The before and after
There is a line in recent European history -- somewhere around February 2022 -- and what product design means on either side of it is fundamentally different.
Before that line, European tech existed in a comfortable paradigm. We designed consumer apps, enterprise SaaS, fintech products. Security was someone else's problem. Defense was an afterthought, or worse, a taboo. The assumption was that the rules-based international order would hold indefinitely and that technology's role was to optimize commerce and convenience.
That assumption broke. And it has not been repaired.
What changed for designers
The shift is not just geopolitical. It has practical implications for anyone building technology in Europe:
- Sovereignty matters now. The question of who builds the technology that European nations depend on is no longer academic. It is urgent. Designers working on critical infrastructure -- defense, energy, communications -- are now working on questions of national capability.
- The user base expanded. Products that once served only commercial users now serve military operators, government analysts, emergency responders. These users have radically different needs, constraints, and risk tolerances.
- The stakes recalibrated. When your product might be used in a context where decisions have life-or-death consequences, every design choice carries weight that consumer metrics never captured.
We spent a decade designing for engagement. Now some of us are designing for survival.
The responsibility gap
Here is what concerns me: the European design community has been slow to reckon with this shift. The conferences still focus on design systems for SaaS products. The job boards still prioritize e-commerce and social platforms. The discourse still treats defense technology as niche or ethically suspect.
Meanwhile, the products that will define European strategic autonomy are being built right now. And they need designers -- good ones -- who are willing to engage with hard problems in hard contexts.
What I have learned
Working at Helsing through this period has shaped my thinking in ways I did not anticipate:
- Design is not neutral. The choice of what to build and for whom is a moral and political act. Opting out of defense does not make you neutral. It just means someone else makes the design decisions.
- Complexity is the medium. These problems cannot be simplified into clean consumer experiences. The complexity is real, and the design challenge is making it navigable, not making it disappear.
- Speed and rigor coexist. The urgency of the geopolitical moment demands fast execution. The consequences demand deep thinking. You need both, simultaneously.
- European talent is extraordinary. The engineers, designers, and operators I work with are among the most capable people I have encountered in my career. The talent is here. The question is whether we direct it toward the problems that matter most.
Looking forward
I do not know what the next few years hold geopolitically. Nobody does. But I know that the products we design today -- the interfaces, the workflows, the human-AI partnerships -- will shape how Europe navigates whatever comes.
That is not a burden. It is the most meaningful design work available.
The world changed. Our work should change with it.