European Defense Shifts Toward ‘Hybrid Sovereignty’ in Space as Viasat Lessons Sink In
Table of Contents
The End of the Single-Source Era
For years, the concept of “sovereignty” in space was viewed through a binary lens: a nation either owned its own satellites or it relied on allies. However, as the geopolitical climate in Europe shifts toward a state of permanent readiness, that definition is evolving into a hybrid model of “federated” and “commercial” dependencies.
Speaking at the SmallSat Europe conference in Amsterdam, Col. Marcin Mazur, vice president of the Polish Space Agency, highlighted a critical pivot in strategic thinking. The goal is no longer just about owning the hardware, but about diversifying the sources of intelligence. According to Mazur, the ideal posture requires a mix of national systems that a country can task and operate independently, supplemented by bilateral agreements and commercial data streams.
This shift is not merely theoretical; it is a reaction to a specific, devastating failure. At the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a cyberattack targeted Viasat’s KA-SAT network, knocking tens of thousands of modems offline across Europe. The event served as a wake-up call for military planners, proving that relying on a single provider—no matter how robust—creates a catastrophic single point of failure during a conflict.
The Sovereignty Puzzle
Determining exactly where the line between “national control” and “partner trust” lies remains a point of contention among European policymakers. Kees Buijsrogge, director of TNO Space, described this as a “difficult puzzle,” particularly given the varying economic and political priorities across the continent.
The challenge is largely financial. Not every European nation has the budget to launch a full constellation of signals intelligence (SIGINT) or targeting satellites. As Sitael CEO Chiara Pertosa noted, industrial politics must now play a role in space strategy. Rather than every nation attempting to build a mirrored set of capabilities, there is a growing push for member states to specialize in specific technologies that benefit the collective, creating a web of mutual dependencies rather than isolated silos.
Celia Pelaz, chief commercial officer at Spire Global, argues that commercial capabilities should not be seen as a threat to sovereign ones, but as a necessary layer of redundancy. In a modern conflict, a government may prioritize its own secure, encrypted assets for high-stakes targeting, but using commercial data for broader situational awareness prevents national assets from being over-tasked and exhausted.
The ASML Effect and Strategic Leverage
Beyond the satellites themselves, there is the matter of “technological sovereignty”—the ownership of the means of production. Buijsrogge pointed to the Netherlands’ role as the home of ASML, the indispensable supplier of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines used to make the world’s most advanced chips. This specific technological moat gives a relatively small nation immense leverage in international diplomacy.
The underlying logic is simple: providing a critical component of the global tech stack ensures a seat at the table. Without that leverage, nations risk becoming mere consumers of technology designed by others, leaving them vulnerable to the whims of foreign providers or the volatility of private markets.
The SpaceX Shadow
While governments focus on sovereignty, the overarching shadow of private American industry, specifically SpaceX, continues to loom over European ambitions. Retired Italian Air Force Brigadier General and ESA astronaut Roberto Vittori warned that the financial scale of these entities could disrupt the entire ecosystem.
Vittori pointed specifically to the potential for a massive SpaceX IPO—potentially seeking upwards of $80 billion—as a catalyst for a market bubble. If a private entity attains a level of vertical integration and financial power that dwarfs national space agencies, the traditional model of state-led space exploration and defense could be fundamentally reshaped. The risk, as Vittori puts it, is a “big bang” effect where a market correction in the private sector sends shockwaves through the public infrastructure that governments have come to rely upon.
