The Great European Firewall: Why the EU Wants Its Own Satellite Constellation

The European Union’s plan to launch IRIS², a satellite internet constellation, is being heralded as a leap toward technological sovereignty. On its face, this sounds like an innocuous if costly endeavor—€11 billion for a communications system allegedly designed to improve connectivity and security. Yet scratch the surface, and you’ll find a far less virtuous ambition. This is not about technological independence or security. Instead, it’s about power—the power to control the flow of information and enforce a state-sanctioned censorship regime.

Europe’s problem with Starlink isn’t technical; it’s ideological. Elon Musk’s SpaceX-built Starlink constellation, with its 5,000 satellites currently in orbit and plans to expand beyond 12,000 by 2030, provides lightning-fast, low-latency internet at altitudes between 340 and 550 kilometers. It is decentralized, privately owned, and—here’s the rub—resistant to censorship by the likes of Brussels bureaucrats. For the EU, a network they cannot throttle is a network they cannot tolerate.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Let’s look at the facts. When completed in 2030, IRIS² will operate a mere 290 satellites, a constellation so diminutive it will represent just 2.4% the size of Starlink’s sprawling network. Moreover, IRIS² relies on a hybrid architecture—a blend of low Earth orbit (LEO), medium Earth orbit (MEO), and geostationary orbit (GEO) satellites. Its LEO and MEO satellites will orbit between 500 kilometers and 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. But here’s the kicker: geostationary satellites are parked at a staggering 35,786 kilometers above Earth’s surface.

Now, anyone with a basic understanding of physics knows the farther away a satellite is, the slower the signal travels. The EU’s reliance on GEO satellites will result in latencies of 500 to 600 milliseconds, making their internet 10 to 20 times slower than Starlink’s sub-40 millisecond response times. That’s not “sovereignty.” That’s technological surrender. No one playing online games or conducting time-sensitive communications will flock to IRIS².

Security: The False Justification

The EU argues that IRIS² is essential for military and governmental security. Really? Because the United States—a nation whose global security responsibilities dwarf the EU’s—didn’t feel the need to build its own constellation. Instead, the U.S. partnered with Starlink through a program called Starshield. Under this arrangement, the U.S. military has access to secure, customized satellites within Starlink’s broader network. Starshield ensures independent control for critical defense operations while retaining the full performance capabilities of Starlink’s expansive constellation.

Take the U.S. Navy, for instance. Naval vessels now utilize dedicated Starlink satellites for high-speed, low-latency internet across the world’s oceans. These satellites, separate from Starlink’s commercial fleet, provide critical communications infrastructure for America’s military without requiring the Navy to reinvent the wheel.

And then there’s Ukraine. In its war against Russia, Ukraine has relied heavily on Starlink for battlefield communications, maintaining operational integrity despite Russia’s repeated efforts to jam or destroy conventional communications systems. A portion of Starlink’s network, funded by the U.S. military and international partners, ensures Ukraine’s forces stay connected and agile on the battlefield. If Starlink’s constellation can serve NATO allies and secure military operations globally, why does Europe need to spend €11 billion to build a fraction of that capability?

The Real Motivation: The Great European Firewall

Here’s why: Starlink operates outside the EU’s ideological control. Musk, whatever one thinks of him, has shown a stubborn commitment to free speech, famously restoring dissenting voices on X (formerly Twitter) to the dismay of the progressive elites. Brussels cannot afford to see that independence replicated in internet access.

A satellite constellation owned by the EU gives European governments a mechanism to enforce their ever-tightening censorship mandates. They will not call it censorship, of course. They will dress it up in phrases like “combatting disinformation,” “ensuring digital safety,” or “promoting responsible speech.” But Orwell saw through such euphemisms long ago: “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”

IRIS² will enable European authorities to block, throttle, or de-platform websites and information sources they deem unacceptable. It’s the digital equivalent of erecting a Great European Firewall, modeled after China’s system of internet control. Want to read dissenting views on climate policies, immigration, or COVID-era lockdowns? Too bad. Brussels has decided those ideas are dangerous.

Cost and Control

This project comes with a staggering price tag: €11 billion today, with costs almost certain to balloon as government projects inevitably do. European taxpayers will foot the bill for a slower, smaller, state-run constellation that will serve as a tool for censorship. Contrast that with Starlink’s privately funded $20 billion investment, which has revolutionized global communications.

Yet IRIS²’s greatest cost will not be financial. It will be borne by the European people in the form of diminished freedoms and controlled information. Governments have always sought to control the flow of ideas. Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor of Rome, understood the timeless threat: “The opinion of ten thousand men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.” In today’s digital world, controlling internet access means controlling opinions. IRIS² is not about sovereignty. It’s about ensuring that no opinion Brussels dislikes reaches ten thousand—or ten million—European citizens.

Conclusion: Free Markets, Free Ideas

The EU’s IRIS² project is a monument to inefficiency and state control. It will cost billions, deliver an inferior product, and empower European authorities to censor dissent under the guise of security and independence. Meanwhile, the private market—through Starlink and similar ventures—continues to provide faster, cheaper, and freer solutions to global connectivity.

Europe does not need its own constellation for military security. The United States has shown that partnerships with private industry can achieve that goal far more efficiently. What Europe wants is control. IRIS² is not about building a better internet; it’s about building a controllable internet—a network where Brussels decides what you can read, hear, and say.

The Great European Firewall is under construction. And the European people are paying for the bricks.

If you don't already, please follow me on 𝕏 at https://x.com/amuse or medium .