„Selbst unter Amerikanern wird es nicht allgemein akzeptiert“: Wie die französische Armee Palantirs Entscheidungssystem aus der NATO verbannen will

>The second-in-command of the French Army, General Patrick Justel, is promoting Arcadia, a French-made AI command system, to NATO’s European allies. Palantir is contesting this.

>Is Palantir being sidelined at the highest NATO inter-allied level? The French armed forces are taking a stand to do without the Maven decision-making system, developed by Alex Karp’s American company and officially adopted by the Pentagon in the transatlantic chain of command. „Maven is not universally accepted, even among the Americans. We are developing an alternative, and several of our European partners are interested,“ declares Lieutenant General Patrick Justel, the Army’s Major General, bluntly.

>Maven is not inevitable, he says, „they are in the testing phase.“ While the US military has targeted 13,000 targets since the start of the conflict with Iran using the version of the software configured for the Pentagon, the automated targeting platform has been blamed for the bombing of the Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab, which killed 170 civilians, due to database errors.

>**Several European countries are interested.**

>“There is no real competitor to Palantir,“ Admiral Pierre Vandier, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, had nevertheless stated a few weeks ago. Europeans seeking alternatives must prove they can provide them quickly, not in a decade.

>In reality, the French armed forces have been developing Arcadia for several months, a command system based on a new Language Learning Model (LLM) called Berthier. The name was chosen deliberately: it is that of the major general of Napoleon’s Grande Armée from 1805 to 1814, a close collaborator of Napoleon in his campaigns.

>Objective: To provide a co-piloting system for command staffs, based on AI-powered data analysis and fusion on the battlefield, enabling them to select which types of weapons, organizational structure, and deployment options to adopt. Arcadia merges the „chats“ of the different lines of command to then assist in decision-making. The final decision remains with the military.

>A decentralized system offers significantly greater resilience should part of the network be compromised. Autonomy is much greater. Patrick Justel, Major General of the French Army

>A key advantage over the American platform: the Arcadia command system is decentralized and interoperable with those of other armies on the continent, whereas Palantir’s system operates as a closed and centralized system.

>**From Comand AI to Thales**

>“A decentralized system offers significantly greater resilience should part of the network be compromised. Autonomy is much greater,“ emphasizes General Patrick Justel. A term that resonates within the defense ecosystem, amidst the ongoing US disengagement from the European continent.

>The major general did not mention any names of potential partner countries. The British have come to France to observe and may test it. Some also mention the interest of the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Germany, Romania, and Sweden. The system has been tested by the French Army’s First Corps, the French General Staff integrated into NATO’s command structure. It has also been tested in Romania, as well as during Exercise Orion.

>Another advantage: securing partial funding from European funds. Some suggest an amount of around one hundred million euros could be mobilized during the ramp-up phase.

>The major general also insists there is no question of entrusting the project to a single industrial player like Palantir, with exclusive ownership. Arcadia, intended to replace the SIA C2 central nervous system project, which failed to meet the armed forces‘ expectations, will have an open architecture. „We have invited all AI stakeholders to participate,“ states the army’s second-in-command. From DefTech stars to established players like Comand AI, Mistral, Safran AI, Thales, and Airbus, the names are mentioned. A selection process is expected by July.

>**Palantir disputes this.**

>The French armed forces already possess numerous components, the major general added, including Artemis, the data management platform from Thales and Atos, which is compatible with NATO standards.

>At Palantir, where they secured NATO’s signature in record time, this position is obviously not shared. „These statements are not consistent with the technical capabilities that Palantir brings,“ a spokesperson for the American giant stated. Not only has Maven successfully passed all the testing stages to be recognized as a reliable AI platform by NATO, they emphasized. Backed by a multi-year contract, the system has been operational since August 2025 and is no longer in the testing phase.

>But Maven is also „interoperable.“ Within NATO, the platform merges data from intelligence, operations, logistics, and even from some fifteen different planning systems. Maven also integrates with other foreign solutions such as Safran AI in France, Quantum AI in Germany, and Hadean in Great Britain.

>**German Reluctance**

>By promoting the Arcadia alternative to Palantir within NATO, French forces are nonetheless bolstering an already well-established front line on the European continent. A few months ago, Thomas Daum, head of the German cyber command, caused a stir. He declared that using Palantir was „absolutely out of the question at the moment,“ citing, in particular, the potential for private operators to access data, sparking outrage from Alex Karp.

>The vice admiral explained to the German daily Handelsblatt that he was seeking both national and European alternatives for his secure private cloud dedicated to AI-powered data processing. The German army has reportedly shortlisted three companies, including the French firm ChapsVision and two German companies, Almato and Orcrist.

Honestly, I think this is bigger than the usual France vs. US debate and the tired trope that „France just wants to sell French.“

Palantir’s tech is clearly good, but relying too heavily on a single American company for critical military software doesn’t seem like a great idea. Even in the US, there’s debate about becoming dependent on one proprietary vendor.

Building European alternatives is just common sense. Even if the situation is urgent, that isn’t anti-American or anti-NATO. If Europe wants to be a real partner in the alliance, it needs its own capabilities instead of depending entirely on someone else’s.

If I was NATO I would be running away from America like my hairs on fire!!

The Matrix…The Terminator franchise… Battlestar Galactica…

Don’t pretend we weren’t warned.

I suspect it’s not really about the pros and cons of the systems, but simply that one system is American and the other is French. France is trying, while it still can, to fill the niche that the US is losing because of Trump.

I assume that every defense ministry has experts who will choose the optimal system based on their own classified test results, rather than being guided by brochures.

Do it, it will only help us to follow you in the US