EU launches government satcom program in sovereignty push | Hacker News Reader

EU launches government satcom program in sovereignty push

spacenews.com

163 pointsbenkan112 comments

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

I'm sure we'll be able to progress at supersonic speeds with this project once the Environmental Impact Study will be complete.

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.

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/...

> 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.

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...

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

Sovereignty doesn't mean autarky - it means having the capacity to maintain operations and pivot should a black swan event arise.

The EU is a transnational bloc that has had experience helping it's member states find niches of competitive advantage and take full advantage of that.

Germany doesn't need to fully replicate Denmark's biopharma pipeline nor does Denmark have the need to fully replicate Germany's nuclear submarine IP because both can and have continued to coexist with each other and build resilience through additonal partnerships which prevent one from dominating the other.

This is the modus operandi of EU soverignity - integrate players into following a set of collective norms and aligning each other's incentives with the larger collective.

This is why EU's grand strategy incorporates the industrial base of other regional powers like Japan, SK, India, Vietnam, Canada, Australia, UAE, Israel, etc because it increasingly aligns all these regional powers against domination from either the US or China.

If trust is the constraint, Israel’s track record makes it an odd choice for EU sovereign systems.

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...

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.

> not all cee countries are pro-israel

Enough are though, and the EU is robust enough to support dissent between states. The Baltics will gladly take anyone's support against Russian aggression.

> Thus Greece is protected by Article 5

Cyprus is not protected by Article 5 as it's NATO assension has been blocked by Turkiye. And Greece has been Cyprus' defense guaranteer since independence in 1960. Any attack on Cyprus is an attack on Greece as both Greeks and Cypriots are the same ethnic group and deeply tied economically, socially, and militarily.

> In addition there is Article 42 from the EU. In a.potential Cyprus - Greece - Turkey Eu has more to offer than Israel military wise

Cyprus and Greece cannot count on Article 42 as Turkiye has strong defense and commercial ties with Spain [0] and Italy [1], which leads to a timid EU response as was seen in 2024 during the Greek-Turkish naval standoff [5].

As such, Greece+Cyprus have turned to trilateral treaties with France [2], Israel, and India [3][4] as a fallback.

This is why Israel has been included in EU defense deals and partnerships - it provides a large portion of the EU defense cover while allowing the EU to bypass inter-EU conflicts.

[0] - https://www.cats-network.eu/publication/despite-the-eu-spain...

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/turkey-italy-continue-strength...

[2] - https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFSCTA000045174545

[3] - https://geetha.mil.gr/kyklos-synomilion-staff-talks-kai-ypog...

[4] - https://www.gov.cy/proedros-proedria/koini-diakiryxi-gia-tin...

[5] - https://www.ekathimerini.com/politics/foreign-policy/1245478...

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.

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.

> 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?

Exactly the point. YC is playing lotto with private venture. The governments cannot play lotto with the tax payers money.

Of course they can. Not investing in your own economy and infrastructure just because outcomes aren't guaranteed would be the insane policy

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.

Investing money in the stock market doesn't meaningfully improve the economy. Unless by economy we mean the stock market of course. Sure, if you have run out of better investment options and still have money left over that's a decent strategy (Norway's sovereign wealth fund would be a good example). But usually there are better investments available for governments. Buying goods and services from local companies is one such better investment, since it directly benefits those companies, not just their stock holders and managers

> 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.

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...

That's true of all developed countries to a degree, but the USA still has a significantly better demographic profile than the EU.

Mostly due to immigration into the US, and I wouldn't hang my coat on this staying the same.

Not really, US population would continue to grow, while EU declines[1]

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

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.

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.

France debt-to-GDP: 115-117% US debt-to-GDP: 124%

US has a huge advantage compared to France. US has the control of its currency and can devalue it. France cannot do it since Euro is not controlled by France.

"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.

"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.

Plus, us already spends much more on healthcare per capita than other countries https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...

> 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.

And that's only going to increase as the boomer generation is going to need more and more healthcare.

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).

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.

from where did you get that number? What is the source?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ViPH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...

Import substitution has failed consistently as an economic strategy.

I call bullshit. China's software industry boomed when they blocked/hobbled western big tech companies that would have strangled them. Slater kicked of America's textile industrialization. Every country that I know that has implemented a quota system in the arts has resulted in the domestic industry blossoming and getting over the self-sustaining hump.

It is self-evident that limiting competition is beneficial to the protected parties.

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

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.

> 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/...

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - better the enemy you know than dealing with Trump.

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...

>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.

Hence why I said "Better dealing with neither in that case - which is the what the EU is doing".

Too little too late, but one can still appreciate the initiative.

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.

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).

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.

Better late than never. They might thank you in 20 years.

> USA spends 3.4%. So 10% would be wildly excessive by any measure

I see this argument a lot, and I think it's totally bunk.

The point of military spending isn't to sacrifice a certain number of goats at the altar to ensure the gods' favor, it's to acquire the means to enforce a nation's interests. In our highly industrial age, that means all sorts of ships, submarines, aircraft, launchers and spacecraft, armed and armored vehicles, autonomous {air, ground, sea, undersea} platforms, all sorts of munitions, deep magazines, production lines, domestic supply chains, etc. etc. etc.

The US has spent 3% - 5% of its GDP on its military since 1990, and the US still enjoys the benefits of much of that accumulated spending. Five Nimitz-class aircraft carriers were built even before 1990, when the US was spending 5% - 7% of its GDP on its military. The US still operates B-52Hs, which were built in the 1960's. Even beyond ships and airframes, continued funding of programs and capabilities sustains a sort of inertia of know-how and industrial capability that, once stopped, is difficult and costly to get going again.

Just comparing military spending at a snapshot in time isn't a good way to compare military capabilities and potential. If European nations wish to replace what the US brings to the table, it's going to take a crash rearmament program and very high military spending (easily 10%+ of GDP) for a decade or more. And also a unified command structure, unified procurement, and ultimately probably proper federalization. All of which are, unfortunately, pipe dreams.

Europeans consistently underestimate the scale of the subsidy that is the us military.

We used to get things in return, like preferential trade agreements.

Haven't gotten those since the early 90s.

Free lunch is over, pay up.

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.

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.

That's nonsense. Effective deterrence plus protection against WMD requires spending far higher than just parity.

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 on news.ycombinator.com