Can a private company switch off a country’s battlefield communications? The Starlink-Ukraine crisis exposes a new vulnerability in modern warfare

The reliance on SpaceX satellites from Ukraine has led to the emergence of one very troubling question – Who controls the communications networks which are increasingly being used by modern armies? The issue regarding the restrictions imposed on Starlink and Starshield has highlighted the danger of being dependent on systems which are controlled not only privately but also from Washington, at least partly. According to CNBC’s coverage on Thursday, the Ukrainian authorities claimed that the restrictions imposed on satellite communications have impeded military operations amid the intensifying Russian attacks on Kyiv.

Moreover, the row led to posing questions about who should be held responsible for the division of duties between SpaceX’s CEO, Elon Musk, and US authorities who were overseeing the satellite network.

In the case of Ukraine, it was not only a question of having working satellite internet. Reliable communications allow units to coordinate themselves, transfer information and control drones that would neutralise any dangers coming towards them. In cases when communications get cut off, the consequences might be felt not just on the battlefield but also in terms of civilian security.


The matter at hand shows one of the problems that governments face nowadays.

Ukraine’s dependence on satellite connectivity comes under scrutiny

Since the start of the Russia-Ukraine War in February 2022, Ukraine has used Starlink extensively. The space-based internet system has aided communication in regions where the traditional network system has been compromised.

But the system’s role has expanded beyond ordinary internet access. According to CNBC, Ukrainian forces use satellite connectivity to support military operations, including drone missions intended to intercept Russian attacks.

However, the clear delineation between commercial terminals of Starlink and systems utilising the government-oriented Starshield program is not yet known.

According to the Ukrainian authorities, there have been connectivity issues with those terminals that were travelling above 100 miles per hour, or about 160 kilometres per hour. This particular problem was highly relevant for the military equipment that needed reliable connectivity while travelling at fast speeds.

President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed to interviewer Piers Morgan that the connectivity problems occurred at night and affected the operation of Ukrainian drones.

He argued that the disruption had hindered efforts to intercept Russian drones and protect civilians.

Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defence minister, subsequently said connectivity at speeds of up to 160 kilometres per hour was being restored. He also called for the removal of Starshield’s speed restrictions, describing it as important to Ukraine’s defence, CNBC reported.

This shows how a technical constraint can turn into an operational challenge when there is reliance on satellite communication by the military.

Starlink and Starshield are different systems with different roles

Though the terms have been used interchangeably in popular discourse, Starlink and Starshield differ in their uses.

The Starlink network of satellites provides internet services to residential and commercial consumers, as well as other clients such as the military. Due to its vast low Earth orbit satellite network, it is able to provide internet connectivity in areas where there is little or no ground-based infrastructure.

On the other hand, the Starshield programme caters to governments and national security. According to SpaceX, the programme is able to perform Earth observation, secure communications and can carry special equipment on satellites. There are added security features which can handle classified information through cryptography.

Starshield incorporates technology used in Starlink, including communication via satellites and laser connections between them. Still, its mission and security concerns make it different from Starlink’s commercial service.

As CNBC reported, SpaceX has secured over $6 billion worth of multi-year US government contracts for Starshield, mostly related to major Space Force projects for communication and sensing satellites.

This differentiation is important because restrictions on Ukraine's connectivity do not necessarily mean a single decision applies to all of SpaceX services. According to existing reports, it is not clear whether all restricted terminals were Starshield or commercial Starlink and whether all disruptions happened because of the same decision.

Clarification on the affected system and decision maker behind the restrictions is crucial for understanding the case.

Who decides when military satellite access is restricted?

The central question is who has the authority to determine how these systems are used during an active conflict.

Musk appeared to place responsibility for Starshield restrictions with the US government, saying the system is owned and controlled by Washington. Under this arrangement, the US military and, ultimately, the president determine the limits governing its use, CNBC reported.

This situation complicates the issue of responsibility. The company designs and implements the technology, and the contracts that the government issues and the requirements of the military influence how the specialised services are used. There is not enough information about the situation under which such restrictions occurred.

Musk has also distinguished commercial Starlink from Starshield. According to CNBC’s October 15 report, he said Starlink was restricted to civilian and defensive purposes and could not be used for offensive military operations.

The White House and the Pentagon had not yet reacted to the requests for comment from CNBC.

For countries using privatised networks, this split in power presents a serious challenge. Military planners can decide how to integrate communication technologies into the mission, but they have no control over all of the conditions in which this technology is used.

The Ukraine controversy has therefore raised questions extending beyond SpaceX: what safeguards should govern military dependence on commercial technology, and what happens when a provider’s restrictions conflict with a country's immediate operational needs?

The vulnerability extends beyond Ukraine

This conflict highlights one of the larger problems facing modern armed forces. Modern militaries rely increasingly on satellite communication systems for purposes such as command and control, surveillance, and the operation of remote devices. However, the ability to use these technologies may be contingent upon commercial agreements, governmental policies and technological procedures beyond the control of their military operators.

The case of Ukraine highlights that having access to the most up-to-date technology does not necessarily mean having control over it. It could happen that a country would take advantage of a sophisticated satellite system but not own the satellites, have control over the software, or reject the terms of service.

Building alternatives is difficult.

Satellite infrastructure demands heavy investments along with launch capability, ground equipment, and communication networks. It also takes time to build up a new system, which makes it difficult to decrease dependence in wartime.

The foremost task of Ukraine right now is to ensure connectivity and protect itself from Russian attacks.

But the longer-term question is whether countries should develop backup systems, diversify providers and establish clearer contractual protections for essential military communications.

CNBC’s reporting has brought the Starlink-Starshield distinction and the dispute over responsibility into sharper focus. It has not, however, established that SpaceX independently decided to cut off Ukraine’s military communications across the board.

That distinction is important. The controversy is not proof that one executive can unilaterally switch off an entire country's military network.

This demonstrates the issues which come about when privately owned technology meets governmental oversight on the battlefield.

When commercial satellites are integrated into military operations by the military, one cannot assume that there will be continuous access. The aim here is to have reliable communications for national defense with clear regulations about any limitations, accountability, and contingency plans in case of network unavailability.