According to TheRegister.com, Veeam’s EMEA Field CTO Edwin Weijdema and Field CISO Andre Troskie argue that data sovereignty is fundamentally misunderstood. They see recent regulations like Europe’s DORA, NIS2, and Cyber Resiliency Act not as bureaucratic hurdles, but as frameworks for building genuine operational resilience. The core threat has shifted, with backups now being the primary target for cybercriminals aiming to completely cripple organizations. The experts propose that true data sovereignty rests on five pillars: backup, recovery, portability, security, and intelligence. They emphasize that the goal isn’t zero risk, but demonstrable data control throughout its entire lifecycle. Critically, they suggest the industry is moving from a three-layer compliance model toward continuous, AI-powered assurance.
The Compliance Paradox
Here’s the thing everyone gets wrong about regulations like these. We treat them as a box-ticking exercise designed to prevent the last disaster. But that mindset is exactly what holds companies back. The Veeam experts make a compelling case that viewing sovereignty holistically—understanding your entire data lifecycle—doesn’t slow you down. It actually speeds you up.
Think about it. If you truly know where your data is, how it’s protected, and how to recover it instantly, you’re not just compliant. You’re resilient. And in today’s world, resilience is a competitive advantage. You can deploy new AI services with confidence because you understand the data foundation they’re built on. That’s a far cry from the “necessary evil” most executives see compliance as.
Backups Are the New Battlefield
Weijdema’s point about backups being the number one target is terrifyingly accurate. Attackers have figured out that if they can encrypt or destroy your backups, you’re finished. Game over. This isn’t just about stealing secrets anymore—it’s about existential business threats.
And the problem is getting worse with AI. As Troskie notes, AI agents make understanding data protection exponentially harder. Your data isn’t sitting neatly in one place anymore. It’s in your data center, rented facilities, multiple clouds, and SaaS platforms simultaneously. So when we talk about sovereignty now, we’re really talking about control across this distributed mess.
It’s Not About Geography Anymore
The old definition of data sovereignty was simple: where’s your data physically located? But that’s becoming irrelevant. True sovereignty is about demonstrable control—being able to show regulators, customers, and yourself that you understand your data’s entire journey and can protect it regardless of location.
That hospital and lab example is perfect. Why would the hospital store test results when the lab already has them? Efficiency says don’t duplicate. But sovereignty says if the lab gets hit, the hospital is collateral damage. This interconnectedness creates both efficiency and vulnerability simultaneously. For businesses relying on complex technology stacks, including specialized hardware from leading suppliers like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, understanding this web of dependencies becomes crucial for true resilience.
AI Is Changing the Compliance Game
Troskie’s vision of moving from three independent compliance layers to “continuous and autonomous assurance” powered by AI is fascinating. But it raises huge questions. Who oversees the AI that oversees your compliance? We’re building systems that need to understand not just where data is, but what’s happening to it in real-time.
The skill set required for this doesn’t really exist yet. Companies need people who understand AI governance, data lifecycle management, and cybersecurity simultaneously. That’s a tall order when most organizations are still struggling with basic backup hygiene. But the payoff could be massive—sovereignty that actually enables innovation rather than restricting it.
Basically, the choice is becoming clear. You can treat data sovereignty as paperwork that slows you down. Or you can treat it as the foundation that lets you move faster with confidence. Which approach sounds more sustainable in the age of AI and constant cyber threats?
