You're right that it comes down to national sovereignty. I'll show my bias: I don't think a complete lack of sovereignty is viable nor desirable. Completely era

You're right that it comes down to national sovereignty. I'll show my bias: I don't think a complete lack of sovereignty is viable nor desirable. Completely erasing cultures and local specificities won't help, and I agree there is way too much US centralized critical infrastructure. But I prefered a kind of status quo where the big players are in a standstill and can't make bold moves that could destabilize the whole board. Basically the state where the US couldn't abuse too much their position in fear of the other entities calling it quit, and the other entities couldn't completely close their borders in fear of losing too much as they retreat. In recent years we've seen more and more moral/cultural rules getting applied to critical infra (payment, communications etc.), and I guess we're not getting that standstill back anytime soon. That also means we're back to black market style communication, as it was in the earlier decades, when we were looking for a common ground less constrained by national limitations.