DIGITAL LIFE

The network that no one sees, but decides battles — Starlink's role in the war in Ukraine

In modern conflicts, not everything explodes or makes noise. Some of the most critical decisions happen silently, far from the trenches. Since 2022, connectivity has become as vital as ammunition on the Ukrainian battlefield. At the center of this new chessboard is a constellation of private satellites, operated by a company that is not accountable to governments. And, recently, a statement reignited an uncomfortable debate about power, control, and war in the 21st century.

Since the beginning of the war, Ukraine has relied heavily on Starlink to maintain stable communications in regions where traditional infrastructure has been destroyed. The system has allowed for troop coordination, real-time information exchange, and long-distance drone operation.

What began as a civilian service quickly gained another function. In a conflict where seconds count, having reliable internet can define the success — or failure — of a mission. Therefore, when evidence emerged that Russian forces were using the same system, the problem ceased to be technical and became strategic.

According to Ukrainian authorities, Starlink terminals were being used to guide long-range Russian drones. The accusation sounded like a warning: the same infrastructure that helps defend the country could be being used against it.

 The Ukrainian Minister of Digital Transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, publicly stated that Kiev was in direct contact with SpaceX to block the “unauthorized” use of the network. The message was clear: Western technology should not be used for attacks against civilians.

Shortly afterward, Elon Musk wrote on the X platform that the measures taken had worked. In a few words, he confirmed something unprecedented: a private company had actively interfered in the use of critical infrastructure during an ongoing war.

The statement raised more questions than answers. How was this blocking done? In which regions? With what criteria? What was implied, however, was even more relevant: the ability to turn internet access on or off in a war zone is not in the hands of a state.

A power that doesn't go through barracks...This isn't the first time Musk has found himself in the role of unwitting arbiter of conflict. In 2022, he had already acknowledged that SpaceX could limit Starlink's coverage in certain areas and that he chose to restrict its use to specific offensive operations.

This has transformed the network into something unprecedented: a private infrastructure with tactical veto power. In practice, decisions made by executives and engineers can directly affect military operations on the ground.

For Ukraine, the situation is paradoxical. Despite public disagreements between Musk and Ukrainian authorities throughout the conflict, the country remains highly dependent on Starlink. In the short term, there is no alternative with similar reach and resilience. Kyiv needs the network—but doesn't control it.

The episode reveals a structural shift. Contemporary wars are not fought solely by national armies, but by an ecosystem of satellites, software, communication platforms, and private services. Starlink doesn't fire weapons, but it decides who can communicate when they are fired.

This creates a precedent that is difficult to ignore. If a company can block a country's access to satellite internet in a conflict, inevitable questions arise: who regulates this power? Who defines when it should be used? And with what legitimacy?

For now, SpaceX claims that Russian use has been interrupted. But the discussion is far from over. What is clear is that, on the battlefield of the 21st century, some of the most important decisions are not made in military command rooms—but rather in corporate offices and in orbit around the Earth.

mundophone