategies, refocus its efforts, and shift its specialists to new areas. A global network of partners provides information, knowledge, and access to the latest developments.

A state that builds its own technological stack has another advantage — a deep understanding of each level of the system, full control over critical components, and the ability to quickly mobilize resources to solve sudden problems.

Beyond Visible Polls

When we look at the ratings of technological sovereignty, we see only the surface layer of a much more complex reality. These ratings reflect certain selected indicators — those that are convenient to measure, that correspond to a certain philosophy, that serve certain interests.

However, sovereignty is a much deeper concept. This is the ability of the state to act independently, protect its citizens, and develop in accordance with its vision of the future.

This may look completely different in different countries, because choosing the paths to this independence is a deeply national choice. Two countries that are in completely different positions in the official rankings may have a very similar level of real independence. It's just that this independence looks different, is created in different ways, and is measured by different indicators.

One country is shining in digitalization numbers, the other is investing in critical technologies of the future. One chose the path of deep integration and specialization, the other chose the path of more complete autonomy. The question is not which path is “right” — it is a matter of national choice.

The question is whether each State can act in accordance with its interests, protect its citizens and citizens, and continue to develop in an environment where technology is becoming increasingly critical to national existence.

Perhaps that's why simple ratings, when we begin to analyze them carefully, no longer seem so convincing. There is a much more interesting and complex story behind them about how different states choose their own paths to true independence.