In the desolate Arctic desert of Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, Europeans are building defenses against a new, up-and-coming security threat: space hacks. A Lithuanian company called Astrolight is constructing a ground station, with support from the European Space Agency, that will use laser beams to download voluminous data from satellites in a fast and secure manner, it announced last month.  It’s just one example of how Europe is moving to harden the security of its satellites, as rising geopolitical tensions and an expanding spectrum of hybrid threats are pushing space communications to the heart of the bloc’s security plans. For years, satellite infrastructure was treated by policymakers as a technical utility rather than a strategic asset. That changed in 2022, when a cyberattack on the Viasat satellite network coincided with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.   Satellites have since become popular targets for interference, espionage and disruption. The European Commission in June warned that space was becoming “more contested,” flagging increasing cyberattacks and attempts at electronic interference targeting satellites and ground stations. Germany and the United Kingdom warned earlier this year of the growing threat posed by Russian and Chinese space satellites, which are regularly spotted spying on their satellites.  EU governments are now racing to boost their resilience and reduce reliance on foreign technology, both through regulations like the new Space Act and investments in critical infrastructure. The threat is crystal clear in Greenland, Laurynas Mačiulis, the chief executive officer of Astrolight, said. “The problem today is that around 80 percent of all the [space data] traffic is downlinked to a single location in Svalbard, which is an island shared between different countries, including Russia,” he said in an interview. Europe’s main Arctic ground station sits in Svalbard and supports both the navigation systems of Galileo and Copernicus. While the location is strategic, it is also extremely sensitive due to nearby Russian and Chinese activities. Crucially, the station relies on a single undersea cable to connect to the internet, which has been damaged several times. “In case of intentional or unintentional damage of this cable, you lose access to most of the geo-intelligence satellites, which is, of course, very critical. So our aim is to deploy a complementary satellite ground station up in Greenland,” Mačiulis said. THE MUSK OF IT ALL A centerpiece of Europe’s ambitions to have secure, European satellite communication is IRIS², a multibillion-euro secure connectivity constellation pitched in 2022 and designed to rival Elon Musk’s Starlink system. “Today, communications — for instance in Ukraine — are far too dependent on Starlink,” said Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the founding chairman of political consultancy Rasmussen Global, speaking at an event in Brussels in November. “That dependence rests on the shifting ideas of an American billionaire. That’s too risky. We have to build a secure communications system that is independent of the United States.” The European system, which will consist of 18 satellites operating in low and medium Earth orbit, aims to provide Europe with fast and encrypted communication. “Even if someone intercepts the signal [of IRIS² ], they will not be able to decrypt it,” Piero Angeletti, head of the Secure Connectivity Space Segment Office at the European Space Agency, told POLITICO. “This will allow us to have a secure system that is also certified and accredited by the national security entities.” The challenge is that IRIS² is still at least four years away from becoming operational. WHO’S IN CHARGE? While Europe beefs up its secure satellite systems, governments are still streamlining how they can coordinate cyber defenses and space security. In many cases, that falls to both space or cyber commands, which, unlike traditional military units, are relatively new and often still being built out. Clémence Poirier, a cyberdefense researcher at the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich, said that EU countries must now focus on maturing them. “European states need to keep developing those commands,” she told POLITICO. “Making sure that they coordinate their action, that there are clear mandates and responsibilities when it comes to cyber security, cyber defensive operations, cyber offensive operations, and also when it comes to monitoring the threat.” Industry, too, is struggling to fill the gaps. Most cybersecurity firms do not treat space as a sector in its own right, leaving satellite operators in a blind spot. Instead, space systems are folded into other categories: Earth-observation satellites often fall under environmental services, satellite TV under media, and broadband constellations like Starlink under internet services. That fragmentation makes it harder for space companies to assess risk, update threat models or understand who they need to defend against. It also complicates incident response: while advanced tools exist for defending against cyberattacks on terrestrial networks, those tools often do not translate well to space systems. “Cybersecurity in space is a bit different,” Poirier added. “You cannot just implement whatever solution you have for your computers on Earth and just deploy that to your satellite.”

The Radio Spectrum Policy Group’s (RSPG) Nov. 12 opinion on the upper 6-GHz band is framed as a long-term strategic vision for Europe’s digital future. But its practical effect is far less ambitious: it grants mobile operators a cost-free reservation of one of Europe’s most valuable spectrum resources, without deployment obligations, market evidence or a realistic plan for implementation. > At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital > infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision > amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The opinion even invites the mobile industry to develop products for the upper 6-GHz band, when policy should be guided by actual market demand and product deployment, not the other way around. At a moment when Europe is struggling to accelerate the deployment of digital infrastructure and close the gap with global competitors, this decision amounts to a strategic pause dressed up as policy foresight. The cost of inaction is real. Around the world, advanced 6-GHz Wi-Fi is already delivering high-capacity, low-latency connectivity. The United States, Canada, South Korea and others have opened the 6-GHz band for telemedicine, automated manufacturing, immersive education, robotics and a multitude of other high-performance Wi-Fi connectivity use cases. These are not experimental concepts; they are operational deployments generating tangible socioeconomic value. Holding the upper 6- GHz band in reserve delays these benefits at a time when Europe is seeking to strengthen competitiveness, digital inclusion, and digital sovereignty. The opinion introduces another challenge by calling for “flexibility” for member states. In practice, this means regulatory fragmentation across 27 markets, reopening the door to divergent national spectrum policies — precisely the outcome Europe has spent two decades trying to avert with the Digital Single Market. > Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular > networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. Equally significant is what the opinion does not address. The upper 6-GHz band is already home to ‘incumbents’: fixed links and satellite services that support public safety, government operations and industrial connectivity. Any meaningful mobile deployment would require refarming these incumbents — a technically complex, politically sensitive and financially burdensome process. To date, no member state has proposed a viable plan for how such relocation would proceed, how much it would cost or who would pay. Without a credible roadmap, reserving the band for hypothetical cellular networks only exacerbates policy uncertainty without delivering progress. There is, however, a pragmatic alternative. The European Commission and the member states committed to advancing Europe’s connectivity can allow controlled Wi-Fi access to the upper 6-GHz band now — bringing immediate benefits for citizens and enterprises — while establishing clear, evidence-based criteria for any future cellular deployments. Those criteria should include demonstrated commercial viability, validated coexistence with incumbents, and fully funded relocation plans where necessary. This approach preserves long-term policy flexibility for member states and mobile operators, while ensuring that spectrum delivers measurable value today rather than being held indefinitely in reserve. > Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that > must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum is not an abstract asset. RSPG itself calls it a scarce resource that must be used efficiently, but this opinion falls short of that principle. Spectrum underpins Europe’s competitiveness, connectivity, and digital innovation. But its value is unlocked through use, not by shelving it in anticipation that hypothetical future markets might someday justify withholding action now. To remain competitive in the next decade, Europe needs a 6-GHz policy grounded in evidence, aligned with the single market, and focused on real-world impact. The upper 6-GHz band should be a driver of European innovation, not the latest casualty of strategic hesitation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Wi-Fi Alliance * The ultimate controlling entity is Wi-Fi Alliance More information here.

When the Franco-German summit concluded in Berlin, Europe’s leaders issued a declaration with a clear ambition: strengthen Europe’s digital sovereignty in an open, collaborative way. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s call for “Europe’s Independence Moment” captures the urgency, but independence isn’t declared — it’s designed. The pandemic exposed this truth. When Covid-19 struck, Europe initially scrambled for vaccines and facemasks, hampered by fragmented responses and overreliance on a few external suppliers. That vulnerability must never be repeated. True sovereignty rests on three pillars: diversity, resilience and autonomy. > True sovereignty rests on three pillars: diversity, resilience and autonomy. Diversity doesn’t mean pulling every factory back to Europe or building walls around markets. Many industries depend on expertise and resources beyond our borders. The answer is optionality, never putting all our eggs in one basket. Europe must enable choice and work with trusted partners to build capabilities. This risk-based approach ensures we’re not hostage to single suppliers or overexposed to nations that don’t share our values. Look at the energy crisis after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Europe’s heavy reliance on Russian oil and gas left economies vulnerable. The solution wasn’t isolation, it was diversification: boosting domestic production from alternative energy sources while sourcing from multiple markets. Optionality is power. It lets Europe pivot when shocks hit, whether in energy, technology, or raw materials. Resilience is the art of prediction. Every system inevitably has vulnerabilities. The key is pre-empting, planning, testing and knowing how to recover quickly. Just as banks undergo stress tests, Europe needs similar rigor across physical and digital infrastructure. That also means promoting interoperability between networks, redundant connectivity links (including space and subsea cables), stockpiling critical components, and contingency plans. Resilience isn’t theoretical. It’s operational readiness. Finally, Europe must exercise authority through robust frameworks, such as authorization schemes, local licensing and governance rooted in EU law. The question is how and where to apply this control. On sensitive data, for example, sovereignty means ensuring it’s held in Europe under European jurisdiction, without replacing every underlying technology component. Sovereign solutions shouldn’t shut out global players. Instead, they should guarantee that critical decisions and compliance remain under European authority. Autonomy is empowerment, limiting external interference or denial of service while keeping systems secure and accountable. But let’s be clear: Europe cannot replicate world-leading technologies, platforms or critical components overnight. While we have the talent, innovation and leading industries, Europe has fallen significantly behind in a range of key emerging technologies. > While we have the talent, innovation and leading industries, Europe has fallen > significantly behind in a range of key emerging technologies. For example, building fully European alternatives in cloud and AI would take decades and billions of euros, and even then, we’d struggle to match Silicon Valley or Shenzhen. Worse, turning inward with protectionist policies would only weaken the foundations that we now seek to strengthen. “Old wines in new bottles” — import substitution, isolationism, picking winners — won’t deliver competitiveness or security. Contrast that with the much-debated US Inflation Reduction Act. Its incentives and subsidies were open to EU companies, provided they invest locally, develop local talent and build within the US market. It’s not about flags, it’s about pragmatism: attracting global investments, creating jobs and driving innovation-led growth. So what’s the practical path? Europe must embrace ‘sovereignty done right’, weaving diversity, resilience and autonomy into the fabric of its policies. That means risk-based safeguards, strategic partnerships and investment in European capabilities while staying open to global innovation. Trusted European operators can play a key role: managing encryption, access control and critical operations within EU jurisdiction, while enabling managed access to global technologies. To avoid ‘sovereignty washing’, eligibility should be based on rigorous, transparent assessments, not blanket bans. The Berlin summit’s new working group should start with a common EU-wide framework defining levels of data, operational and technological sovereignty. Providers claiming sovereign services can use this framework to transparently demonstrate which levels they meet. Europe’s sovereignty will not come from closing doors. Sovereignty done right will come from opening the right ones, on Europe’s terms. Independence should be dynamic, not defensive — empowering innovation, securing prosperity and protecting freedoms. > Europe’s sovereignty will not come from closing doors. Sovereignty done right > will come from opening the right ones, on Europe’s terms. That’s how Europe can build resilience, competitiveness and true strategic autonomy in a vibrant global digital ecosystem.

Europe’s security does not depend solely on our physical borders and their defense. It rests on something far less visible, and far more sensitive: the digital networks that keep our societies, economies and democracies functioning every second of the day. > Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a > halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. A recent study by Copenhagen Economics confirms that telecom operators have become the first line of defense in Europe’s security architecture. Their networks power essential services ranging from emergency communications and cross-border healthcare to energy systems, financial markets, transport and, increasingly, Europe’s defense capabilities. Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. This reality forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: Europe cannot build credible defense capabilities on top of an economically strained, structurally fragmented telecom sector. Yet this is precisely the risk today. A threat landscape outpacing Europe’s defenses The challenges facing Europe are evolving faster than our political and regulatory systems can respond. In 2023 alone, ENISA recorded 188 major incidents, causing 1.7 billion lost user-hours, the equivalent of taking entire cities offline. While operators have strengthened their systems and outage times fell by more than half in 2024 compared with the previous year, despite a growing number of incidents, the direction of travel remains clear: cyberattacks are more sophisticated, supply chains more vulnerable and climate-related physical disruptions more frequent. Hybrid threats increasingly target civilian digital infrastructure as a way to weaken states. Telecom networks, once considered as technical utilities, have become a strategic asset essential to Europe’s stability. > Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, > pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO > interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of > sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Our allies recognize this. NATO recently encouraged members to spend up to 1.5 percent of their GDP on protecting critical infrastructure. Secretary General Mark Rutte also urged investment in cyber defense, AI, and cloud technologies, highlighting the military benefits of cloud scalability and edge computing – all of which rely on high-quality, resilient networks. This is a clear political signal that telecom security is not merely an operational matter but a geopolitical priority. The link between telecoms and defense is deeper than many realize. As also explained in the recent Arel report, Much More than a Network, modern defense capabilities rely largely on civilian telecom networks. Strong fiber backbones, advanced 5G and future 6G systems, resilient cloud and edge computing, satellite connectivity, and data centers form the nervous system of military logistics, intelligence and surveillance. Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Fragmentation has become one of Europe’s greatest strategic vulnerabilities. The reform Europe needs: An investment boost for digital networks At the same time, Europe expects networks to become more resilient, more redundant, less dependent on foreign technology and more capable of supporting defense-grade applications. Security and resilience are not side tasks for telecom operators, they are baked into everything they do. From procurement and infrastructure design to daily operations, operators treat these efforts as core principles shaping how networks are built, run and protected. Therefore, as the Copenhagen Economics study shows, the level of protection Europe now requires will demand substantial additional capital. > It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to > emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. This is the right ambition, but the economic model underpinning the sector does not match these expectations. Due to fragmentation and over-regulation, Europe’s telecom market invests less per capita than global peers, generates roughly half the return on capital of operators in the United States and faces rising costs linked to expanding security obligations. It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. A shift in policy priorities is therefore essential. Europe must place investment in security and resilience at the center of its political agenda. Policy must allow this reality to be reflected in merger assessments, reduce overlapping security rules and provide public support where the public interest exceeds commercial considerations. This is not state aid; it is strategic social responsibility. Completing the single market for telecommunications is central to this agenda. A fragmented market cannot produce the secure, interoperable, large-scale solutions required for modern defense. The Digital Networks Act must simplify and harmonize rules across the EU, supported by a streamlined governance that distinguishes between domestic matters and cross-border strategic issues. Spectrum policy must also move beyond national silos, allowing Europe to avoid conflicts with NATO over key bands and enabling coherent next-generation deployments. Telecom policy nowadays is also defense policy. When we measure investment gaps in digital network deployment, we still tend to measure simple access to 5G and fiber. However, we should start considering that — if security, resilience and defense-readiness are to be taken into account — the investment gap is much higher that the €200 billion already estimated by the European Commission. Europe’s strategic choice The momentum for stronger European defense is real — but momentum fades if it is not seized. If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to support advanced defense applications. In that scenario, Europe’s democratic resilience would erode in parallel with its economic competitiveness, leaving the continent more exposed to geopolitical pressure and technological dependency. > If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it > risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic > underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to > support advanced defense applications. Europe still has time to change course and put telecoms at the center of its agenda — not as a technical afterthought, but as a core pillar of its defense strategy. The time for incremental steps has passed. Europe must choose to build the network foundations of its security now or accept that its strategic ambitions will remain permanently out of reach. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Connect Europe AISBL * The ultimate controlling entity is Connect Europe AISBL * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU digital, telecom and industrial policy, including initiatives such as the Digital Networks Act, Digital Omnibus, and connectivity, cybersecurity, and defence frameworks aimed at strengthening Europe’s digital competitiveness. More information here.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is dialing reform, but not everyone is picking up. Following years of talks, Brussels is almost ready to drop a long-awaited telecommunication blueprint designed to upgrade networks and support the industry. The Digital Networks Act, expected to land Dec. 16, will overhaul the current rulebook to make it easier for operators to roll out 5G and fiber, and boost investment in Europe’s digital infrastructure. But it’s likely to upset players from national governments to tech firms in the process. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits — and take European networks to the next level. “Never has connectivity been so important to the life of people” but “at the same time, our industry has trouble in many regions to achieve a decent return on capital,” said Vivek Badrinath, the boss of global mobile association GSMA. But not everyone is buying the crisis pitch — here are the battle lines ahead of the proposal. BIG TELCOS VS. BIG TECH Years of lobbying by Europe’s top telcos to have data-hungry platforms such as TikTok, Netflix and Google’s YouTube help foot the bill for network expansion seem to have paid off. The Commission is now weighing how to tackle “challenges in the cooperation” between tech and telecom players in its reforms. One of the options on the table is turning into a political minefield: Empowering regulators to settle potential disputes between the two groups over how they handle traffic. Opponents of regulatory intervention fear that it will give operators a way to pressure content providers for payments, akin to the unpopular proposal known as “fair share” that was floated under the last Commission. At worst, they say, it could even upend the internet as we know it by undermining net neutrality — the principle that service providers need to treat all traffic equally, without throttling or censoring. “This would have immediate and far-reaching consequences, harming European consumers, businesses, digital rights and the sustainability of the creative and cultural sectors, ultimately risking a fragmented Internet and single market,” a broad coalition, ranging from civil society and media organizations to audiovisual players, wrote earlier this month. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits. | Andy Rain/EPA Regulators themselves say they don’t see any market failure, or need for a legislative fix. “It’s increasingly hard for me to think that the Commission is approaching this in good faith because they cannot ignore the chaotic impact that something like this would have,” said Benoît Felten, an expert at Plum Consulting who authored a study on the topic commissioned by Big Tech lobby CCIA. Tech companies will fight tooth and nail against any move to hold them to the same obligations that telecom operators have to follow. “The same service, same rules principle should be a no-brainer,” said Alessandro Gropelli, the boss of telecom trade association Connect Europe. “You cannot have competitiveness if one party is playing the game with their hand tied behind their back and the other party is playing the same game with both hands.” INCUMBENTS VS. CHALLENGERS Brussels’ deregulatory mood is further deepening rifts between Europe’s top telecom providers and their challengers, who have long praised the existing rulebook that they say enables them to take on legacy players. “The Commission wants to deregulate dogmatically” in order “to boost the largest operators in Europe,” said Luc Hindryckx, the director general of the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, a trade body. “One way to do it is to weaken the competition to allow a few incumbents to make it through and pave the way for consolidation, because if the competitors are on the verge of bankruptcy, they will ask to be merged.” Telecom challengers are up in arms against the direction of travel, which could see the Commission dial down the regulatory pressure on Europe’s legacy telcos to open their ducts and fiber lines to competitors. The EU executive wants to move away from heavy, upfront rules and closer scrutiny of dominant players to prevent abuse, instead relying on standard law enforcement. It argues the current system worked to boost competition but has outlived its purpose. It is “alarming that the European Commission is now proposing to relax regulation on former fixed monopolies,” a coalition of nine network operators wrote in a letter this month. Signatories — including France’s Iliad and the U.K.’s Vodafone — called out the proposed “backwards step” and warned against the risk of “re-monopolisation.” This shift, the opponents say, could unravel years of progress by undermining market predictability, deterring investment and pushing up wholesale prices — costs that would inevitably be passed on to consumers. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said. | Robert Ghement/EPA “In Germany, it seems that people never run a red light. One could say that people no longer run red lights and then change the law that says running a red light is a major offense. What do you think is going to happen?” Hindryckx quipped. The legacy players don’t agree. “The current ex-ante system leads to low investments and harms roll-out of innovative networks,” said Gropelli from Connect Europe. “Reform is a must, or we’ll remain global laggards in roll-out of critical networks.” CAPITALS VS. BRUSSELS National governments also aren’t cheering the reforms, with EU capitals bristling at the idea of Brussels muscling in on territory they consider their own. That’s the case for the allocation of spectrum — the finite and very much in-demand resource powering wireless communications, which is auctioned at a national level for billions of euros. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said in September. “We have been sleeping and lost fifteen years in discussing … who should assign the frequencies,” he said. Still, the topic is largely off the table for national governments. “Spectrum harmonization is not the favorite topic of member countries,” Katalin Molnár, the ambassador for Hungary, said last year as the country chaired talks among EU governments on the issue. The current cooperation between countries “works well,” the 27 EU nations said in a joint position, emphasizing that spectrum management is a “key public policy tool” that falls under a “sustained significance of member states’ national competencies in that regard.” This will be a major red line for the Council of the EU, where capitals will eventually hammer out their position on the reforms. The industry, however, says reforms are essential for the economic benefits that the EU is craving. “The wind has never been as strong in the sails of the ship that goes towards a more efficient telecom market today,” GSMA’s Badrinath said. “Is that enough to get the right outcome? Well, that’s what we want to believe.”

NORTHWOOD, England — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron unveiled a highly-anticipated “one in, one out” pilot program to tackle illegal migration on the final day of French president’s visit to the United Kingdom. At a joint press conference Thursday, the British leader said that the “groundbreaking” effort would see the U.K. return migrants to France that have illegally crossed the English Channel. In exchange for each returned migrant, France will transfer one asylum seeker to the U.K who would be expected to have a family connection or genuine reason to seek sanctuary in Britain. French border forces will also be able to take proactive measures to stop boats in shallow waters, subject to a review by the French maritime authorities.  “We simply can’t solve a challenge like this by acting alone, and telling our allies that we won’t play ball,” Starmer said. The prime minister said the plan would “break the model” of people smuggling despite the relatively modest scale of the program, while Macron said he believed it would deter would-be smugglers and migrants seeking to make the perilous journey. It is not known how many would be returned under the program, but initial reports have suggested around 50 migrants could be sent each way per week — only a fraction of the 21,000 who have arrived via the Channel so far this year. Still, the U.K. prime minister pledged “hard-headed, aggressive action on all fronts, to break the gangs’ business, secure our borders and show that attempting to reach the U.K. will end in detention.” DOMESTIC PRESSURE Starmer is under acute pressure to reduce levels of illegal migration, having promised to “smash the gangs” when he came to power last year, and with Nigel Farage’s right-wing populist Reform UK party on the rise. When asked about whether the pilot program spearheaded by the two centrist leaders was ambitious enough, Starmer took a direct dig at Farage, saying he had been “working hard” to get an agreement “while others have been taking pictures of the problem.” Though the issue of cross-Channel migration is less politically sensitive for Macron than Starmer, the French president agreed that the arrival of the so-called small boats was “an essential issue” for both countries and vowed to reinforce efforts “on several fronts.” Macron, however, warned that the agreement over pilot scheme would be signed after judicial checks had been done, including with the European Union, and argued Brexit had in fact made illegal crossings more attractive for migrants, despite Brexiteers promising otherwise. Keir Starmer is under acute pressure to reduce levels of illegal migration, having promised to “smash the gangs” when he came to power last year. | Pool Photo by Andy Rain via EPA The press conference marked the conclusion of Macron’s state visit this week, during which the two leaders repeatedly went to great lengths to stress their personal friendship as well as the historical ties between their two countries. The two leaders also confirmed their refresh of the Lancaster House treaties and unveiled what they called the Northwood Declaration, under which they will be able to coordinate their nuclear deterrents. They also announced a new “multinational force Ukraine” based in Paris “to support a peace deal when it comes while Putin turns his back on peace.” The two leaders said their countries would also strengthen collaboration on supercomputers, satellite connectivity and work on seizing the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence.

BRUSSELS — As Europe prepares to enter a new technology race, the hurdles it faces to beat out the U.S. and China are all too familiar. After rapidly falling behind in the global rush to artificial intelligence, Brussels has a fresh chance at an economic success story in the emerging field of quantum technology. But in a new strategy to be released Wednesday, the EU will warn that promising homegrown quantum tech risks being snatched up to make money abroad as the bloc continues to lag in turning research into “real-market opportunities,” according to a draft seen by POLITICO. “Europe attracts only five percent of the global private quantum funding, compared to over 50 percent captured by the U.S. and 40 percent by China,” the undated draft read. Governments and technology companies — most notably in the U.S. — are plowing billions into the quantum wave, which would be revolutionary because quantum computers would surpass the problem-solving capacities of current computers by vast orders of magnitude, revolutionizing industries from communications to drug development. Europe is the global leader in the number of scientific publications on the technology. “Europe has been falling behind [when it] comes to the technology in many sectors. This sector is something where we are several years ahead of other countries,” said Juha Vartiainen, co-founder of the Finnish quantum computing company IQM. But in the race to commercialize that research, Europe risks falling behind quickly, ranking only third in patents filed, behind the U.S. and China. To many, it’s déjà vu. Europe is generally best in class in the research that precedes revolutionary technologies, as it was in artificial intelligence. But the U.S. and China leapfrogged the continent in building the companies to deploy mass-market applications. A major point of debate is whether Europe will give its quantum industry free rein. Quantum computers are considered sensitive technology since they are expected to break the digital encryption that protects data and communications from being surveilled and stolen — making the technology a matter of national security. Several European governments have already imposed export restrictions. CASH FLOW PROBLEMS U.S. tech giant IBM recently announced it expects to have the first workable quantum computer by 2029 — adding urgency to the timeline for Europe to get its house in order. For decades, Europe has failed to overcome its fragmented financial market and pool funding on the scale that the U.S. and China can provide. Efforts to overcome the barriers to investment through a bloc-wide capital markets union have yielded no significant outcomes. U.S. tech giant IBM recently announced it expects to have the first workable quantum computer by 2029 — adding urgency to the timeline for Europe to get its house in order. | Anna Szilagyi/EPA The strategy notes significantly more investment will be needed to roll out reliable technology that is widely adopted by several industries. “Raising a scale-up in Europe is super difficult, because we lack the European instruments, the European venture capital … large enough to support that,” said Enrique Lizaso, CEO of Spanish software company Multiverse Computing, which is crossing quantum-inspired software applications with artificial intelligence. Multiverse last month raised €189 million in a funding round that included both U.S.-based and European investors. Lizaso said that if Europe wants to help scale its companies it must be prepared to invest €100 million per company, “which is what you’re going to have from the U.S.” According to IQM’s Vartiainen, “we would need to have funding levels which are significantly larger than they have been so far.” In an interview Tuesday, the EU’s tech commissioner Henna Virkkunen said that Brussels and the capitals have jointly funded quantum technology with €11 billion. “Now it’s important, because we are quite fragmented, that we are putting different dots together,” she said. PICKING WINNERS Both Brussels and EU capitals have rolled out public funding plans to complement private funding, but the industry fears these are insufficient and lack focus. Europe’s approach has been to be “technology-neutral” and fund several strands of quantum technology, Vartiainen said, but spreading out funding can dilute its impact. Europe should follow the U.S. example of unlocking larger investments for focused “challenges,” he said. Under a program led by the U.S. government’s DARPA defense research agency, 18 companies have been selected as part of a larger bid to come up with an error-free quantum computer by 2033. Those companies could reportedly tap up to $300 million if they pass all the stages. The EU’s draft strategy promises to launch “two grand challenges” between 2025 and 2027, with one focused on quantum computing and another on quantum navigation systems in “critical environments.” Another way for governments to support companies to commercialize the technology would be if they are the primary buyers of technology, which then lowers the bar for the industry to follow suit. Some industry voices have warned that the EU’s approach to regulating AI offers a cautionary tale. | Etienne Laurent/EPA The draft strategy said the Commission would “support innovation-oriented procurement schemes,” but didn’t offer much detail on how it would do so. Companies are adamant on what they don’t want from Brussels: regulation and restrictions on quantum technology, like restrictions on the export of the technology. Some industry voices have warned that the EU’s approach to regulating AI offers a cautionary tale. Worried about the potential harms of the technology, the EU rolled out the world’s first AI rulebook, only to quickly backtrack to focus on AI innovation and commercial success. “We cannot afford to regulate what is not yet mature,” said Cecilia Bonefeld-Dahl, director general of DigitalEurope, one of Brussels’ leading tech lobbies. “Otherwise, Europe risks losing the quantum race.”

BRUSSELS — The European Union is trying to stop space from turning into a junkyard. The European Commission on Wednesday proposed a new Space Act that seeks to dial up regulatory oversight of satellite operators — including requiring them to tackle their impact on space debris and pollution, or face significant fines. There are more than 10,000 satellites now in orbit and growing space junk to match. In recent years, more companies — most notably Elon Musk’s Starlink — have ventured into low-Earth orbit, from where stronger telecommunication connections can be established but which requires more satellites to ensure full coverage. “Space is congested and contested,” a Commission official said ahead of Wednesday’s proposal in a briefing with reporters. The official was granted anonymity to disclose details ahead of the formal presentation. The EU executive wants to set up a database to track objects circulating in space; make authorization processes clearer to help companies launch satellites and provide services in Europe; and force national governments to give regulators oversight powers. The Space Act proposal would also require space companies to have launch safety and end-of-life disposal plans, take extra steps to limit space debris, light and radio pollution, and calculate the environmental footprint of their operations. Mega and giga constellations, which are networks of at least 100 and 1,000 spacecraft, respectively, face extra rules to coordinate orbit traffic and avoid collisions. “It’s starting to look like a jungle up there. We need to intervene,” said French liberal lawmaker Christophe Grudler. “Setting traffic rules for satellites might not sound as sexy as sending people to Mars. But that’s real, that’s now and that has an impact on our daily lives.” Under the proposal, operators would also have to run cybersecurity risk assessments, introduce cryptographic and encryption-level protection, and are encouraged to share more information with corporate rivals to fend off cyberattacks. Breaches of the rules could result in fines of up to twice the profits gained or losses avoided as a result of the infringement, or, where these amounts cannot be determined, up to 2 percent of total worldwide annual turnover. Satellites exclusively used for defense or national security are excluded from the law. THE MUSK PROBLEM The Space Act proposal comes as the EU increasingly sees a homegrown satellite industry as crucial to its connectivity, defense and sovereignty ambitions. Musk’s dominance in the field has become a clear vulnerability for Europe. His Starlink network has showcased at scale how thousands of satellites can reach underserved areas and fix internet voids, but it has also revealed his hold over Ukraine’s wartime communication, highlighting the danger of relying on a single, foreign player. Top lawmakers in the European Parliament, including Grudler, earlier this month advocated for a “clearly ring-fenced budget of at least €60 billion” devoted to space policy, while French President Emmanuel Macron last week called for the next EU budget to earmark more money to boost Europe’s space sector. That’s crucial “if we want to stay in the game of the great international powers,” he said shortly after the French government announced it would ramp up its stake in Eutelsat, a Franco-British satellite company and Starlink rival. The Space Act proposal introduces additional requirements for players from outside the EU that operate in the European market, unless their home country is deemed to have equivalent oversight by the Commission, which could be the case for the U.S. They will also have to appoint a legal representative in the bloc. The proposal is set to apply from 2030 and will now head to the Council of the EU, where governments hash out their position, and the European Parliament for negotiations on the final law. Aude van den Hove contributed reporting.

Iran’s cyber command ordered top officials and their security teams to avoid IT equipment connected to telecom networks in a sign they fear digital disruption from Israel. The news was reported by the Fars news agency on Tuesday, which is affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Israel and Iran have clashed militarily since Israel launched Operation Rising Lion last Friday, targeting Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. Explosions were reported Tuesday in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, as Iranian state media claimed a new wave of missiles had been launched toward Israel. Lukasz Olejnik, a visiting senior research fellow of the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, said the Iranian decision to avoid connected kit signals “deep concern” that ordinary devices can be hacked and tampered with. “It suggests Tehran fears adversaries can use connected devices to track, intercept, or even target key officials,” he said. Israel has used connected devices to kill individuals in the past. Last September, it used explosive pagers to hit Hezbollah targets, injuring nearly 3,000 people — a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack in which Israeli security services hit the Lebanon-based terrorist group by simultaneously triggering minute quantities of explosive hidden in thousands of modified hand-held devices distributed among Hezbollah operatives. “Israel is definitely a cyber superpower,” said Matt Pearl, former director for emerging technologies at the National Security Council during the Biden administration. “I would put it, in many ways, in the category of the U.S. or [China], although smaller, just in terms of its overall capabilities.” Both Iran and Israel are powerful cybersecurity actors. Experts said that cyber disruption and espionage operations are often conducted in the background of direct military clashes. Tel Aviv has a skilled cyber talent pool and close-knit relations between the government and the private sector. It is also considered to have stronger cyber capabilities and advanced technology, enabiling more sophisticated digital attacks. While Iran is considered a major rival power to Western countries — alongside China, North Korea and Russia — its cyber operations are primarily focused on espionage rather than disruption. Iran’s nuclear program has also been the target of one of the most infamous cyberoffensive operations in history: The U.S. and Israel were reportedly behind the Stuxnet malware attack that significantly damaged the country’s nuclear efforts in 2010. Sam Clark contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The EU is set to deliver a sobering message to a growing movement in Europe calling for a detox from U.S. Big Tech. The message? That ain’t happening anytime soon. As the U.S. continues to up the ante in questioning transatlantic ties, calls are growing in Europe to reduce the continent’s reliance on U.S. technology in critical areas such as cloud services, artificial intelligence and microchips, and to opt for European alternatives instead. But the European Commission is preparing on Thursday to acknowledge publicly what many have said in private: Europe is nowhere near being able to wean itself off U.S. Big Tech. In a new International Digital Strategy the EU will instead promote collaboration with the U.S., according to a draft seen by POLITICO, as well as with other tech players including China, Japan, India and South Korea. “Decoupling is unrealistic and cooperation will remain significant across the technological value chain,” the draft reads.  It’s a reality check after a year that has seen calls for a technologically sovereign Europe gain significant traction. In December the Commission appointed Finland’s Henna Virkkunen as the first-ever commissioner in charge of tech sovereignty. After few months in office, European Parliament lawmakers embarked on an effort to draft a blueprint for tech sovereignty.  Even more consequential has been the rapid rise of the so-called Eurostack movement, which advocates building out a European tech infrastructure and has brought together effective voices including competition economist Cristina Caffarra and Kai Zenner, an assistant to key European lawmaker Axel Voss. There’s wide agreement on the problem: U.S. cloud giants capture over two-thirds of the European market, the U.S. outpaces the EU in nurturing companies for artificial intelligence, and Europe’s stake in the global microchips market has crumbled to around 10 percent. Thursday’s strategy will acknowledge the U.S.’s “superior ability to innovate” and “Europe’s failure to capitalise on the digital revolution.” What’s missing are viable solutions to the complex problem of unwinding deep-rooted dependencies. The EU has embarked on a journey to catch up on AI infrastructure, earmarking billions of euros for AI-optimized supercomputers in a bid to counter U.S. plans by OpenAI and others. Yet even tech-friendly lawmakers have expressed doubts this will succeed.  Europe should “sober up” in its quest for tech sovereignty and accept that “certain trains have left the station,” conservative Bulgarian lawmaker Eva Maydell told POLITICO’s AI and Tech Summit last month. “We need to have a very clear outline plan which, first and foremost, assesses where our strengths are, where we have certain dependencies, and where we need to cooperate,” said Maydell. Europe should “sober up” in its quest for tech sovereignty and accept that “certain trains have left the station,” conservative Bulgarian lawmaker Eva Maydell told POLITICO’s AI and Tech Summit last month. | Matthias Balk/Picture Alliance via Getty Images Thursday’s strategy is expected to do just that, with a long list of opportunities to collaborate in areas such as chips, quantum technology, AI and secure connectivity.  “[The strategy] is more pragmatic than being politically absolutist … [and saying] OK, we’re going to do everything in Europe,” said Dan Nechita, former head of Cabinet of European lawmaker Dragoș Tudorache and now EU director for the Transatlantic Policy Network. He likened it to growing tomatoes or potatoes at home: “It doesn’t mean that I could not, but sometimes it doesn’t make sense.” As even some of Europe’s most Atlanticist, free-market corners grow wary of their addiction to the U.S., a few countries and cities are embarking on their own political efforts to break free. National lawmakers in The Hague have been building pressure on the Dutch government to wean off its dependence on American providers — only for their efforts to be derailed by Geert Wilders’ decision to quit the government coalition.  The Danish cities of Copenhagen and Aarhus decided on Tuesday to look for alternatives to allow them to drop Microsoft productivity products and cloud services, as Denmark prepares to take over a leading role in Brussels running meetings of EU ministers from July 1. But Thursday’s strategy acknowledges skepticism as to whether the EU actually has alternatives for these political front-runners to fall back on, or whether it makes sense to splash billions of euros on getting them off the ground. The EU’s tech chief Virkkunen has underscored the Commission’s desire to keep the bloc open to the world in her first months in office, by taking trips to India, Japan and the U.S. and consistently emphasizing the importance of dialogue and close collaboration.  She has the backing of some of the most influential tech lobby groups in town — even on the need to continue to work with the U.S.  “We need a transatlantic tech alliance to jointly develop and protect the technologies that underpin our shared security and economic prosperity such as AI, quantum and semiconductors,” Cecilia Bonefeld-Dahl, director general of DigitalEurope, told POLITICO ahead of Thursday’s unveiling.