Should EU Countries Start Establishing Their Own Space Forces?
July 14, 2025 - Written by Jake Southerland
Introduction
As history has shown, each time humanity ventures into a new domain, warfare inevitably follows . Some of the most pivotal events in modern history have unfolded across the traditional domains of warfare: on land (Battle of the Somme 1916), in the air (the Battle of Britain 1940), and at sea (the Falklands War 1982). However, the dawn of the 21st century has introduced two new arenas, cyberspace and outer space, which bring unprecedented challenges and an uncertain future for the art of war. While each of these domains warrants its own game plan, this report will focus specifically on the most physical frontier, outer space.
Despite being the newest domain, according to NATO’s recognition in 2019, politicisation of space is not a new practice. The United States and the Soviets engaged in the “Space Race” throughout the Cold War for prestige and to prove how their retrospective technological innovation could flourish under their distinctly different ideologies. While both countries battled each other for a series of “firsts”, the international community signed agreements on the politics of space such as the Outer Space Treaty (1967) and the Moon Agreement (1979), yet these treaties lack the necessary enforcement mechanisms for the modern age because they’re either outdated or unratified by today’s three leading space powers: the U.S., China, and Russia. Today, the leading component of aerospace diplomacy is the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) of 1998, establishing the International Space Station, which has hosted astronauts from fifteen different nations. However, with the ISS’s framework due to end in the 2030s, the future of galactic diplomacy is uncertain.
The modern space race is becoming increasingly fractured, with Europe looking to be sorely lacking in participation and engagement in this realm. NASA’s Artemis Accords has support of European members, but with NASA’s budget controlled by the US government, its gives European members little to no control on how the Artemis Accords’ missions will be carried out. Europe has an equivalent to NASA with the European Space Agency (ESA), which only showed a willingness to talk about space defence a few months ago. Even with NATO acknowledging the importance of outer space, Europe is light years behind the U.S. in planned aerospace militarisation. European equivalents of the U.S. Space Command did not arise until after the establishment of the U.S. Space Force in 2019. The European countries that took the helm were France (2019), the UK (2019) and Germany (2021) creating a centralised space command or a ‘space force’. It is vital to convey that Europe’s ‘space force’ does not begin to enjoy the level of private investment that the USSF has. Like many European government initiatives, the private defence sector proposal is forced to navigate several layers of red tape - which the EU Commission only recently realised may need to be sealed back a few weeks ago. This proposal also included the EU Space Act which aims to boost European market access and safety capabilities which is a crucial step, as this report shows how severely Europe lags behind American aerospace capabilities.
While Europe has made significant progress in its aerospace industry, investing in satellite infrastructure, scientific research, and emerging commercial space initiatives, their American counterparts are far ahead. Elon Musk’s SpaceX has launched 75 rockets this year alone. Meanwhile, Europe’s first launch on European soil outside Russia ended in an explosion 40 seconds after take-off (Tingley 2025). SpaceX has also experienced its fair share of failed launches, but after two years of trying, SpaceX’s Falcon I was the company’s first successful orbital flight in 2009 (Malik 2019). SpaceX is not the only player in the American market. Firms like Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, Rocket Lab, and numerous other start-ups continue to push innovation and expand U.S. aerospace capabilities.
With multiple companies, it isn’t fair to say that Europe completely lacks a capable space industry. Companies like E-Space, Airbus, and ArianeGroup are leading the charge within Europe. With the aforementioned red tape constraints these companies are often tied to state funding, regulatory constraints, and fragmented national priorities, severely limiting Europe’s abilities in aerospace innovation. As a result, European astronauts still rely on American spacecraft and other capabilities for their missions to be conducted. This reliance reflects a historic dependence on U.S. space technology and infrastructure. The following sections examine the key areas where the United States maintains a clear advantage in aerospace technology. These comparisons underscore why Europe must begin to think seriously about granting the companies developing space technology greater autonomy, in the same way the U.S. has done.
Space Tech Dimensions That the US Beats Europe In
Within the domain of high-altitude intelligence surveillance, and reconnaissance (SR), the U.S. has maintained a clear superiority over their European counterparts. This field of aerospace technology has been a stable aspect of American high-altitude recon strategy, with aircraft such as the U-2 spy plane forming the basis of Washington’s capabilities in this sector. The U-2, a relic of the Cold War, continues to see usage by the US Air Force and Space Force. Nicknamed the “Dragon Lady”, the U2 can fly at an altitude of 70,000 ft for over 10 hours. The U2 is equipped with advanced signals intelligence (SIGINT), a capability the Europeans lack at the moment. Some countries like France have modified their C-160 military transport with electronic intelligence (ELINT), but the C-160 can operate at only around 30, 000 ft and lacks the stealth capabilities that the U2 has. While the French are currently producing the Dassault Falcon Archange, a prototype equipped with SIGNT, the aircraft will unable to match the U2’s altitude maximum = conveying that Europe is still only able to reach a fraction of the distance to the most recognized edge of space 100 km up, the Kárán Line.
Another aspect of space tech that the Europeans lag behind is satellites. Today most satellites rest in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), which starts approximately at an altitude of 1900 km. Currently, there’s about 9000 satellites up there, with Elon’s SpaceX accounting for about 7000 of them. Between 2022 and 2024, only 12 orbital launches were conducted by European operators. Under President Trump, the U.S. view seems to be that there is European “free-loading” in the realms of technology and defence. The current President could easily order American satellites to cease providing crucial data to Europe, with major U.S. players in the field like SpaceX likely having their satellites follow suit, meaning Europe would be forced to rely on its 27 Galileo satellites in Geostationary orbit, essentially leaving the European continent in the dark. Geostationary orbit, about 36,000 km up, is ruled exclusively by American, Chinese, and Russian satellites. Russia and China allegedly have geostationary orbits capable of anti-satellite (ASAT) attacks. While not publicly confirmed, it would be a fair assumption that the U.S. likely possesses similar capabilities, meaning Europe would be relying on the possible U.S. capabilities for now.
The U.S. also has the Europeans beat in terms of functional “space plane.” Sure, the ESA has the Orion European Service Module (ESM), but its funding is hugely dependent on NASA which itself relies on Washington. If the current US president decides to withdraw from historic European alliances, the termination of this partnership could follow, meaning Europe is left without the use of an independent spacecraft again. Meanwhile, the U.S. has numerous spacecraft in testing or in active use. Examples include the Boeing X-37B, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, and Blue Origins’ New Shepard. Moreover, SpaceX has pioneered reusable rockets, making spaceflight cost a fraction of what it used to - leaving Europe without access to economically feasible reusable rockets. Additionally, the ESA heavily rely on the Ariane ⅚ and Vega, which lacks the lift capacity compared to their U.S. counterparts, forcing the Europeans to rely on SpaceX or Blue Origin’s rockets to launch their satellites from Cape Canaveral, Florida. The proposed building of a launch facility in Shetland, UK, the ESA “launching crisis” looks to be resolved and they will be able to launch rockets without shipping them the Atlantic to French Guinea in South America which is both expensive and time-consuming.
Key Players & Stakeholders
United States Space Force (USSF): With its establishment in 2019, the USSF represents the only fully operational independent space military branch. China and Russia, the other leaders in today’s “Space Race”, possess their own space force. However, they remain embedded within the Air Force - China’s under the PLA Strategic Support Force and Russia’s within the Aerospace Forces. With the USSF being the frontrunner in independent ‘space forces’, it conveys how far ahead the U.S. is in implementing NATO’s recognition of space as a domain of war. While initially mocked, the USSF serves as a critical backbone of American defence, especially when America’s adversaries, such as China and Russia shared the same aspirations for the weaponisation of space. For the Europeans, the USSF is a double edge sword. If the U.S. is a strategic partner, Europe will enjoy the benefits of the USSF, but the U.S. capability becomes a strategic vulnerability when political rifts between Washington and Brussels could result in the Europeans being denied access to America’s high-altitude recon and real-time space monitoring capabilities.
The U.S. Private Sector: The U.S. private aerospace industry has transitioned the technological innovation space from a state-led endeavor (NASA) to a commercial one. SpaceX, with their reusable rockets have made launches of satellites into orbit, under their Starlink program creating a new monopoly in satellite technology. Alongside SpaceX, companies like Blue Origin and Lockheed Martin continue to thrive, thanks to more than generous government contracts from NASA and the USSF. In contrast, their European counterparts are forced to navigate numerous layers of red tape ad regulations, allowing U.S. companies to become essential strategic contributors to Europe’s access to space.
European Space Agency (ESA): As Europe civilian space institutions, their mission focuses on scientific innovation, oftentimes in collaboration with its international partners like NASA. Historically, the ESA has steered clear of defence-related activities. However, the ESA’s recognition of the impotence of military technology in space is an important step. The ESA still has much work to do to start to rival the efforts of the U.S., China, and Russia. The ESA is often subject to conflicts of interest amongst its many European member states. Moreover, its budget is a fraction of what NASA or private enterprise companies receive in the U.S., forcing them to be reliant on U.S. infrastructure for its missions. With the current U.S. administration under Trump, musing on slashing NASA’s budget, this possible U.S. gap in funding may represent a vital opportunity for the ESA to develop its fledgling defence initiatives and to finally push European nations to lessen their reliance on the U.S. to advance its aerospace interests.
European Private Sector: While the emphasis to “buy European” in light of Trump’s comments on Europe’s “freeloading” has helped the sector, the continent’s defence and aerospace industry is significantly overshadowed by U.S. giants like SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon. Many European companies are stymied by numerous layers of red tape and regulations, which causes numerous inefficiencies in coordination and innovation. While the EU commission understands the need to bolster European defence capabilities, their recent proposal for a joint funding tool may violate several EU treaties according to a recent German parliamentary analysis. With possible legal challenges on attempts to open Europe’s defence investments, the private aerospace sector will remain grounded and underutilised.
Individual European States: While France, Germany, and the UK have taken the lead in European space defence - their approach to this differs. The French have made significant strides in satellite defence, but the Germans have put a heavier emphasis on scientific initiatives rather than any military purpose.
NATO/EU: Both institutions have recognised the importance of innovation in aerospace, however they struggled to solidify these mandates. NATO continues to rely on American space assets. While attempts by the alliance’s European members to contribute are present, it may take some time for their initiative to take effect as the EU’s attempts to forge collective defence mechanisms are bogged down by parliamentary roadblocks. Without some fast-track initiatives, a U.S. withdrawal from historic alliances or a new wish to offer a significantly lower role in European security could be devastating to NATO and the EU.
Opportunities & Risks
Opportunities
Geopolitical Leverage: If individual European countries like France or the US created their own independent space forces similar to the USSF, this would significantly elevate individual countries within the EU’s bargaining power, allowing them to work independently with the U.S. in its “space race” against China and Russia. While Europe may never have the capabilities that the U.S. now possesses, the creation of individual countries’ space forces would be a significant first step in lessening the dependence on the U.S. in times of need. Most importantly, at the rate China is developing its aerospace capabilities, Europe may be in a deeper hole if it doesn’t act now.
Security of Infrastructure: By creating their own space force, Europe could develop defences against potential Russian ASAT attacks on Europe’s critical infrastructure, such as the Galileo and other telecommunications systems operated by satellites. If Russia decides to launch attacks on NATO countries in the next few years as part of an expansion of its current aggression, Russia would certainly take out Galileo and other crucial satellites necessary for the alliance’s communications, essentially putting NATO countries in the dark. Russia launched this kind of attack in the opening days of their invasion of Ukraine, where they severely crippled the Ukrainians' communications network in the opening hours of the "Special Military Operation.” This was achieved by Russia attacking and severely damaging the commercial satellites array, making the satellites controlled by those stations completely inoperable, reducing them to little more than floating heaps of space junk. Ukraine was only able to re-establish its communication network thanks to SpaceX, with CEO Elon Musk stepping in and donating the Starlink system to Ukraine - a lesson that Europe should heed in a future conflict or crisis with Russia.
Strategic Autonomy: Having an autonomous space force would grant EU countries a significant amount of operational sovereignty in warfare’s newest domain. A European-wide Space Force will likely not materialise due to the same reason that has stalled the discussion of a European army for several decades. However, if individual member states, such as France or Britain, were to grant their national aerospace industry and private players complete autonomy, akin to the USSF, it would represent a crucial step in reducing dependency on the U.S. Moreover, these countries could utilise their local defence companies, like France’s Airbus or Britain's BAE Systems, to help bolster their new aerospace branch.
Risks
Financial Troubles & Miscommunications: If several EU members launch their own space force simultaneously, they must clearly communicate their desired capabilities amongst each other. Defence technology, especially aerospace, is extraordinarily expensive. Without tight coordination, individual member states or the EU commission could waste billions of euros on duplicate systems, failed launches, or incomplete infrastructure. A cohesive defence and development plan for all of the EU, is the most beneficial for all member states.
Escalation with Rival Powers: Any overt militarisation of space risks inflaming already stalled relations with Russia, but also alerting China to a potential new adversary - both of whom are suspected of developing ASAT capabilities. An EU-led military space posture might provoke countermeasures or cyberattacks on critically vulnerable European space assets.
Fragmentation: While its cross-border collaboration on defence initiatives is iconic, Europe’s greatest enemy is itself. National rivalries, uneven defence budgets, and political reluctance to share sovereignty risk undermining any EU-wide space defence initiative. For Europe to successfully bolster its space capabilities, it must do so on a national scale, encouraging and funding individual initiatives within member states, before attempting to integrate them on a European-wide scale.
Policy Recommendations
Encourage the Formation of National Space Forces with Shared Doctrine: European powers such as France, the United Kingdom, and Germany should prioritize the development of independent space forces under national command structures modelled after the USSF, While an EU-wide space military remains possibly politically unrealistic, national initiatives built on shared operational doctrine focusing on satellite defence, space situational awareness, and coordinated threat response would enhance strategic autonomy. This approach allows for increased geopolitical leverage without the political complications of a centralized European defence force.
Mandate Interoperability Through the European Defence Agency: To prevent duplication of resources and ensure efficient development, the European Defence Agency should oversee interoperability standards for space systems across EU member states. This includes standardizing communications infrastructure, surveillance platforms, and satellite tracking capabilities to ensure joint effectiveness in any and all future conflicts. Coordinated defence procurement through shared research and development with companies like Airbus, BAE Systems, and Thales would strengthen Europe’s industrial base while reducing unnecessary expenditures.
Develop Contingency Space Defence Protocols through NATO or PESCO: Given the growing threat of anti-satellite attacks from adversaries such as Russia and China, European and NATO leaders should establish coordinated space defence protocols. These plans should focus on protecting critical assets such as the Galileo and Copernicus satellite systems and defining response procedures in the event of an orbital attack. A framework developed through NATO would allow European states to defend their national interests in space while maintaining sovereignty and operational flexibility.
Conclusion
Space is no longer a distant realm reserved for science fiction or peaceful exploration. It is increasingly the final frontier where possible future conflicts on Earth will play out. As the U.S., China, and Russia expand their military presence in orbit, Europe must decide whether to remain dependent on U.S. infrastructure or take meaningful steps toward operational autonomy in space. Independent national space forces, coordinated through shared doctrine and interoperable systems, present a realistic and strategic way forward. While the risks of fragmentation and escalation are real, the cost of inaction is far greater. If Europe fails to secure its own interests in orbit, it risks being side-lined in the geopolitical landscape of the twenty-first century and beyond. We may still be centuries away from having space dogfights or ground battles on distant plants, but now now is the time for Europe to assert itself as a capable partner in Washington’s quest to beat Russia and China’s ambitions in the final frontier - whether that’s ground breaking ASAT satellites, lunar military bases, or a future Martian colony.