Kyiv — SpaceX has deactivated Starlink satellite internet terminals that Russian forces were using on the battlefield in Ukraine, according to Ukrainian military officials, raising critical questions about private sector responsibility in modern warfare and why the intervention took so long.
The terminals, which provide high-speed internet connectivity via satellite, had been observed in use by Russian military units, including in strike drones that reached Kyiv, according to reports from Ukrainian intelligence services. After months of complaints from Kyiv, SpaceX moved to disable the equipment, Ukrainian officials told Reuters.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk responded to a direct appeal from Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov by providing thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine. The technology proved crucial for maintaining communications as Russian forces targeted traditional infrastructure.
But the same technology that empowered Ukrainian defenders became available to Russian forces through third-country purchases and smuggling networks. Despite explicit restrictions on Starlink use in Russia, the terminals appeared on battlefield footage and were discovered in captured Russian positions.
"The question isn't whether SpaceX could disable these terminals—it's why it took so long," said Samuel Bendett, an adviser at the Center for Naval Analyses and expert on Russian military technology. "Ukraine has been raising this issue for over a year. The delay raises serious questions about corporate decision-making in conflict zones."
According to Ukrainian officials, the disabled terminals caused a collapse of Russian command systems in several sectors, disrupting communications and coordination. The immediate tactical impact demonstrates how dependent modern military operations have become on commercial satellite internet—a dependency that creates both opportunities and vulnerabilities.
The episode highlights the unprecedented role of private companies in contemporary warfare. SpaceX, a commercial entity, has effective control over a communications system that both sides in a major European war depend upon. That power raises profound questions about accountability, neutrality, and the boundaries between private enterprise and statecraft.
Musk has been a controversial figure in the Ukraine war. After initially supporting Kyiv with Starlink access, he later advocated for a peace settlement that would cede Ukrainian territory to Russia. He also briefly restricted Starlink use for Ukrainian offensive operations in Crimea, fearing escalation—a decision that drew sharp criticism from Ukrainian officials and defense analysts.
"Private companies shouldn't be making these strategic decisions," said James Acton, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program. "But in the absence of international frameworks, that's exactly what's happening. Musk has more control over Ukraine's communications infrastructure than most governments."
The technical aspects of disabling the terminals raise additional questions. Starlink terminals are geofenced, meaning they should only work in authorized regions. That Russian forces were able to use them suggests either technical workarounds or, more likely, that the terminals were registered to locations in third countries and then transported to Russia and Ukraine.
SpaceX declined to comment on specific operational matters, but a company spokesperson said: "We take our export control obligations seriously and have cooperation protocols with relevant authorities to prevent unauthorized use of our technology."
The terse statement does little to address the broader policy questions. Export controls are designed to prevent technology transfer to adversaries, but they rely on corporate compliance and government enforcement. When a company like SpaceX operates a global network with millions of terminals, tracking and preventing diversion becomes exponentially more difficult.
European Union officials have raised concerns about dual-use technology entering Russia despite sanctions. Starlink terminals, while not explicitly banned, clearly fall into a category of technology that can provide military advantage. The EU has struggled to enforce its sanctions regime, with substantial leakage through neighboring countries.
For Ukraine, the episode is both a victory and a source of frustration. The disabled terminals will hinder Russian operations, but the months-long delay allowed Moscow to benefit from technology that was ostensibly restricted. Ukrainian officials have called for more robust enforcement mechanisms and faster corporate responses to verified misuse.
"We're grateful that SpaceX finally acted, but this should have happened immediately when we first provided evidence," said a senior Ukrainian defense official speaking on condition of anonymity. "In war, delays cost lives."
The case may prompt new international discussions about regulating dual-use commercial technologies in warfare. As satellite internet, drone technologies, and artificial intelligence become ubiquitous, the line between civilian and military applications blurs. Companies that operate global infrastructure will increasingly face demands to take sides—or be held accountable for enabling adversaries.
For now, SpaceX has acted, and Russian forces have lost a valuable communications capability. But the broader questions remain unresolved: Who decides how commercial technologies are used in war? What obligations do companies have beyond legal compliance? And can democracies afford to leave these decisions to corporate discretion?
