EU launches government satcom program in sovereignty push
140 points
9 hours ago
| 4 comments
| spacenews.com
| HN
wongarsu
7 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

reply
sajithdilshan
3 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.
reply
pjc50
2 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.

reply
amarcheschi
1 hour ago
[-]
Plus, us already spends much more on healthcare per capita than other countries https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...
reply
overfeed
4 minutes ago
[-]
> Plus, [USA] already spends much more...

but the US is somehow simultaneously less of a welfare/nanny state. I suppose that is a tell: it's not about the actual monetary amounts, but about the national priorities posture and political alignment.

reply
pirate787
40 minutes ago
[-]
Import substitution has failed consistently as an economic strategy.
reply
celeritascelery
1 hour 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).
reply
jonkoops
53 minutes ago
[-]
It also has an ever-increasing amount of debt and an aging population, e.g. the US is expected to spend more than $1 trillion a year on the interest on the debt itself, or $7,800 per household per year.
reply
sajithdilshan
50 minutes ago
[-]
from where did you get that number? What is the source?
reply
ragazzina
27 minutes ago
[-]
reply
notahacker
3 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.
reply
sajithdilshan
57 minutes ago
[-]
You mean government subsidizing the companies and taxing them in return? How is that a viable model? Also subsidizing means tax payers put on the burden and there is no guarantee that the companies subsidized by the governments would turn a profit or just burn through the subsidies and go bankrupt.
reply
notahacker
52 minutes ago
[-]
> You mean government subsidizing the companies and taxing them in return?How is that a viable model?

You're asking how it can be viable to give money to unprofitable companies in the hope that some of them will repay it by becoming very profitable in future on a website run by YC? Really?

reply
sajithdilshan
47 minutes ago
[-]
Exactly the point. YC is playing lotto with private venture. The governments cannot play lotto with the tax payers money.
reply
wongarsu
38 minutes ago
[-]
Of course they can. Not investing in your own economy and infrastructure just because outcomes aren't guaranteed would be the insane policy
reply
sajithdilshan
10 minutes ago
[-]
Investing in infrastructure and economy and playing lotto with tax payers money in random companies is two different things. By your definition the government could just put all tax money into stock market and hope for the best.
reply
seydor
2 hours 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
reply
pjc50
2 hours ago
[-]
Chinese drones yes, there's no equivalent of the US DJI ban as far as I'm aware. China have been supplying both sides in the Ukraine war.

Chinese weapons .. no. Plenty of traditional EU arms companies to do that, and this is one area where I'm OK with the traditional EU protectionism.

A more interesting question is the two big countries which are part of NATO, on the European continent, but NOT part of the EU: UK and Turkey.

reply
alephnerd
1 hour ago
[-]
> china has been an invaluable partner

The PRC has stated it will continue to back Russia against Ukraine [0] which is a red line for the EU. Additionally, the PRC has been running disinfo ops against EU member states tech exports [1] while still attempting industrial espionage on European institutions [2].

China will not become a trusted partner of the EU as long as:

1. It continues to conduct industrial espionage against EU institutions

2. Attempts to undermine EU industrial and dual use exports

3. It continues to support Russia diplomatically and materially at the expense of Ukraine

4. It attempts to undermine the EU as an institution [3][4][5][6]

5. It continues to threaten EU nationals through physical [7] and legal [8] intimidation.

It's the same reason trust has reduced in the US as well.

---

[0] - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/ch...

[1] - https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froi...

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

[3] - https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/_t2515/57/f8/c21257a743416/page.ht...

[4] - https://www.ft.com/content/1ed0b791-a447-48f4-9c38-abbf5f283...

[5] - https://www.ft.com/content/81700fc4-8f23-4bec-87e9-59a83f215...

[6] - https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/ex-mitarbeiter...

[7] - https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2024/07/02/deux-espio...

[8] - https://www.intelligenceonline.fr/asie-pacifique/2025/12/23/...

reply
Ylpertnodi
1 hour ago
[-]
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - better the enemy you know than dealing with Trump.
reply
alephnerd
1 hour ago
[-]
Better dealing with neither in that case - which is the what the EU is doing.

This is why the EU has made a defense and technology partnerships with India (Arunachal) [0], Vietnam (Hoang Sa) [1], Japan (Senkaku) [2], and South Korea (Yellow Sea) [3] and is indirectly supporting Taiwan [4].

Interesting how you also ignore the fact that the PRC has attempted to personally harm EU nationals in the past 2 years through physical and legal intimidation.

[0] - https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/security-and-defence-eu-and-...

[1] - https://www.eeas.europa.eu/euvn-comprehensive-strategic-part...

[2] - https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/202...

[3] - https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/security-and-defence-partner...

[4] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/taiwan-says-european-cou...

reply
ragazzina
18 minutes ago
[-]
>the PRC has attempted to personally harm EU nationals in the past 2 years through physical and legal intimidation

The US has not only done that, but also threatened invasion of EU OCT and annexation of citizens.

reply
jcfrei
2 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.
reply
sajithdilshan
54 minutes ago
[-]
I guess a lot of Europeans don't want to see the real logical questioning and downvoting out of pure frustration.

Also EU doesn't have fiscal freedom. Germany is the only country barely keeping it together and without any hard reform France is a ticking time bomb when it come to its debt-to-GDP.

reply
alephnerd
3 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/...

reply
sajithdilshan
53 minutes ago
[-]
But then again it won't be sovereign. EU has been doing the same with US companies and now they are switching US for a different country/countries
reply
baklavaEmperor
40 minutes ago
[-]
If trust is the constraint, Israel’s track record makes it an odd choice for EU sovereign systems.
reply
alephnerd
26 minutes ago
[-]
France and Israel have been collaborating on defense technology for decades - it was France that helped Israel become a nuclear power [0]. There are similar collaborations with Czechia [1], Estonia [2], Lithuania [3], Romania [4] and Germany [5].

Additionally, Israel has a defense pact with Greece and Cyprus to protect them against Turkish aggression [6], which is more than what other EU states are providing to Greece and Cyprus.

This is why Israel is a critical part of the EU's multilateral defense fabric - Eastern Mediterranean and CEE EU member states are already close partners with Israel.

[0] - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000271219.pdf

[1] - https://www.czdefence.cz/clanek/cesko-izraelska-spoluprace-v...

[2] - https://vm.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2025-09/Israel%2...

[3] - https://www.gov.cy/proedros-proedria/koini-diakiryxi-tis-10i...

[4] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/romania-b...

[5] - https://www.iai.co.il/israel-aerospace-industries-announces-...

[6] - https://www.gov.cy/proedros-proedria/koini-diakiryxi-tis-10i...

reply
lava_pidgeon
10 minutes ago
[-]
I like your post as it offers me new insights.

1.) not all cee countries are pro-israel. Especially Poland as the biggest country there is rather anti - Israel. 2.) Most European countries and almost eu countries are part of NATO. Thus Greece is protected by Article 5. In addition there is Article 42 from the EU. In a.potential Cyprus - Greece - Turkey Eu has more to offer than Israel military wise.

reply
Fnoord
1 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.

reply
alephnerd
1 hour ago
[-]
Absolutely, but negating and distracting from the fact that EU governments have been publicly calling out Chinese disinfo ops [0][1] over the past 2-3 years to a degree not seen since Russia began hybrid warfare against the EU in the 2010s is unneccesary.

[0] - https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froi...

[1] - https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/nieuws/2024/10/nederlandse...

reply
philipwhiuk
2 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.

reply
nradov
1 hour ago
[-]
That's true of all developed countries to a degree, but the USA still has a significantly better demographic profile than the EU.
reply
sajithdilshan
51 minutes ago
[-]
Not really, US population would continue to grow, while EU declines[1]

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/india-china-europe-...

reply
alephnerd
1 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...

reply
numpad0
2 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.
reply
buckle8017
4 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.

reply
bluebarbet
3 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.

reply
etyhhgfff
6 minutes ago
[-]
Better late than never. They might thank you in 20 years.
reply
moi2388
2 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.

reply
misja111
2 hours 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.
reply
nradov
1 hour ago
[-]
That's nonsense. Effective deterrence plus protection against WMD requires spending far higher than just parity.
reply
etyhhgfff
7 minutes ago
[-]
Thats nonsense. You are both right and wrong at the same time. We need to protect better than "italy" budget, but we dont need 10 percent.
reply
isodev
3 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).
reply
derelicta
8 hours ago
[-]
Too little too late, but one can still appreciate the initiative.
reply