At the beginning of June, after my panel at the EU Industry Days in Rzeszów, a representative of the European Commission approached me. We had just been discussing robotics, digital sovereignty, and Europe’s role in global competition when he asked me:
“Mr. Reger, what does Europe need most to become truly sovereign and competitive?”

As I often hear this question, I now have a compact answer:

»Europe has many good ideas. But without a solid foundation, they remain castles in the air. We therefore urgently need a stable foundation for progress! In other words, structures in which we can make ideas successful.«

Looking at Europe’s development over the past 150 years, one thing becomes clear: innovation has never been our problem. But innovation alone doesn’t move the needle. What we want is progress. And progress happens where innovation meets resilient infrastructure. Yes, I mean physical things like fiber-optic networks – but more than that, I’m talking about societal and political frameworks. These, to me, reflect our collective mindset.

Europe isn’t suffering from a lack of ideas – it’s suffering from a structural crisis.

If you look at Europe’s development over the past one hundred and fifty years, you realize that innovation has never been our problem. However, innovation alone will not get us anywhere. What we want is progress. And progress is created where innovations meet a sustainable infrastructure. But I don’t just mean the visible things, such as the fiber optic network or highway bridges. The social and political framework conditions are just as important. They are a reflection of our mindset and form the ecosystem in which the idea can thrive – or not.
Let us first face the fact that innovation and progress are not one and the same thing! A new technology or business idea – whether digital or physical – can only have an economic impact if it is widely accepted and shapes people’s everyday lives.
However, many European innovations in recent history were not given this opportunity in Europe. However, they did not disappear from the world stage because of this, but developed their systemic impact elsewhere – and are generating billions in profits and corresponding tax revenues there:

• Around 1900, cinema and television were invented in Europe. But it was California – Hollywood – that turned them into billion-dollar industries. Meanwhile, Asia recognized the value of mass-producing affordable consumer electronics and TVs.

• The first programmable computer was developed by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the 1940s. But in the aftermath of war, the country wasn’t ready to support this kind of vision. Zuse was ahead of his time, but Germany lacked the mindset and infrastructure to follow. Decades later, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs brought computers into living rooms worldwide, laying the foundation for a new era.

• The MP3 format was invented at Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute and quickly adopted around the world. But it took Apple’s massive investment – with iPod and iTunes – to truly revolutionize the music industry.

Europe has always had creative minds and visionary entrepreneurs. If we didn’t, “the automobile” wouldn’t be a European success story, and SAP wouldn’t be one of the world’s top five software companies.

The coal penny is a prime example. Introduced in 1981 to subsidize Germany’s coal industry, it was a politically and morally understandable move. But economically? Taken in a sober and sustainable light, vast amounts of money were poured into preserving an industry that was already considered obsolete.

Our instinct to protect the old is paralyzing us – when we should be championing the new.

While Germany was busy preserving the past, Silicon Valley in the early 1980s was busy building the foundations of our digital present. IBM launched the first PC – powered by software from a small, rising company called Microsoft. Apple introduced the Lisa, then the Macintosh with graphical interface and mouse. Cisco was founded – later a key player in building the Internet’s infrastructure.

The era of venture capital began, with targeted funding for young tech firms. Government and society played a vital but indirect role: through early university funding (DARPA, Stanford), open markets, minimal regulation, and a culture that embraced failure and new beginnings.

Brussels: A Comeback with Intent

Today, Brussels recognizes we’re falling behind globally – and wants to catch up fast. But are we escaping the very mindset holding us back?
The EU has poured years of effort into fostering AI that is independent of the U.S. And technically, we’ve seen excellent results. But in practice, many of these systems suffer a fatal flaw: they follow political mandates rather than market needs. They don’t integrate well with existing systems, lack interfaces, shared standards, legal clarity, a culture of openness – and the security to know that today’s innovations won’t be regulated out of existence tomorrow.

About 25-30 years ago, we in Germany were discussing the extent to which greenfield shopping centers were a threat to our city centers, while Amazon was in the process of revolutionizing shopping as a whole and simply creating its own digital and international marketplace. Meanwhile, Europe was working towards a common internal market, which brought new sales opportunities, especially for the old economy. The digital economy – long derided as a playground for nerds and speculators – initially produced only a few companies, such as T-Online, Arcor and Wanadoo. They remained national islands and had hardly any global ambitions. At the same time, work was already underway in Seattle on Amazon Web Services (AWS), now the largest cloud provider in the world. Amazon was allowed to post high losses for seven years in a row because investors believed in the concept of scaling and infrastructure.

First came the engine. Then the seatbelt.This highlights a core difference in mindset: in the U.S., scale is seen as the engine of success – regardless of early profitability. In Europe, growth is met with suspicion.

This highlights a core difference in mindset: in the U.S., scale is seen as the engine of success – regardless of early profitability. In Europe, growth is met with suspicion. Rapid expansion triggers political and media backlash. Anything big is seen as potentially dangerous or overly capitalist.

From a social welfare perspective, that’s not entirely wrong. But this mindset prevents innovation from ever becoming essential infrastructure.

Real progress needs room to grow before it’s judged or regulated. If we only allow new things once they’re perfectly regulated and fully controllable, we’ll never spark the kind of momentum that true transformation requires. Or, as I often put it: first came the engine – then the seatbelt. If we keep subsidizing outdated tech, we’re tying up capital that should drive structural change.

Here’s the Europe I want to see: one that understands an App Store needs hundreds of thousands of developers. One that sees research labs thrive through global collaboration. One that knows a robot only becomes mainstream when data protection laws don’t pose a greater risk to everyone involved than the robot itself ever could.

We’ll achieve the next big leap forward when robots can seamlessly integrate into existing IT and data infrastructures. And when companies and users can easily create their own applications and capabilities for robots with minimal effort, robotics will become a scalable everyday product.

If we succeed in doing that here in Europe, we’ll become technologically and economically sovereign in one of the most important future markets. We’ll help define global standards and shape emerging industries. And with that, we’ll reclaim the international relevance and sovereignty we’ve slowly been giving up over the past two decades. That’s how we turn innovation – in cognitive robotics – into real progress.