Mark Carney on Musk/Starlink for Ukraine: “We as Canadians do not want to be caught in a situation where we are reliant on one provider that may change their view or may be forced to change their view by one nation state that puts Canadians at risk or compromises our sovereignty.”
The concern about single-point dependency is legitimate. The rest is the same as Carney's previous GFANZ fantasy
Carney correctly notes the slowdown had “real consequences, human consequences, direct casualties.” Then he pivots to the idea that Canada can simply diversify and “build up sovereign capabilities”
There is no legitimate near-term alternative that matches Starlink/Starshield’s combination of scale, low latency, terminal size/weight, and cost for the battlefield role Ukraine is using it for
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, same week: “Starlink is really necessary for Ukraine and unfortunately in the short term Europe can’t replace this capability.”
OneWeb is the closest operational option. Fewer satellites, heavier/more expensive terminals, lower capacity. Not a drop-in replacement for frontline or drone use. Amazon Leo is still building out. EU IRIS² targets ~2029. Canada’s own planned Telesat Lightspeed is aimed at 2028, is government/enterprise focused, and is still needs to be launched on SpaceX rockets
This tracks the GFANZ pattern: announce a vast pool of capital and a clean path away from the existing system, then discover the constraints (antitrust pushback, continued fossil financing, diluted rules) were larger than the press release. The $130 trillion figure Carney claimed was assets under management, not money committed to the transition. It was Carney fantasy
Strategic diversification can be a real long-term project. Pretending the world already has, or will soon have, a workable alternative when the evidence says otherwise is just the same overclaim in a different domain. Deal with the system that actually exists
What happened to Carney taking "the world as it is"?
@MarkJCarney @elonmusk