Starlink in Ukraine: Private Companies and the Insecurity of Security

A Ukrainian soldier installs a Starlink terminal. The internet access provided by Starlink has provided crucial technological support to the Ukrainian army. Photo by the Support Forces of Ukraine Command. 

When Russia invaded Ukraine in late February 2022, military campaigns began to interrupt internet availability across the country. Some major cities were completely disconnected and overall internet connectivity dropped by 20%. The country’s deputy prime minister, Mykhalo Federov, publicly asked SpaceX CEO Elon Musk—one of the richest men in the world—to activate Starlink, a network of over 2,000 satellites, to provide internet access to the war-ravaged country. In response, Musk announced over Twitter that SpaceX would send thousands of Starlink Terminals to Ukraine to connect users to the outside world. By June 2022, Starlink had over 150,000 users in Ukraine and around 15,000 terminals. Starlink has been described as a “constellation” of satellites, intended to provide internet access to generally inaccessible areas through satellite technology. The download speeds provided by Starlink satellites are comparable to other forms of wireless internet and five to six times better than their other satellite competitors. These satellites have become an integral part of Ukraine’s military capabilities. Starlink satellites have functioned as the “oxygen” of the Ukrainian army, and have empowered the targeting of Russian troops and facilitated communication between Ukrainian units. These new communication networks enabled the Ukrainian army to pilot drones in remote regions and to collect information on Russian military equipment. 

The advantages of Starlink technology have also caused Ukraine to become increasingly reliant on its services. Outages of Starlink communication caused “catastrophic” communication setbacks for Ukrainian troops. Russian government-funded hackers are actively trying to disrupt Starlink capabilities by jamming their signals. While Ukraine’s reliance on this technology is contentious, many argue that the relationship has demonstrated the advantages of public-private cooperation. Yet this supposedly mutually beneficial partnership has been complicated by statements from Musk in recent weeks, which have weakened the perceptual strength of U.S.-Ukraine relations and exposed the risks of working with private companies on critical security issues. 

On October 3, 2022, Musk released a proposal for a Ukraine-Russian peace plan that was widely criticized for favoring Russian territorial acquisitions. Around that time, Musk allegedly had a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, although both parties deny that an interaction ever took place. On October 7, Starlink terminals across Ukraine began to experience outages, and on October 11, Musk announced that SpaceX would have to begin shutting down terminals unless the U.S. military began compensating them. So, what happened?

Musk argued that SpaceX needed around $124 million to fund service for the rest of 2022, because less than half of deployed Ukrainian Starlink terminals were being regularly paid for (Starlink-enabled internet access requires a regular subscription). Although public and private organizations had been paying for Starlink upkeep, Musk noted that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) itself had not spent any money on providing satellite coverage—this was later confirmed by a DoD press secretary. The backlash was immediate. Reports that the Pentagon was considering using funds from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to maintain the satellites only added fuel to the fire. Soon after, Musk publicly announced on Twitter that SpaceX was rescinding its funding request and would continue to provide satellite coverage for Ukraine, even though he claimed on Twitter that “Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $.” 

The breakdown in communication between the American government and SpaceX was an avoidable and unnecessary risk to Ukrainian security. Even if SpaceX continues to consistently fund Starlink satellites, the ordeal revealed the startling vulnerability of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure and the weakness of American guarantees to protect it. Many critics rightly argued that critical national security issues should not be dictated by profit-motivated private companies, especially those which have fallen under the disproportionate influence of a single individual–in this case, Musk. This is not to say that SpaceX wasn’t generous to provide free service to Ukraine during the start of the war–it was–but American policymakers should never let private altruism determine whether or not an important defense partner has access to the internet. The Ukraine-Starlink relationship was unstable and shaky from the start. A stable agreement should have been created to ensure that Ukraine had consistent access to Starlink technology. If the Department of Defense is willing to commit billions of dollars towards military aid, it should have the foresight to ensure that satellite terminals donated by a private company are paid for.

European nations quickly came to realize this oversight. Frazzled by the seemingly indiscriminate threat that Musk leveled at Starlink funding, they have begun discussing the establishment of a fund to pay for the program independently. Of course, questions remain as to whether or not a partnership with SpaceX can be stable at all, regardless of financial compensation. The historical success rate of public-private partnerships over critical infrastructure is mixed at best. Yet Ukraine is largely dependent on Starlink satellites for stable communications and internet connectivity. Although the Pentagon argued that Ukraine can partner with other companies on satellite technology, Starlink is cheaper and more widely available than other satellite systems, and some predict that it might be a year before another comparable option becomes available. Cooperation with SpaceX might be a necessary hurdle for Ukraine to overcome in the short term.

The entire Starlink ordeal highlights the risks of making high-level national security infrastructure the responsibility of private companies that are expected to act out of supposedly ‘altruistic’ interests. The lack of a structured agreement with SpaceX created an inherent risk that American policymakers could have easily avoided. While it is easy to criticize Musk for his erratic social media presence and seemingly arbitrary, and dangerous, decision to demand compensation for Starlink after providing coverage for over a year, the responsibility ultimately lies on American policymakers to ensure that national foreign policy interests are protected. Policymakers should anticipate situations where commitments to our nation’s allies may be questioned, and develop secure contingency plans which guarantee that such commitments remain stable and reliable. Without that reliability, we risk a far more chaotic and disorganized American strategy.

 Joe Karaganis is a first-year in Columbia College interested in Philosophy and Political Science. You can probably find him in Butler or, when he’s willing to make the trip, Avery.