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
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.
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.
Why are you continuing to behave that way? Flagging/censorship, insults, nasty accusations, avoiding engagement, why? My earlier comment was presenting a perfectly legitimate opinion and questions in a civil but opiniated way, why the hate?
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).
I think this is a bit unfair. The EU is a combination of the member states and institutions: the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council of the European Union. These bodies are made up of either people elected directly by EU citizens or by politicians from EU member countries, not dissimilar to how the federal government in the US is made up of either people elected directly by US citizens or by politicians from US member states.
And just as it would be unfair to describe the US as only its member states, I believe it is unfair to describe the EU as only its member countries.
The EU at its very core is international contracts between member states. All that the EU is is contracts between states. Thus, the EU itself is nothing but the member states acting from their sovereignty.
From my perspective, the main structural difference between the EU and the US is that it's legal for a member country to leave the EU but illegal for a member state to leave the US.
This is a very significant difference and means that the EU is a consensual partnership between countries while the US is not. Still, if the US instituted a legal way for a member state to secede, I do not think it would be fair to call the US "only contracts between states"; I think it would be warranted to view the federal government as its own political entity which is more than just the sum of its member states.
Do you agree with my view of this hypothetical alternative US? If yes: what is the essential difference between that and the EU which makes one a political entity of its own right while the other is "just contracts between countries"? If no: why?
Had the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe succeeded, I would agree with your point.
Since it hasn't, it's all just a bunch of treaties between countries. Yes, there is European politican entities. But they all just exist by the power of the member states instituting them. They are not (yet?) established as powers in their own right.
There is a huge, crucial, and obvious difference here (the EU is made of member states but a member state's sovereignty is not the same as the "EU sovereignty", very obviously), but if you can't see it (or refuse to) after what I already wrote then I am afraid that I don't have the energy to even attempt to discuss this with you...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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
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.
> and calling the USA (or the specific States) therefore not sovereign isn't about curiosity; it is intellectually dishonest
No idea where this accusation comes from. The USA are a sovereign country. Individual US states are not sovereign (they are part of the US). That's what I have been saying wrt. EU vs member states as the EU moves towards federalisation. Where is the dishonesty?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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...
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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].
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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].
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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).
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
[flagged]
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.
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.
@dang, this sort of gratuitous accusation has no place on HN.
The key is "collaboration", not submission to a higher authority.
As already said, can we also refrain from stupid accusations every time someone disagrees with the herd?
Why are you replying multiple times? Your earlier comment has been flagged / removed already anyway.
Why are you continuing to behave that way? Flagging/censorship, insults, nasty accusations, avoiding engagement, why? My earlier comment was presenting a perfectly legitimate opinion and questions in a civil but opiniated way, why the hate?
Please, don't apologise.
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).
The EU is the member states. The distinction is purely in your head.
I think this is a bit unfair. The EU is a combination of the member states and institutions: the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council of the European Union. These bodies are made up of either people elected directly by EU citizens or by politicians from EU member countries, not dissimilar to how the federal government in the US is made up of either people elected directly by US citizens or by politicians from US member states.
And just as it would be unfair to describe the US as only its member states, I believe it is unfair to describe the EU as only its member countries.
The EU at its very core is international contracts between member states. All that the EU is is contracts between states. Thus, the EU itself is nothing but the member states acting from their sovereignty.
From my perspective, the main structural difference between the EU and the US is that it's legal for a member country to leave the EU but illegal for a member state to leave the US.
This is a very significant difference and means that the EU is a consensual partnership between countries while the US is not. Still, if the US instituted a legal way for a member state to secede, I do not think it would be fair to call the US "only contracts between states"; I think it would be warranted to view the federal government as its own political entity which is more than just the sum of its member states.
Do you agree with my view of this hypothetical alternative US? If yes: what is the essential difference between that and the EU which makes one a political entity of its own right while the other is "just contracts between countries"? If no: why?
The difference is, imo, the Constitution.
Had the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe succeeded, I would agree with your point.
Since it hasn't, it's all just a bunch of treaties between countries. Yes, there is European politican entities. But they all just exist by the power of the member states instituting them. They are not (yet?) established as powers in their own right.
There is a huge, crucial, and obvious difference here (the EU is made of member states but a member state's sovereignty is not the same as the "EU sovereignty", very obviously), but if you can't see it (or refuse to) after what I already wrote then I am afraid that I don't have the energy to even attempt to discuss this with you...
The EU is nothing more but the sum of its member states. The Venn diagram is a circle.
The sovereignty of the EU is the sum of the sovereignty of its member states.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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
> 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.
many pro-europe comments on HN get whacked down to grey once America wakes up
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?
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.
"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.
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
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.
Thank you for yet more insults...
> and calling the USA (or the specific States) therefore not sovereign isn't about curiosity; it is intellectually dishonest
No idea where this accusation comes from. The USA are a sovereign country. Individual US states are not sovereign (they are part of the US). That's what I have been saying wrt. EU vs member states as the EU moves towards federalisation. Where is the dishonesty?
In this case though, control is moving not from France to the EU but from the US to the EU.
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.
I don't see why term sovereignty should be applied only to member states and not the EU as a whole.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
How can you state now, at all time, that to be wary of american power is FUD ?
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure we'll be able to progress at supersonic speeds with this project once the Environmental Impact Study will be complete.
[flagged]
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.
[flagged]
"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...
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.
"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.
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.
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...
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
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/...
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.
> 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...
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...
> 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-...
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".
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Better late than never. They might thank you in 20 years.
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.
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).