EU launches government satcom program in sovereignty push(spacenews.com)
135 pointsby benkan8 hours ago5 comments
  • wongarsu7 hours ago
    From the headline I expected some kinds of new communication satellites. But instead this is "just" a marketplace where government entities can purchase services. The satellites were already in orbit and already "EU sovereign", this is about making it easier to use them and centralizing capacity planning

    In a way this is the dry run for when IRIS² starts service in another four years or so, the European Starshield equivalent

    • mytailorisrich6 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • mort966 hours ago
        You're right that the talk from EU about EU sovereignty is about increasing EU involvement, while decreasing US involvement. I don't agree that it's a misleading term: both "EU sovereignty" (EU independence from the US) and "EU member state sovereignty" (member state independence from the EU) are both valid uses of the term "sovereignty".

        EDIT because I wanted to add some more thoughts: "Sovereignty" means "supreme power or authority". It is valid to say "EU member states should have the ultimate supreme authority and not be subservient to the EU". It is also valid to say "the EU (as in all the EU member states) should have the ultimate supreme authority and not be subservient to the US". The two ideas are not even in conflict with each other. If you think EU member states should be completely sovereign, you can still find it valuable to have EU-wide sovereignty initiatives which decrease the US's authority over EU member states.

        There are two ways "EU sovereignty" can be read. One is "the EU and its member states should have the supreme authority over themselves and not be controlled by the US". The other is "the political body known as 'the EU' should have the supreme authority over its member states". I don't think these sovereignty initiatives are meant to be read as the latter.

        • stingraycharles5 hours ago
          I also think it’s futile to think member states can get sovereignty in these types of areas without collaborating together on an EU level. I don’t think anyone believes this would be possible.

          Perhaps the grandparent is a sockpuppet account, as they have quite an extreme take.

        • mytailorisrich3 hours ago
          They are in conflict with each other, that's the problem. The US is only thrown in conveniently to muddy the water and as scarecrow but the aim is EU over member states in any case.

          > the EU (as in all the EU member states)

          No, it's the EU, not the member states independently as sovereign states. Note also that there is a huge difference between "European cooperation" and "EU integration".

          Over time the EU has taken over significant levers of sovereignty away from member states. The single currency was a very big one (hence some countries decided to stay away). Now it is pushing into another very regalian domain, which is defence.

          If there was a referendum in each EU country to ask the people clearly and honestly whether they were in favour of their country disappearing as sovereign state and becoming only a 'state' of a federal EU, my strong guess is that they would vote "no", but that's exactly what is happening little by little. That's my point, my problem with and fear about the EU (and of course the national governments that are in on it).

          Quite disappointing to read the crass insults and accusations thrown by some commenters, as well as the barrage of downvotes. Unfortunately it seems to be an usual pattern (I'm getting uncomfortable 1984 vibes more and more).

        • metalman5 hours ago
          The modern versions of empire are showing off all of deviant proclivities of our species. Humanity must find a way to move forward with individual soveriegnty, for which privacy, education, and financial freedom are keys, or live with the horrors of insane people continiously gaining controll of state/empire aparatus and turning it to cults of genocide.
      • jonkoops6 hours ago
        The EU is sovereign, it is, and always has been a project for member states to tackle issues at scale that would not make sense to duplicate on a national scale, and to reap the benefits together. Don't buy into the nonsense that being stronger together is somehow detrimental to sovereignty of member states. It in fact makes them less vulnerable to bad actors on an international such as the U.S., Russia, and China.
        • mytailorisrich6 hours ago
          As I mentioned in another comment, if the EU is sovereign then member states no longer are, and if member states are sovereign then the EU isn't and still defers to member states.

          That's why I think the way the term "sovereign" is thrown around is misleading and in fact part of push to transfer more control, and in fine sovereignty, to the EU from member states. People can decide if that's good or bad but the process is misleading.

          HN is about curiosity and it seems that commenters do not use any as soon as the EU is mentioned but rather accept the official narrative without questions. The trend is to reduce member states' sovereignty, not to increase it, while the EU is taking over.

          • pjc503 hours ago
            I think this is a valid point; France is sovereign now in a way that Texas isn't, for example. Texas doesn't have an independent nuclear deterrent. Or, more to the point, Minnesota.

            But the rationale is clear. Europe has spent too many centuries and too many lives in warfare. There is no way forwards that isn't some kind of unified structure with the guns pointed outwards.

          • Fnoordan hour ago
            This is akin to States in United States losing sovereignty to the United States Federal government. It is a balancing act between the two, and calling the USA (or the specific States) therefore not sovereign isn't about curiosity; it is intellectually dishonest. Surely you can do better if you want a discussion where curiosity reigns.

            > [...] and in fine sovereignty, to the EU from member states [...]

            This no longer works if NATO doesn't exist or if those member states get under military pressure by either Russia or the United States.

            The narrative you mention is spread by alt-right trolls in order to lower the power the EU has. It is called divide and conquer.

          • 5 hours ago
            undefined
          • philipwhiuk2 hours ago
            In this case though, control is moving not from France to the EU but from the US to the EU.
            • mytailorisrichan hour ago
              It is moving control from member states to the EU.

              An European country with strong military relation/dependence on the US, say, a la South Korea is still more sovereign than if it becomes a simple 'state' of a federal EU...

              It is even more obvious if you take France as example as France has low dependency on the US and has been careful to keep its independence on defence matters. So for France it is all a pure loss of sovereignty and independence (which has been going on for years now, tbh).

              To me, the EU is only using Trump tactically to further its aim of greater control over European defence.

              The irony, or worse, is that no later than 2023 it was apparently urgent for Sweden and Finland to join NATO and to buy F-35s (Finland and many others)... The only clear thing is that we are taken for fools.

          • shafyy6 hours ago
            It is correct that EU member states are not 100% sovereign, they need to implement EU law.

            It's also correct that the term "sovereign" is used incorrectly in this headline; I think what they meant to say is "independence".

            > [...] it seems that commenters do not use any as soon as the EU is mentioned but rather accept the official narrative without questions.

            Which narrative is that?

            • notahacker4 hours ago
              "Sovereign" is pretty widely used in the space industry to mean "made domestically, including the subsystems".

              In this case, it means subsystems made in EU countries, and not imported from outside the EU.

            • direwolf203 hours ago
              EU states can outright ignore EU law, like Hungary does. They won't be invaded, like if a nonsovereign entity like Minneapolis ignores the laws of its sovereign
            • iso16315 hours ago
              There's a common thread that the EU is some awful unaccountable organisation. This tends to mainly come from the US. It's also the line pushed by Russian propaganda for the last 15 years.

              In reality the EU heads of state appoint the EU commissioners and form the EU council, and the EU parliament is elected by the public. Nothing gets passed by the EU without the approval of the council and parliament, and while it's arguable that parliament is a "rubber stamp" shop, it's certainly more independent from the executive than the US congress is, and the Council certainly isn't. It's also true that any country in the EU can choose to leave the EU at any time, unlike say the US, who refuse the right to self determination of its people.

              • direwolf203 hours ago
                The Council pushed Chat Control very hard, and the Parliament rejected it, so it is not the law. Russian propaganda only emphasised the first part.
                • iso16313 hours ago
                  > The Council

                  I.e. the heads of each sovereign government wanted it - democratic as anything else the French or Polish or Swedish government do

                  > Parliament rejected it

                  I.e. the representatives of the people didn't. What's democracy when one representative says yes and another says no

              • exceptione5 hours ago

                  > It's also true that any country in the EU can choose to leave the EU at any time,
                Exactly. If countries want to be 100% sovereign, they can do a Brexit and enjoy the benefits and the downsides of doing that.

                This {$x}exitter bullshit is so tiring. 27 space programs, 12 types of fighter jets etc are horrible expensive. EU-countries enjoy super-high benefits of sharing burdens. In times of might makes right, it gives each a high degree of sovereignty for a steep discount. Yes, being part of a collective does mean that you have to give-and-take with the collective.

                It isn't a game of all "benefits for me" in a zero sum game.

              • spookie4 hours ago
                > There's a common thread that the EU is some awful unaccountable organisation. This tends to mainly come from the US. It's also the line pushed by Russian propaganda for the last 15 years.

                Not sure about the US, haven't seen such sentiment much. But from Russia? Yup, lots of EU skeptic parties have ties to Putin or Russia.

                Classic divide and conquer.

                • iso16313 hours ago
                  many pro-europe comments on HN get whacked down to grey once America wakes up
              • 3892361092105 hours ago
                Neither the president nor the commissioners are elected by the people.

                They must be glad to have useful idiots frame any criticism as Russian influence. It's truly inconceivable that any of their subjects would not be overjoyed by their supreme leaders.

                By the way, why are they pushing for chat control while von der Leyen deleted her incriminating SMS?

                • iso16315 hours ago
                  The UK prime minister isn't elected by the people either. Doesn't mean it's not a democracy.

                  The EU Council is the heads of government of each EU country. Without their support there is no EU Commission president, no commissioners, and anything the EU tries to do can't be passed.

      • bdauvergne6 hours ago
        It means some countries had already advanced hardened satcom capacities (like France which had it for a long time, lookup Syracuse satellites, it exists since 1984) in geostationary orbit, mostly for military use. It organizes the sharing of these capacities between countries immediately, before the arrival of the IRIS² constellation in low earth orbit/medium earth orbit.

        The goal is to level the playing field to prevent countries to look for non European alternatives for now, which often happen in Europe when nobodies coordinates the actions of different countries when something becomes suddenly urgent (I do not thinkg it's really, but government must always show they do something, and US companies operating constellations have good salesmen).

        • mytailorisrich6 hours ago
          Yes, that's pretty much what the quote form the article says. And then IRIS² constellation will be fully an EU system that member states will be able to use. Sounds like a reduction of sovereignty to me at least for the countries that have their own capabilities.
          • spookie4 hours ago
            I believe, as an european, that isn't much of a concern. We are very coupled to one another, plenty have family ties with other european citizens, share similar languages within immediate neighbours, and are culturally similar. Even religion is mostly shared. Of course, each has its own identity, not saying this isn't the case.

            But without unity each one of us would just be yet another small country with a declining population, unity gives us strength.

            The US leadership today thinks they are powerful enough by themselves. Quite a different perspective. Hence why sovereignty there seems to have a more patriotic meaning. I'm sure the states themselves still see the value of collaborating between themselves however.

          • bdauvergne6 hours ago
            France will keep having its own satellites anyway for some time and Eutelsat is french too, so for France not so much. I do not about the other countries having current sovereign solutions. But if you take France, Germany and Italy, they already share some military space stuff like observation satellite of optical and SAR kind (france provided the optical part, and italy/germany developed and operate the SAR satellites).
      • nek286 hours ago
        I don't see why term sovereignty should be applied only to member states and not the EU as a whole.
        • direwolf203 hours ago
          The EU doesn't have ultimate power as it has no military — member states can just ignore it. They will stop receiving benefits though. Most EU states realise a rising tide lifts all boats.
        • mytailorisrich6 hours ago
          If the EU becomes an actual state then it can be sovereign, but then it means that member states won't be sovereign anymore as they will no longer be independent states. This process is already in progress.
          • direwolf203 hours ago
            It's the other way around. If the EU becomes sovereign it becomes an actual state.

            The EU can be said to be sovereign in some limited areas without being really sovereign, though. We say the Schengen agreement sets border law, even though countries often set up illegal border checks.

          • pepperoni_pizza5 hours ago
            Yes, and I'm not sure why you're framing it as some kind of gotcha. As an EU citizen, I'm all for it.
            • DeepSeaTortoise5 hours ago
              As another EU citizen I'm strongly against it. There is a reason one of the 5Ds of the Potsdam Conference was "Decentralization".

              This is just way too close to the nationalist-wing ideology of the 2nd International. Combine that with the overall strong shift left during the last 30 to 40 years and the staggering unawareness of the ideologies of the Internationals (beyond buzzwords) and you've put yourself on a path for repeated history.

          • bdauvergne6 hours ago
            Which sovereignty in this matter have countries which anyway would not have possibility to develop this capacity in anyway ? Estonia has not the know-how to make satellites, or make rockets or put anything into orbit by itself. Are they more or less sovereign with a shared guaranteed access to such a capacity provided by bigger countries of Europe and or Europe itself ?

            I think that such discourse are FUD to prevent any advancement of European integration. Without such development small EU countries would be dependent upon the will and need of Elon Musk or the american DOD.

            • mytailorisrich5 hours ago
              It is not FUD, it is stating the obvious that "European integration" is happening little by little non-transparently and deceptively. If nation states are to disappear and to be replaced by a federalised EU then it should be very clearly put to the people once and for all for them to decide (my guess is that the EU wouldn't like the answer)...

              > Without such development small EU countries would be dependent upon the will and need of Elon Musk or the american DOD.

              Speaking of FUD and false dichotomy...

              • direwolf203 hours ago
                They're not getting replaced. It's just one think tank who wrote an opinion piece. While it keeps being a "what if?" and some people think it should happen, it has no political traction right now, not among the people, not among the EU itself, and not among the member states.
              • bdauvergne5 hours ago
                How can you state now, at all time, that to be wary of american power is FUD ?
          • shafyy6 hours ago
            That's the whole point of the EU, it's not some hidden agenda. Many people support a stronger EU. Yes, this means that single member states have less sovereignity. But the EU is a democratic institution (and yes, there's a lot to improve here I know) and giving up sovereignity doesn't mean giving up democracy.
      • mapt5 hours ago
        It is a very vague multifaceted concept.

        "EU sovereignty" in this context means being the EU being able to act with comparable agency to the US or China, as a world power. Italy or Belgium is never going to be a world power again.

        Right now the EU would find it severely challenging if the US, say, broke out in a civil war and lost most of its remaining industrial, service, communications, infrastructural & military power projection functionality.

      • claudex6 hours ago
        It's just a central marketplace so the governments can buy the unused capacity from these satellites with reduced negotiations with each states operating the satellites.
      • tormeh6 hours ago
        Most member countries are too small to have their own capabilities. It's either some sort of EU capability or outsourcing to US/China. Denmark can't afford operating a fleet of stealth bombers or whatever. In the past, basically all the big-country stuff was outsourced to the US. With Trump being elected twice this strategy seems to be a lot less safe than what everyone (except the French) used to think.
  • sajithdilshan3 hours ago
    I honestly wonder whether the EU can afford to spend on technological sovereignty. With an aging population and the need to maintain welfare states, governments will have to allocate more and more of future budgets to expanding and sustaining welfare programs (statutory health insurance, pensions, unemployment benefits, etc.). That ultimately means higher taxes, a larger government workforce, and a shrinking private sector. Maybe they will have enough money to maintain the existing status quo, but not sure where the additional capital would come from to invest in digital sovereignty.
    • pjc502 hours ago
      "EU welfare state" is a meme that doesn't survive looking closely at the actual figures. Especially if you compare things like state pensions properly; the US moves these into a different column labelled "social security", but that doesn't mean they're not part of the state!

      Note that the alternative is sending money overseas to rent US infrastructure. It may make a lot of sense to deploy spending locally where it stays in the economy rather than overseas, a standard "import substitution" play.

      • amarcheschi41 minutes ago
        Plus, us already spends much more on healthcare per capita than other countries https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...
      • celeritascelery37 minutes ago
        While the EU welfare is not that much larger than the US (maybe 5% more of GDP), the US also has much more money, a larger portion of the population working, and higher population growth. They also have the technical and business knowledge in tech that the EU lacks (e.g. silicon, rocketry, hyperscalers, etc).
    • notahacker3 hours ago
      Most of the "digital sovereignty" stuff is spending money on companies that intend to sell services at a profit and pay taxes on it. So they absolutely can afford to do it (and governments have more routes to getting money back than just exits) provided you back the right companies. That's probably more easily achieved in digital sovereignty than space launch though.
    • seydoran hour ago
      china has been an invaluable partner. Green energy supplies a large part of energy consumed in europe now, and car electrification has become popular thanks to cheap chinese EVs. I will not be surprised to see chinese drones or weapons too
    • jcfrei2 hours ago
      Not sure why you are getting downvoted - I'm wondering the same thing. Catching up is inherently more expensive than just maintaining a lead. And on top of that the EU pensioners will oppose any reallocation of resources outside of their retirement / pension schemes. The EU does have more fiscal headroom than the US, ie. lower debt per GDP and lower debt per capita - so through borrowing they could mobilize some more funds. But that's about it and I'm doubtful that's going to be enough.
    • alephnerd3 hours ago
      The EU has the capacity, but will be working closely with other partners like India, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Vietnam, and the UAE as capital and/or technology partners.

      For example, Eutelsat - which is providing the backbone for GOVSATCOM and IRIS2 - is a three-way partnership between India's Bharti Group (Sunil Mittal), the French, and the UK. Or GCAP where Japan's Mitsubishi Group is acting as both a technology and capital partner to Italy and the UK.

      This was also a major driver behind the EU-India Defense Pact and the EU-Vietnam Comprehensive Strategic Partnership - both of which were overshadowed by the EU-India FTA.

      A multilateral organization like the EU has the muscle to integrate and cooperate with other partners, which is something that shouldn't be underestimated, as this builds resilience via redundancy.

      Edit: Interesting how this is the second time [0] in the past few weeks where an HN comment I wrote that was optimistic about the EU's capacity was downvoted. There's a reason the PRC is still conducting industrial espionage on EU institutions [1].

      [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46696996

      [1] - https://www.intelligenceonline.fr/asie-pacifique/2026/01/14/...

      • Fnoordan hour ago
        > Interesting how this is the second time [0] in the past few weeks where an HN comment I wrote that was optimistic about the EU's capacity was downvoted.

        Nothing new there, but I wouldn't assume Chinese bot army being behind it. The Russians, American MAGA, European alt-right each have an interest in such suppression (and RU and USA also conduct industrial espionage on EU). You may assume each of these parties is present in a thread about European sovereignty, but either way the mods discourage any discussion about moderation. You're best off emailing one of them.

    • philipwhiuk2 hours ago
      > With an aging population and the need to maintain welfare states, governments will have to allocate more and more of future budgets to expanding and sustaining welfare programs (statutory health insurance, pensions, unemployment benefits, etc.). That ultimately means higher taxes, a larger government workforce, and a shrinking private sector.

      All of this is also true in the US.

      • nradov28 minutes ago
        That's true of all developed countries to a degree, but the USA still has a significantly better demographic profile than the EU.
      • alephnerdan hour ago
        And China excluding the welfare part - China has an extremely weak welfare system for a state at it's economic level and the Xi admin remains deeply opposed to what it derogatorily terms as "Welfarism" [0].

        [0] - http://theory.people.com.cn/n1/2021/1116/c40531-32283350.htm...

    • numpad02 hours ago
      "Arianespace is pathetically behind the times as launch services provider and no one is even cost competitive with SpaceX" types of offhand Internet comments are just literal propaganda with zero substance. [WARN] messages on Linux Kernel consoles bear more importance than those.
  • metalman5 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • Archelaos4 hours ago
      I agree. However, the EU is by far the most advanced on this path. Unfortunately, it is compelled to build its own minor empire now, since the global hegemon abandons its mainly cooperative approach and wants to reign by force. Now, that the USA seems to turn back into what it was before the civil rights movement, the EU is forced to cut its close ties to the USA to preserve her liberties.
    • p-e-w4 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • notahacker4 hours ago
        "Sovereign" in the context of spacecraft means satellites that are designed, built and operated within a territory without relying on external suppliers for key subsystems.

        If you insist on inventing new definitions of the word like "total subjugation of the individual to the state", at least keep it sufficiently on topic to explain how parts of a satellite coming from Italy and France and ground ops from Spain without relying on imports from the US or South Africa is going to lead to this...

  • derelicta7 hours ago
    Too little too late, but one can still appreciate the initiative.
  • buckle80173 hours ago
    Guy in charge of NATO (who is dutch I think) recently said EU would need to move to spending 10% GDP to plausibly not need the us military.

    So this is great and all but it's too little too late.

    • bluebarbet3 hours ago
      The declared aim of Nato sec-gen is 5%.

      The EU and USA have similar total GDP measured by PPP, and USA spends 3.4%. So 10% would be wildly excessive by any measure. In addition the EU has three times the population of the unstated enemy, Russia.

      But it's true that this initiative is happening too late.

    • moi23882 hours ago
      He is indeed Dutch. He is also a known liar. Take everything he says with a giant grain of salt, and then some.

      Then again, in the current system it makes sense, since there is no EU army, leading to huge overhead for each country.

    • misja111an hour ago
      That's nonsense. The main security threat for the EU is Russia, a state with a GDP roughly equal to Italy's. We only need to keep up our military spending with that.
      • nradov26 minutes ago
        That's nonsense. Effective deterrence plus protection against WMD requires spending far higher than just parity.
    • isodev3 hours ago
      What Mark Rutte has been saying recently is mostly buzzwords for peach daddy's ears (and has been criticises by EU members as it misrepresents our current goals and motivations).