describe the debate on AI sovereignty? What is it? What elements of AI would be subject to sovereignty?

AI sovereignty refers to a nation's ability to control and maintain independence over AI technologies, infrastructure, and services to protect national interests amid geopolitical tensions and economic dependencies [1][3][6]. It encompasses the capacity for countries to develop, deploy, and regulate AI without undue reliance on foreign entities, particularly in critical areas like public services and military applications, where concentration in private or foreign infrastructure poses risks to reliability and security [6][7]. The concept extends to decentralized AI agents that exhibit "agentic sovereignty," allowing persistent operation and resource control through cryptographic and protocol-based infrastructures [2]. The debate centers on balancing sovereignty with practical limitations and other priorities, such as safety and global collaboration. Proponents argue for strengthening sovereign capabilities to counter risks from U.S.-dominated AI in military contexts and to avoid socializing costs while privatizing profits, including calls for nationalization [4][7]. Critics, including the Tony Blair Institute, contend that full AI sovereignty is unattainable due to interconnected ecosystems, urging instead sector-specific regulations and partnerships focused on comparative advantages [5]. In Europe and the UK, sovereignty is increasingly prioritized over safety for economic growth and competitiveness, sparking tensions over military use and ethical governance [3][8][11][12]. Elements subject to sovereignty include foundational AI infrastructure, expertise, data self-custody, decentralized execution environments, public services, and regulatory standards, as these enable non-overrideable control and mitigate geopolitical vulnerabilities [2][5][6][11].