Officials have raised serious concerns regarding Russia’s interception of communications from European satellites, an issue that has persisted since the country’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Two Russian satellites, known as Luch/Olymp 1 and Luch/Olymp 2, have been closely tracking European spacecraft, prompting fears that their operations extend beyond mere observation.
Espionage Operations in Geostationary Orbit
These Russian satellites have engaged in proximity operations, manoeuvring dangerously close to European satellites. In 2018, France’s then-Defence Minister accused Russia of espionage when one of its vehicles approached a Franco-Italian military communications satellite. Prior to this, two Intelsat satellites were also targeted. Such operations, known as rendezvous and proximity operations (RPOs), are not inherently malicious. They can involve legitimate tasks such as refuelling satellites or removing defunct equipment. However, the dual-use nature of this technology complicates the interpretation of intent.
The Luch satellites, launched in 2014 and 2023, are reportedly aimed at identifying vulnerabilities in NATO satellites. While the concept of satellite inspection is not new—U.S. Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP) satellites have previously approached other satellites within ten kilometres—Russia’s approach raises alarms. These Luch satellites have been known to linger near their targets for months, sometimes coming within five kilometres. This prolonged surveillance deviates from typical inspection protocols, which usually involve brief passes for data collection.
Positioned strategically between a target satellite and its ground station, the Luch satellites can intercept signals, effectively eavesdropping on communications from European satellites, including those operated by Eutelsat, a French company, and Intelsat, a Luxembourgish-American firm. The information garnered could prove invaluable in future operations aimed at disrupting these satellites, which provide secure communications to various military entities.
Geopolitical Implications and Responses
Although the Luch satellites primarily collect intelligence rather than disrupt operations, their presence must be viewed within the broader geopolitical context. Any Russian operation in space is part of a strategic campaign aimed at securing military advantages, particularly regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This perspective suggests that the Luch RPOs may serve as both an intelligence-gathering effort and a warning to European nations about the vulnerabilities of their space assets.
As noted by Major General Michael Traut, commander of Germany’s Space Command, the Luch satellites may have intercepted command links, secure transmissions that convey operational instructions. If Russia has indeed achieved this capability, it could lead to future disruptions of European satellite operations, mirroring past hybrid warfare tactics employed against undersea communication cables.
In response to these developments, European nations are beginning to publicly disclose information about Russian activities in geostationary orbit. This transparency aims to delegitimize Russia’s actions on the global stage while fostering support for the development of Europe’s own counterspace capabilities. Countries such as the UK and Germany are increasingly vocal about the necessity of establishing counterspace systems to bolster their defence.
Without a comprehensive strategy that includes self-defensive measures, Europe risks facing increasingly aggressive actions in space, leaving critical services vulnerable. As reliance on space-enabled technologies grows, ensuring orbital security has become an essential component of a broader strategic posture for European nations.
In conclusion, as satellite operations continue to evolve, Europe must remain vigilant, addressing potential threats from Russia while also investing in its own capabilities for space security.
“Space operations were generally concealed under a veil of secrecy,” said Aleix Nadal, an academic expert. “More transparency can be leveraged to delegitimize these activities.”
