Posted by benkan 4 days ago
In a way this is the dry run for when IRIS² starts service in another four years or so, the European Starshield equivalent
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.
Perhaps the grandparent is a sockpuppet account, as they have quite an extreme take.
As already said, can we also refrain from stupid accusations every time someone disagrees with the herd?
Please, don't apologise.
The harsh reality of 2026 is that the "Minimum Viable Economy" required to maintain orbital sovereignty—meaning a native LEO constellation and reusable launch capability, exceeds the fiscal bandwidth of any single member state.
The choice is no longer "National Sovereignty" vs "EU Federalism." The choice is "Pooled EU Sovereignty" vs "Client State status to the US."
We are effectively trading local political control for a shot at operational leverage. You might dislike the deal from a governance perspective, but from a systems perspective, fragmentation guarantees irrelevance.
> 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).
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.
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.
The sovereignty of the EU is the sum of the sovereignty of its member states.
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).
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.
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.
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'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?
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,
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.
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
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.
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 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.
In this case, it means subsystems made in EU countries, and not imported from outside the EU.
> [...] 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?
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 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.
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.
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.
> 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...
"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.
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...
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.
It is self-evident that limiting competition is beneficial to the protected parties.
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?
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/...
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.
[0] - https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froi...
[1] - https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/nieuws/2024/10/nederlandse...
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.
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...
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.
[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...
All of this is also true in the US.
[0] - http://theory.people.com.cn/n1/2021/1116/c40531-32283350.htm...
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/india-china-europe-...
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.
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/...
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 US has not only done that, but also threatened invasion of EU OCT and annexation of citizens.
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.
So this is great and all but it's too little too late.
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.
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.
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.
Then again, in the current system it makes sense, since there is no EU army, leading to huge overhead for each country.