On July 24, 2025, a 2.5-hour global outage of Starlink, Elon Musk’s satellite network, disrupted Ukraine’s military operations, exposing a troubling reality: the infrastructure underpinning modern warfare is increasingly controlled by private corporations. For Ukraine, reliant on Starlink’s 50,000-plus terminals for real-time battlefield communication, drone coordination, and surveillance since Russia’s 2022 invasion, the blackout was a stark reminder of vulnerability. The outage, caused by an internal software failure, as SpaceX confirmed, temporarily stalled operations around Pokrovsk in Donetsk, where Ukrainian forces have made modest gains. Combat persisted through alternative systems, but the incident, which affected up to 61,000 users globally as reported on Downdetector, underscored a broader issue: when private tech giants hold the keys to national security, sovereignty itself is at stake. Service was restored by around 1:05 a.m. on July 25, 2025, but the event highlighted the systemic risk of centralized infrastructure.
This is not a new dilemma. During the Cold War, AT&T’s near-monopoly over U.S. telecommunications raised similar concerns, prompting government oversight to ensure reliability in crises. Today, SpaceX’s dominance in satellite communications mirrors that era, but with less public control. The U.S. Department of Defense has funded Starlink for Ukraine since June 2023, yet a single company’s technical glitch – or deliberate action – can halt a war effort. Reports in February 2025 suggested U.S. negotiators threatened to cut Ukraine’s Starlink access over a critical minerals deal, a claim Musk denied, illustrating the geopolitical leverage private entities wield.
A chilling precedent exists: in September 2022, Musk ordered a partial Starlink shutdown during a Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kherson, disabling 100 terminals to avoid escalation with Russia. This decision, distinct from a separate Crimea incident later clarified as mistaken, was driven by Musk’s concerns about Russian nuclear retaliation, made without Kyiv’s consent. It highlights the risks of outsourcing critical infrastructure to private entities accountable to shareholders, not governments. Musk’s intervention reflects a broader geopolitical shift, where tech moguls wield influence once reserved for state actors. Historically, private companies like the East India Company shaped colonial conflicts, often prioritizing profit over national interests. Today, SpaceX’s role in Ukraine parallels this, with Musk’s public exchanges with Russian officials complicating allied strategies.
The outage’s complexity deepens with the revelation that Russian forces also use thousands of Starlink terminals, as Ukrainian intelligence confirmed in 2024. This dual-use dynamic complicates SpaceX’s efforts to regulate terminal distribution and exposes a paradox: the same technology empowering Ukraine’s resilience aids its adversary. SpaceX has attempted to deactivate unauthorized terminals, with reports of mass outages affecting Russian forces in 2025, yet usage persists through black-market channels. Russia’s reliance on legacy tactics – jamming signals, spreading disinformation – cannot match Starlink’s decentralized, cloud-based system. Yet, Ukraine’s dependence on a single provider creates a single point of failure, a vulnerability absent in diversified systems like NATO’s satellite networks.
Regulating dual-use technologies like Starlink poses both technical and ethical dilemmas. SpaceX struggles to prevent unauthorized terminal use, as black-market sales enable adversaries to exploit the same infrastructure. Technologically, tracking and disabling illicit terminals in real time is feasible but risks disrupting legitimate users, as seen in SpaceX’s attempts to geofence Russian-held areas. Ethically, the company faces pressure to balance neutrality with support for Ukraine, especially as U.S. funding ties Starlink to American interests. These challenges highlight the need for international standards on dual-use tech, akin to arms control treaties, to prevent private innovations from undermining allied security in future conflicts.
The implications extend beyond Ukraine. Private firms like SpaceX, Amazon, and Microsoft now act as de facto infrastructure providers for global security, blurring the line between civilian and military domains. The July outage has spurred calls in the U.S. and Europe for greater transparency from satellite providers, with Poland, funding much of Ukraine’s Starlink subscriptions, indicating it may seek alternatives if reliability falters. NATO is reevaluating its reliance on commercial tech, as evidenced by recent discussions on integrating public-private frameworks for wartime communications.
Ukraine is responding by exploring satellite alternatives with European and Israeli firms, though these remain non-operational, and is set to launch Starlink mobile services in 2026, becoming Europe’s first country to offer direct-to-cell messaging by late 2025 and mobile satellite broadband by mid-2026. This urgency reflects a broader need: nations must diversify their digital backbones to mitigate risks. The European Union could lead by funding a public satellite network, modeled on Galileo’s navigation system, to complement commercial providers. NATO should establish a cooperative protocol requiring allied nations to maintain backup communication systems, ensuring resilience against technical failures or corporate decisions. The U.S. could mandate that companies like SpaceX submit contingency plans for wartime disruptions, subject to Pentagon oversight.
The Starlink outage is a warning for democracies. As warfare shifts to data networks and orbiting satellites, reliance on private tech redefines sovereignty. Ukraine’s battlefield innovations – enabled by Starlink’s real-time connectivity – show the power of civilian tools repurposed for war. But when those tools falter, whether by error or intent, the consequences rival traditional military setbacks. The solution lies not in rejecting private innovation but in balancing it with public oversight. If connectivity is now a weapon, governments must ensure it remains in allied hands, not corporate boardrooms.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
