Ukraine Wants a Starlink Answer That Isn’t Starlink

Ukraine is asking Europe to build its own answer to Starlink, and the reason is hard to argue with: the country’s defenses depend on a satellite network owned.

Ukraine is asking Europe to build its own answer to Starlink, and the reason is hard to argue with: the country’s defenses depend on a satellite network owned by an American company that can change the terms.

That is the uncomfortable part. Starlink has been essential for Ukrainian battlefield communications, drone operations, and civilian connectivity. But President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said European countries are already working on an alternative after restrictions affected Starlink’s use by Ukrainian troops. He said Europe is making progress and will succeed.

I want to be careful here, because this is not a story where “Europe bad, Musk bad” does the work. It is a story about what happens when a wartime country needs a service, and the service sits under someone else’s control.

The dependency problem

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas put it plainly before an EU summit. She said Starlink is really necessary for Ukraine and that, in the short term, Europe cannot replace the capability.

That is not a small admission. Ukraine uses SpaceX’s Starshield, the military-grade version of Starlink, for battlefield communications, mid-range strikes on Russian-occupied territory, and interceptor drones. It also uses the civilian Starlink system, though not for offensive operations.

So when reports emerged that Starlink performance had been restricted in Ukraine, the question stopped being abstract. If your air-defense picture, drone coordination, and communications can be affected by a decision made in another country, you start thinking about backups. Fast.

Zelenskyy has said Europeans saw how the United States can restrict Starlink’s operation, which is why they are developing alternatives. Ukraine is also developing its own satellite system, according to his announcement.

Europe’s answer is late

Europe does have plans. The EU’s IRIS² project is meant to be its sovereign satellite communications network, with more than 300 satellites. But the first launches are expected in 2029, with services beginning in 2029 or 2030.

That is a long time to wait when the problem is happening now.

The EU is also trying to bring Ukraine into Govsatcom, a program that pools secure satellite communications capacity from EU governments. It has been operational since January 2026. Brussels says it is negotiating Ukraine’s full connection, and commercial satellite services are expected to be added in early 2027.

That may help. But it is not the same as saying Europe can replace Starlink tomorrow. Kallas has already said it cannot.

And there is a hard technical gap. Eutelsat’s OneWeb provides satellite communications to Ukraine, but it has 648 satellites. Starlink has more than 10,000.

That difference matters. A network with more satellites can offer broader coverage, lower latency in many places, and more resilience when parts of the system are under pressure. Europe can want independence. Wanting it and having it are different things.

The detour: Scotland wants out of X

Now, the detour. While Ukraine is trying to build an alternative to one Musk-controlled technology, Scotland’s leading political party voted to leave another one.

At the Scottish National Party’s annual conference in Aberdeen, members overwhelmingly backed a motion supporting a UK-wide ban on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk. The motion also called for the SNP, its candidates and branches, Scottish Government bodies, the Scottish Parliament, and publicly owned services including ScotRail and CalMac to withdraw from the platform.

An SNP spokesperson said the party would review its use of X and report to the national executive.

The stated concern was harmful platforms that harbor abusive content.

I get the impulse. Public institutions do not have to be everywhere. If a platform becomes a place where abuse spreads and official accounts lend it legitimacy by simply being there, leaving is a legitimate choice.

But a ban is a bigger step than leaving. One SNP member, David Birkett, argued against it. He said he understood why people dislike the platform, but said the party should remain active because X has larger user numbers than rival social media sites.

That is the practical problem. You can dislike a platform and still recognize that millions of people are on it. Cutting off official communication does not automatically make the platform less powerful. It may just make the institution harder to reach.

Two answers, one question

This is where the two stories connect.

Ukraine’s answer to dependence on Starlink is: build something else. Scotland’s answer to dependence on X is, at least among party members: get out, and in some versions, ban it altogether.

Neither answer is crazy. Both are responses to the same worry. If a private company controls a system that governments, armies, public institutions, or citizens rely on, political dependence follows.

But the responses are not equal in risk.

Building a European satellite network is expensive, slow, and technically difficult. It also keeps governments responsible for making it work. Banning a social platform is quicker, but it raises a different question: who decides when a platform is too harmful to exist?

That is the question I would not want answered casually.

What we know, and what we do not

Here is what is documented. Ukraine is pushing for a European alternative to Starlink. Zelenskyy says European countries are developing one. The EU says it cannot replace Starlink in the short term. IRIS² is not expected to be fully operational until around 2030. Govsatcom is being discussed as a nearer-term route for Ukraine.

It is also documented that SNP members backed a resolution supporting a UK-wide ban on X and called for Scottish public bodies to stop using it. The party said it would review its own use of the site.

What remains unclear is whether Europe’s alternatives can match Starlink’s wartime performance at scale. DW reported that Europe has alternatives, including Eutelsat/OneWeb, but their ability to match Starlink in wartime conditions has not been tested on a large scale.

It is also unclear whether a UK-wide ban on X would actually happen. A party conference motion is not legislation. The SNP spokesperson described a review, not an immediate withdrawal.

And it is unclear how far the EU will go in favoring European satellite companies. The European Commission has proposed reserving part of its spectrum band for European providers, which would limit some foreign operators. SpaceX warned that the move could worsen connectivity in Ukraine. The U.S. ambassador to the EU, Andrew Puzder, warned of “devastating” losses for European businesses if Brussels restricts American companies, according to the Financial Times reporting cited by Ukrainian outlet NV.

That is the quiet moment in this story.

Ukraine is fighting a war and asking whether its communications can be switched off by someone else. Europe is realizing that sovereignty is not a slogan. It is satellites, spectrum, software, and years of work.

Scotland is looking at a social media app and asking whether its government should be there at all.