Alliances as “Sovereignty Multipliers”

Introduction

Quantum sovereignty is often framed as a nation achieving self-sufficiency in quantum technologies, but pure autarky is unrealistic in such a complex, globalized field. No country, not even a superpower, can cover every facet of the quantum supply chain at top-notch level; talent and specialized components are too widely dispersed. Instead, nations are pursuing sovereignty as a “team sport” among trusted allies. Coalition sovereignty means pooling R&D efforts, aligning standards, coordinating procurement, and hardening supply chains across partners so that each nation’s capabilities are strengthened rather than diminished by collaboration.

From Geopolitical Alignment to Technical Capability: Alliance Mechanisms

Turning strategic alignment into real technological capability requires deliberate mechanisms at the alliance level. Formal statements of partnership (like NATO communiqués or bilateral MOUs) only matter if backed by concrete programs and standards. So let’s outline key ways alliances can operationalize their cooperation in quantum tech.

Shared Roadmaps and “Quantum-Ready” Goals

Alliances can start by agreeing on shared technology roadmaps and end-goals. A prime example is NATO’s quantum strategy, which articulates a vision for a “quantum-ready Alliance.” NATO allies collectively identified priority quantum applications for defense, set targets for capability development, and defined milestones to integrate quantum tech into alliance planning. This joint roadmap ensures members pursue complementary R&D rather than redundant efforts. It also commits all allies to transition critical systems (like encryption) to quantum-safe methods on a common timeline. By aligning their national strategies to an alliance-level plan, countries create a force multiplier – each state’s investments reinforce a larger, coordinated push.

Shared roadmaps require governance structures to keep everyone on track. For instance, the European Union has proposed a high-level Quantum Coordination Board to align EU member-state efforts, set common priorities, and steer funding toward cross-border projects. Such bodies can dynamically update alliance-wide action plans as technology evolves. They also help smaller members specialize in niches where they excel, avoiding duplication of under-funded projects everywhere. The result is a more rational division of labor: one country’s quantum sensor research complements another’s work on quantum processors, all mapped to a shared alliance vision.

Crucially, shared goals at the alliance level formalize “coalition sovereignty” in quantum tech. Rather than each nation striving for an illusory full-stack independence, partners agree on which capabilities to develop jointly and which to rely on trusted allies for.

This approach is already emerging informally. For example, the UK’s national quantum strategy explicitly partners with Germany on quantum photonics, with the Netherlands on semiconductors, with Japan on materials, and with Canada on software – so that each partner covers a slice of the stack and all share the outcomes. Similarly, the EU’s Quantum Europe 2030 roadmap calls for engaging the US, Japan, Canada and others to “reduce dependencies” through a diversified network of partnerships. By co-developing technology roadmaps with allies, nations gain optionality: if one source fails or falls behind, another can fill the gap. In short, a common quantum agenda makes the whole alliance more resilient than the sum of its parts.

Interoperability Standards and Joint Frameworks

Technical interoperability is the glue that binds coalition efforts into a usable whole. Allies must ensure that their quantum systems – from encryption protocols to hardware interfaces – can work together seamlessly. NATO’s quantum strategy stresses this point, noting that the Alliance will develop and adopt common frameworks, policies, and standards (for both software and hardware) to enhance interoperability. In practice, this means allied forces or researchers should be able to plug in components or algorithms from different member countries without issue. Standardized interfaces and data formats enable a “mix-and-match” approach, where each country can contribute modules to a larger system. For instance, an Italian quantum computer recently integrated a Dutch-built processor, a Finnish cryostat, and locally made control electronics – all compatible by design. By promoting open architectures, alliances avoid vendor lock-in and ensure that no single country’s tech becomes a bottleneck.

Post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is a clear case where interoperability is paramount. As nations race to deploy encryption that can withstand quantum attacks, allies must coordinate on standards; otherwise, secure communication across militaries and governments could be fractured. Experts have proposed an allied “standards-based certification compact” for PQC – essentially a coalition-wide campaign to adopt quantum-safe encryption by default and certify each other’s implementations. This would guarantee that, say, a U.S. defense system and a European one both trust each other’s quantum-resistant encryption, avoiding weak links. NATO has already declared the goal of transitioning its enterprise to quantum-safe cryptography and encouraging all allies to do the same. Nonetheless, differences in risk perception persist: some countries are more aggressive in moving to PQC or quantum key distribution (QKD), while others are cautious about cost and maturity. Establishing joint standards bodies and testbeds can help bridge these gaps – giving all members confidence through shared evaluation that new cryptographic tools are interoperable and reliable across the alliance.

Beyond crypto, alliances are using standards to align broader quantum tech development. The EU, for example, is funding members’ participation in international quantum standardization and could leverage its market power to push common standards for quantum APIs or QKD devices. By insisting on certain certifications or interfaces, the EU can not only harmonize its internal market but also shape global norms – making it easier to swap out components or collaborate across borders. In sum, investing in interoperability standards is investing in alliance flexibility. It ensures that when one ally makes a breakthrough, others can integrate it quickly; and if one ally’s tech falters, others can step in with minimal friction.

Coordinated Security and Supply Chain Protections

Deeper alliance integration in quantum tech demands trust, which in turn requires coordinated security policies. Partners need confidence that shared R&D won’t leak to adversaries and that critical supplies won’t be cut off due to one country’s vulnerabilities. To this end, allies are increasingly aligning their export controls, investment screening, and supply chain security rules. A recent U.S. strategy report notes that quantum supply chains highlight the importance of working closely with allies as part of a broader “de-risking” strategy. Many quantum components are available from only a few sources worldwide – and some are in rival states (for example, China currently dominates production of certain precision lasers and rare materials used in quantum systems). To avoid dangerous dependencies, allied countries are mapping out who among them can provide which critical inputs. Finland, for instance, is a primary source for dilution refrigerators and specialized photonics; Japan produces unique laser diodes and wafers; Germany supplies high-end vacuum chambers and photonic sensors. By pooling this knowledge, allies can collectively ensure that if one source (especially a non-ally) becomes unavailable, alternatives exist within the trusted coalition.

On the policy side, NATO has urged members to prevent adversarial investments or interference in their domestic quantum sectors. This might involve sharing intelligence on dubious investors or coordinating on inbound investment screening so that, for example, a hostile power cannot simply route money through the most permissive ally to acquire a sensitive startup. Likewise, export control coordination closes off loopholes: in late 2024, the US, EU, and key Indo-Pacific allies jointly updated controls on exporting quantum technologies, to present a united front and avoid undercutting each other. The EU is even considering “open general licenses” similar to the UK’s, to streamline exports among trusted partners while blocking others.

Allies also collaborate to secure supply chains by standardizing security vetting. NATO committees provide forums for allies to exchange views on quantum-related norms and to support each other in implementing measures like post-quantum cryptographic upgrades across all domains. By jointly funding research on quantum-resistant communication and sharing best practices, they reduce the chance that one member becomes the weakest link. In essence, coordinated research-security rules – covering everything from export bans to common vetting of researchers and suppliers – create a “safe zone” for coalition innovation. Within that zone, ideas and hardware can flow more freely because everyone abides by the same guardrails. This balance is evident in EU–NATO cooperation: a recent EU strategy recommends preserving collaboration with the US and other key allies on quantum by coordinating export control lists in a way that “economic openness and European security advance together.” In short, allies agree on whom they trust and what they’ll collectively protect, so that inside the alliance, cooperation can be as frictionless as possible.

Joint Testbeds, Infrastructure and Niche Specialization

Alliances multiply sovereignty when they share the heavy lifting of costly R&D infrastructure. Not every country can afford its own quantum computing center, satellite QKD network, or specialized fabrication facility – nor would it make sense to duplicate these everywhere. By pooling investments, allies can create joint “flagship” facilities and testbeds that members access together. For example, NATO’s Defense Innovation Accelerator (DIANA) is establishing a network of dozens of test centers and accelerator sites across Europe and North America, rather than in a single country. These will include at least 50 technology testbeds (for various emerging tech including quantum) spread among allied nations, leveraging existing labs where possible. DIANA’s structure also illustrates the political balancing of hosting: it set up dual headquarters – one in Europe (co-hosted by Estonia and the UK) and one in North America (offered by Canada) – to ensure transatlantic buy-in. Such sharing of locations and governance helps defuse competition over “who gets to host” a prized facility, making it a truly collective asset.

Allies are also coordinating who develops which niche, turning variability in industrial bases into a strength. Rather than all partners pursuing the entire spectrum of quantum tech, they can each focus on areas of comparative advantage and then combine the pieces. AUKUS (the Australia–UK–US alliance) and EU–US collaborations have discussed dividing focus – e.g. one nation specializing in quantum sensing, another in quantum networking, another in algorithms – and then trading results. This niche specialization means each country attains sovereignty in one layer of the technology stack and relies on allies for others, increasing overall group resilience. The risk, of course, is if the alliance frays, interdependence becomes a vulnerability. But among longstanding allies with deep trust, this “distributed sovereignty” can outperform a go-it-alone approach. For instance, Europe’s quantum programs encourage cross-border clusters: one EU project might fund a Dutch fab to produce quantum chips used by a Spanish quantum computer, while a French-led network provides quantum communications linking them. Similarly, an Italian lab’s quantum computer (assembled with multinational components) effectively became a testbed that benefits the broader Quantum Open Architecture community. By sharing both the costs and benefits of big infrastructure, allies ensure that even mid-sized states can access cutting-edge capabilities they could not afford alone.

Joint testbeds also accelerate interoperability and innovation. When researchers from multiple countries work on the same experimental quantum network or computing platform, they naturally develop common standards and trust in each other’s methods. NATO has explicitly positioned itself as a broker connecting allied governments, industry and end-users to experiment with emerging tech in military contexts. Programs like DIANA and the NATO Innovation Fund (a $1 billion multi-nation VC fund) incentivize startups across allied countries to contribute to alliance-defined challenges. The EU, in turn, is linking up with NATO’s innovation initiatives to “prioritise, test and scale quantum technologies” for defense: by pooling resources with like-minded allies, the EU aims to develop “trusted, defence-grade supply chains” for quantum and “accelerate integration” of these technologies into a shared transatlantic ecosystem. All these efforts point to a coalition approach where infrastructure and know-how are widely distributed, but orchestrated toward a common strategic end.

Talent Exchanges and Trusted Workforce Pipelines

Human talent is the linchpin of the quantum race, and alliances recognize that building a trusted talent pipeline is a shared imperative. Quantum experts (PhDs in quantum physics, engineers, cryptographers, etc.) are in short supply globally. Rather than poaching from each other or working at cross purposes, allies are starting to collaborate on training programs, exchanges, and visa policies to grow the collective pool of talent. NATO’s strategy flags talent as one of the most critical resources for the Alliance’s future trajectory in quantum. Allied nations need to develop and protect a skilled workforce – which includes facilitating movement of experts among trusted countries while preventing brain drain to strategic competitors.

One practical step is creating cross-training and reciprocal research exchange programs among allied quantum research centers. A U.S. think-tank report recommended that the White House work with allies to set up joint quantum workforce programs worldwide, noting that “no country has exclusive access to the people” needed for quantum advances. The idea is for countries to mutually open their labs, universities, and companies to each other’s students and researchers under exchange schemes – so that talent flows within the alliance network instead of out of it. The Quad (U.S., India, Japan, Australia) has already established a STEM fellowship program, and experts suggest expanding it specifically for quantum training. Similarly, new trilateral initiatives (like a U.S.-Japan-South Korea partnership) can activate workforce development that spans multiple allied nations. Such programs build personal networks of trust and familiarize participants with each ally’s security standards and best practices, creating an intra-coalition talent pool.

Allies are also adjusting immigration and visa policies to attract and share critical experts. The EU, for example, has floated a “Critical Technology Visa” to grant fast-track work permits across member states for quantum and other tech specialists. This could be extended to allied countries beyond the EU, making it easier for a Canadian or Japanese quantum scientist to take a position in a European lab (and vice versa) without red tape. Moreover, alliance-driven fellowships and joint doctoral programs can encourage young scientists to rotate through multiple countries, spreading expertise while instilling common values around research security. An allied “trusted talent” pipeline also involves agreements on vetting: partners might share information on researchers to ensure none are tied to adversary intelligence, for instance. By coordinating background checks and having common security training, allies can confidently host each other’s citizens in sensitive projects.

Finally, alliances can leverage education networks to scale up talent. NATO and EU nations collectively have hundreds of universities – pooling curricula and online courses related to quantum can help smaller countries access top-notch training. Public-private partnerships (like the U.S. National Quantum Coordination Office and industry consortium QED-C) often include international affiliates, aligning academic programs with industry needs across borders. The overarching principle is that an alliance’s innovation potential is only as good as its people. By investing together in human capital – and ensuring those people are working on allied soil or projects rather than for rival powers – coalitions secure the most important supply chain of all. In the words of one report, “The White House should collaborate with allies so that every country can benefit from readily available quantum expertise.” That means treating talent development as a collective mission, not a zero-sum game.

Challenges and Frictions in Alliance-Centered Strategies

While alliances offer a powerful path to quantum sovereignty, they are not without challenges. Differences in capabilities, priorities, and politics can complicate collective efforts. Here we examine some key friction points that alliances must navigate:

Uneven Capabilities and Contribution Gaps

Allies come to the table with varying levels of quantum R&D capacity. A few nations (e.g. the US, Germany, France, UK, Canada, Japan) have strong quantum industries and academic programs, while many others are just starting out. This imbalance can lead to concerns on both ends: top-tier players might feel others are “free-riding” on their investments, whereas smaller countries fear being relegated to bystander status. Effective alliances address this by ensuring each member finds a meaningful niche. For example, within Europe no single country covers all quantum areas, but each has a specialty – Finland in cryogenics, France in neutral-atom qubits, Germany in superconducting circuits, the Netherlands in quantum networking, Austria in quantum cryptography, and so on. EU programs explicitly encourage members to focus on strengths and then share the results through the single market. Likewise, NATO’s approach emphasizes that all allies, large and small, will cooperate in development to maintain the Alliance’s edge. This cooperative specialization prevents duplication and helps “mid-tier” contributors shine in their chosen domain rather than stretching resources thin everywhere.

Another tactic is joint funding mechanisms that give smaller nations a stake. Multinational funds (like NATO’s Innovation Fund or EU’s Horizon Europe) require even the biggest members to collaborate with smaller ones on projects, spreading around the industrial benefits. Still, unequal capability can breed tensions – for instance, if advanced allies always lead projects, others may worry about dependence or lack of tech transfer. To counter this, alliances often pair any shared project with commitments to build local capacity. A joint quantum lab might include a training center for scientists from all member states. Procurement rules can mandate involving companies or institutes from multiple countries so that even those without a quantum giant still develop expertise. The specialization model can empower mid-sized allies: by becoming truly world-class in one subfield, a country gains influence in the alliance disproportionate to its size, because the others depend on it for that piece. In short, managing uneven industrial bases involves creative burden-sharing – turning what could be a weakness (capability gaps) into a distributed strength, with each link in the chain reinforced by alliance support.

Divergent Risk Perceptions and Tech Preferences

Allies may share broad strategic outlooks yet differ in risk tolerance and technological preferences, which can slow collective action. A notable example is the approach to mitigating the quantum cryptography threat. The United States and many NATO countries are prioritizing post-quantum cryptography (PQC) – upgrading algorithms in software – as the main defense against quantum code-breaking. Meanwhile, some European and Asian allies invest heavily in quantum key distribution (QKD) hardware for ultra-secure communications. Divergent views on PQC vs. QKD (or how urgent the quantum threat is) could lead to a patchwork of security approaches unless carefully coordinated. Some governments push to mandate quantum-safe encryption in all sensitive systems immediately, fearing adversaries may be harvesting encrypted data now to decrypt later (“harvest-now, decrypt-later” attacks). Others are more cautious, awaiting more proven implementations or worried about interoperability issues in the near term.

Alliances must forge consensus on baselines – and often the more risk-averse member sets the pace. NATO has essentially agreed that transitioning to PQC is essential Alliance-wide, and allies are supporting each other in this process. But to bring everyone along, NATO and organizations like the EU are funding research and testing to give conservative stakeholders confidence (for example, running coalition-wide trials of PQC VPNs or hybrid solutions). The Alliance can also act as an information clearinghouse, sharing threat intelligence that might convince holdouts of the urgency (e.g. briefings on adversary quantum computing progress). Conversely, if one ally is bullish on a technology like QKD, it can pilot it for the group – as when some EU countries launched the EuroQCI quantum communication infrastructure, a project whose lessons are shared with NATO partners interested in secure links. Divergent risk appetites can thus be balanced by an alliance’s breadth: those willing to experiment lead pilot projects, while more cautious members observe until they’re comfortable to join.

Another area of divergence is regulation vs. innovation: some countries might impose stricter controls on quantum tech (data protection, ethical guidelines), while others prioritize rapid experimentation. This too requires negotiation under a common framework so that, say, a joint testbed isn’t hamstrung by one nation’s red tape or, conversely, a lax approach in one place doesn’t jeopardize alliance security. The NATO and EU platforms allow allies to “exchange and cohere views” on such emerging norms, ideally leading to a roughly aligned policy environment. Ultimately, an alliance’s unity is tested by how it handles internal disagreements on what level of risk is acceptable. Establishing joint standards (as discussed) and certification processes can alleviate fears – if all equipment and algorithms are certified to an agreed bar, even the more anxious members can trust the collective deployment. Patience and transparency are key: alliances often move at the pace of their most risk-conscious member, but that ensures buy-in from all.

The Politics of “Who Hosts” Critical Infrastructure

Deciding where to locate major strategic infrastructure – like quantum computing centers, secure communication hubs, or R&D headquarters – can become politically sensitive within alliances. Every nation naturally prefers to host marquee facilities on its own soil, both for prestige and the perceived security of direct control. But not everyone can host everything; choices must be made, sometimes leaving smaller allies worried about reliance on a facility abroad. To mitigate this, alliances strive for geographic balance in distributing new projects. We saw this in NATO’s DIANA tech accelerator: initially multiple countries vied for its headquarters, and NATO’s solution was to have two co-equal offices (one in Europe, one in North America) with different nations sharing the honors. In the EU’s quantum program, when selecting sites for the first EuroHPC quantum computers and simulators, the awards were spread across various member states to ensure broad participation. Such balancing acts are important to maintain political cohesion – every ally wants to feel they are not just contributing to someone else’s capability but also benefiting directly.

Even with balance, some friction persists. Countries may question whether they will have full access to an ally-hosted facility in a crisis, or whether data sovereignty can be ensured if, say, a quantum data center is abroad. Alliances often address this by establishing clear governance: joint facilities might be staffed by multinational teams and overseen by committees with all stakeholders. Agreements can spell out that critical infrastructure, while physically located in one country, operates under rules set collectively. For example, a proposed “quantum center of excellence” under NATO might rotate leadership among national experts and report to NATO command rather than solely the host nation. Additionally, redundancy is sometimes built in: if one country hosts a key node (like a satellite ground station for quantum comms), another ally might host a backup node. This way no single point of failure – whether technical or political – can sever the alliance’s capabilities.

Allies also confront the NIMBY factor in reverse: rather than “not in my backyard,” it’s “please, in my backyard!” because hosting comes with economic investment and influence. To turn this into a positive sum game, alliances bundle benefits. A country that doesn’t get the big lab may get a related training center or manufacturing line. Japan, for instance, might not host a pan-Asian quantum cryptography hub if one is built in South Korea, but Japan could be designated to lead the standardization effort, balancing roles. The challenge is largely political and perceptual – ensuring every member feels ownership over the shared infrastructure. NATO often designates Centres of Excellence in smaller member states (cyber in Estonia, energy security in Lithuania, etc.) as a way of recognizing contributions. We can expect similar moves in quantum: perhaps a Quantum Computing Center in one ally, a Quantum Sensor testbed in another, and a training academy in a third. The message is that sovereignty multiplied is sovereignty shared – no one loses control because the alliance’s assets are, by design, accessible to all members under agreed terms. It’s a delicate art, but successful alliances have long practiced spreading key functions around to cement unity.

Strategies for Mid-Tier States: Agility Over Autarky

For countries outside the top-tier of quantum powers – think medium-sized economies or emerging tech nations – alliance-based sovereignty is especially vital. These states cannot invest billions in full-stack quantum programs, yet they don’t want to be left behind or wholly dependent. The answer is an agile strategy that combines partnerships with selective national capabilities. Here is a playbook for mid-tier countries to maximize quantum “sovereign optionality”:

• Invest in people and pick a niche focus: You can’t buy a complete quantum ecosystem overnight, so start by cultivating a quantum-ready workforce and choose one or two domains to excel in. Focus on areas that align with your economy or security needs – for example, a petro-state might specialize in quantum sensors for exploration, or a finance hub might focus on quantum encryption. By developing deep expertise in a specific application, you gain a foothold in the global value chain and become a desirable partner. Building human capital (through education, scholarships, sending students to top labs abroad, etc.) is the foundation; it ensures you have the talent to both contribute and absorb knowledge in collaborations.
• Leverage alliances – both big and small: Don’t go it alone. Form partnerships with leading quantum countries to access tech and know-how, and also band together with peer nations to amplify your voice. This can mean joining international consortia, signing onto NATO or EU initiatives if eligible, and also creating regional coalitions. For instance, a consortium of smaller states can pool resources for a regional quantum network or jointly fund a research center – doing together what none could do individually. Alliances can also help you get a seat at standards-setting tables that big powers dominate. If a group of mid-tier countries comes with a unified proposal for an interoperability standard, the major players are more likely to listen. In short, use collective bargaining: banding together can secure access to infrastructure, research projects, and governance forums that would be out of reach alone.
• Secure optionality through verification at home: When you do import quantum technology or partner on a project, don’t blindly trust it – build up domestic capacity to verify and integrate those components. Establish independent testing labs or work with allies to certify equipment so you can be confident it’s free of backdoors or vulnerabilities. Train a cadre of engineers who can mix-and-match parts from different vendors and countries into your own systems. The goal is to avoid a black-box dependency: even if the hardware comes from abroad, your local experts should thoroughly understand and oversee it. This often means requiring technology transfer and hands-on training as part of any deal with foreign providers. For example, if you buy a quantum random number generator from an ally, insist that your own scientists get to inspect the design or at least collaborate during deployment. In doing so, you maintain sovereign control over how the tech is used and ensure you’re not helpless if external support is withdrawn.
• Use procurement and policy creatively: Even as a smaller player, your government can wield influence as a customer and regulator. When procuring quantum solutions (from computing-as-a-service to secure communications gear), tie contracts to local benefit – e.g. mandate that a local university is involved in implementation, or that the vendor sets up a training program for your citizens. This way, every purchase builds domestic knowledge. Create “regulatory sandboxes” that welcome multiple international quantum vendors to pilot projects in your country. For instance, host an open quantum network testbed where different companies (from allied nations) can plug in their devices for trials – you become a neutral ground that attracts innovation, and you learn from all of them. Also, don’t underestimate soft power: host international quantum conferences, join global initiatives, and visibly contribute thought leadership. Being an active node in the global quantum community makes larger partners more willing to share with you, because you’re helping advance the field (and not just passively waiting for handouts).
• Maintain Plan B options: Part of sovereign optionality is preparing for disruptions. Ensure you have at least minimal domestic alternatives or second-source agreements for critical components, even if they’re not cutting-edge. For example, keep a small lab that can fabricate simple photonic chips or a modest supply of older-generation cryostats, in case geopolitical shifts temporarily cut off your high-end supplier. Align your policies with flexibility in mind – avoid locking yourself into exclusive long-term deals without exit clauses. Negotiate contracts that include escrow of design IP or multi-vendor interoperability, so you can switch if needed. diplomatically, maintain cordial ties with multiple tech powers (where feasible) – being everyone’s friend increases your options to source technology if one relationship sours. In essence, always ask: “If my current partner or supplier became unavailable, what would I do?” and have an answer ready.

In short, mid-tier states should aim to be self-assertive rather than self-sufficient. You won’t manufacture every component or invent every algorithm locally, but you can assert control by smartly choosing partners, insisting on local value from partnerships, and staying agile to re-route as needed. As one expert put it, “sovereign optionality is about maintaining sovereign control over your outcomes without necessarily controlling every input.” You don’t need to own the entire cow, as long as you have a reliable way to get milk – and a backup plan if the milk supply falters. By embracing that philosophy, emerging quantum players can ride the wave of global innovation while safeguarding their national interests.

Conclusion

Alliances, when executed with vision and pragmatism, allow nations to escape the false dilemma between total self-reliance and helpless dependence. In the quantum technology era, where no single country holds all the cards, coalition strategy is the new sovereignty. By collaborating on roadmaps, enforcing common standards, securing shared supply chains, investing in joint infrastructure, and cultivating a trusted talent network, like-minded states amplify their collective power. Yes, this demands trust – and long-term political commitment that may at times be tested. But the payoff is a form of sovereignty that is more robust than any country could achieve alone, because it’s reinforced by the strengths of many.

Such coalition sovereignty also injects resilience against the uncertainties of a fast-changing tech landscape. When breakthroughs can happen anywhere, those who have woven tight alliances will be positioned to quickly integrate innovations from across their network. And if adversaries seek to exploit one nation’s weakness, they will find a stronger chain linking that nation to others. Of course, alliances must continually tend to internal frictions: leveling up smaller members, respecting differing viewpoints, and sharing benefits equitably. Yet, history shows that enduring alliances (from WWII’s codebreaking teams to today’s NATO) succeed by uniting around a common threat or goal and leveraging each member’s comparative advantages.