The next step for Ukraine and the European Union should be to begin consultations on gradually, but relatively quickly, replacing Starlink across military, law enforcement, intelligence, and government institutions with European alternatives, even if that means subsidizing.

Considering the repeated calls to replace Starlink in the EU, followed by the usual snarky comments, mostly from Americans, about how SpaceX is "irreplaceable" and Europe is supposedly incapable of competing, I think it's worth looking at some facts. First of all, EU countries have launched hundreds of satellites over the past decade, with annual deployments growing from just 16 in 2015 to 135 in 2025. Eutelsat OneWeb already provides continuous coverage across Europe with more than 600 satellites On top of that, the EU is developing IRIS², a constellation of ~350 satellites, with the first launches scheduled for 2029. The EU's GOVSATCOM programme has already been operational since January 2026, pooling satellite capacity from member states for secure government communications. Now, let's get to the actual argument. Is Europe behind SpaceX, with its thousands of satellites in orbit? Absolutely. At the moment, it's not even close. Starlink has significantly cheaper consumer terminals, much greater network capacity, a larger constellation and a far more accessible service for ordinary customers. No argument here. But that's also part of the problem. Starlink is simply a better and more affordable product for most consumers right now, so customers and government contracts naturally gravitate towards SpaceX, making it harder for European competitors to attract the revenue and investment needed to catch up. Let's also not pretend SpaceX appeared out of nowhere. It benefited from decades of American aerospace infrastructure, NASA research, publicly funded programs and government contracts, alongside its own substantial private capital Putting a European startup, or even a single country's space agency, against that entire ecosystem is a losing proposition from the beginning. But why should it stay that way? Europe already has the aerospace industry, launch facilities, technological expertise and financial resources to develop a competitive alternative. To launch satellites successfully and cheap you need to decrease the launch cost. Currently, European rocket Ariane 6 is generally more expensive than Falcon 9, and Europe still lacks a comparable operational reusable launcher. But projects like Themis and Maia are already in development. If Europe keeps pouring money into SpaceX, how exactly do you expect these European projects to become competitive? The same applies to satellite terminals. SpaceX has excelled at mass-producing consumer-friendly equipment costing a few hundred dollars, while comparable OneWeb equipment can cost several thousand. But that advantage comes from economies of scale, production efficiency, mass adoption and, sometimes, subsidising hardware to gain market share. You can't have mass adoption if you mass adopt Starlink Europe doesn't need to replicate Starlink's entire global network to build a viable alternative. The objective is sufficient coverage, capacity and reliability across Europe and neighbouring regions, not necessarily every random island in the Pacific or remote village in the Brazilian Amazon - something that SpaceX does much better. That's a much more realistic objective than immediately matching Starlink worldwide. There are several ways to achieve this: direct investment, research funding, initial subsidies, long-term government contracts and procurement policies prioritising European satellite providers wherever feasible, particularly for critical infrastructure. In strategically sensitive areas, I'd go even further and eliminate dependence on SpaceX entirely wherever a viable European alternative exists. Which brings us to national security. Starlink is an American commercial system subject to US jurisdiction, while Starshield is specifically designed for US government and military customers. Starlink's own terms allow the company to suspend services following requests or orders from government agencies. Now imagine a hypothetical scenario where the US attempts to annex Greenland militarily. Would you really want critical European communications infrastructure dependent on an American company that could could simply switch off everything on political demand? You simply cannot outsource your country's critical communications infrastructure to a foreign provider and pretend there are no strategic risks involved. I don't like writing it, but US is not a reliable partner. And beyond security, it's also about money and long-term economics. European money, investment and talent should stay in Europe, not continuously flow to America. Do you want European aerospace graduates to have actual career opportunities in Europe, instead of feeling they need to move to the US? Do you want European companies building rockets, satellites, manufacturing facilities and research centres, creating skilled jobs and attracting investment? None of that happens if your entire strategy is to keep buying American Starlink terminals while complaining that European alternatives are too expensive or technologically inferior. There's a massive difference between saying Europe cannot fully replace Starlink today and claiming that Europe is fundamentally incapable of developing a competitive alternative, while quoting memes about muslim immigrants and plastic bottle caps. And if Europe keeps financing its competitors instead of building its own capabilities, SpaceX will indeed remain "irreplaceable". Not because Europe can't compete, but because it is not committed to the competition.