What if Starlink Goes Dark Over Ukraine?

By Mil.gov.ua, CC BY 4.0

The last time I wrote an article that was critical of Elon Musk, nearly half of my audience here came to his defense. This illustrates the power of the cult of personality: when a public figure is excessively glorified to the point where their image becomes heroic — they attract cultists.

Of course, this was before we all knew he was a full-blown nazi, much more dangerous than Donald Trump because unlike Trump who is asset-rich and cash-poor, Elon has a Scrooge McDuck-sized money vault.

Now, Elon Musk is once again at the center of the Ukraine war debate, this time suggesting that if he were to pull the plug on Starlink, Ukraine’s front lines would collapse.

Naturally, this sparked a diplomatic spat, some chest-thumping, and plenty of social media bickering. But beyond the drama, let’s break down what’s actually at stake here.

The Backbone of Ukraine’s War Effort

First, he’s not wrong. Removing Starlink access would be devastating to Ukraine’s war effort.

Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet service, has been pivotal for Ukraine’s military and civilian infrastructure. With roughly 42,000 terminals in operation, the system keeps communication flowing between soldiers, hospitals, businesses, and aid organizations.

Without it, Ukrainian forces would have to rely on traditional communication methods — many of which Russia can easily jam or intercept.

On the battlefield, Starlink enables real-time data sharing for reconnaissance, artillery coordination, and drone operations. Ukraine’s Delta Battlefield Management System — a sophisticated command-and-control platform — relies on Starlink to integrate intelligence from satellites, drones, and electronic warfare sources.

This allows Ukrainian commanders to make quick, informed decisions in an environment where seconds matter.

Drones, both in the air and at sea, are another critical asset tied to Starlink. Ukraine has successfully used long-range drones for surveillance, direct attacks, and naval operations in the Black Sea.

Many of these UAVs, including hybrid models that switch between autonomous cruise and manual FPV control, depend on Starlink for high-bandwidth communication.

Without it, Ukraine’s drone warfare capabilities would take a significant hit.

According to excerpts from Musk’s biography by famed historian Walter Isaacson, Elon Musk refused to extend his Starlink satellite service to prevent Ukraine from using it for a sea-drone attack on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Crimea.

In September of 2023, Ukraine was going to perform a massive USV strike against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.

Like MASSIVE.

But while en route, they discovered that Starlink coverage, the primary way they communicate with USVs, was not enabled to cover the waterways around Crimea.

Ukraine contacted Musk (and SpaceX) and explicitly asked for Starlink access around Crimea.

According to Isaacson’s book, Musk “secretly told his engineers to turn off coverage within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast.” This caused Ukraine’s drone subs to lose connection and wash ashore.

Why would Musk do this?

He told Isaacson that he was worried that Russia would respond with nuclear weapons.

Don’t make me laugh.

Here’s the thing friends… According to international law, the United States, and the European Union — Crimea is Ukrainian territory, illegally occupied by Russia since 2014.

Do you think Putin is going to nuke Kyiv, or Washington DC for that matter, over Crimea?

Besides, Ukraine has every right to sink every bloody Russian military ship in Crimea, and anywhere else for that matter. The nation is at war.

At the time, Musk used the good ole “terms of service” as a defense, claiming they “clearly prohibit Starlink for offensive military action, as we are a civilian system, so they [Ukraine] were again asking for something that was expressly prohibited.”

But that’s not how any of this works. The US and EU governments are paying millions of dollars to SpaceX on behalf of Ukraine to use Starlink as they see fit — as essentially a US weapon system.

Besides, I looked up Starlink’s terms of service and they say nothing about the service being prohibited for “offensive military action.”

Beyond the front lines, Starlink has been a lifeline for civilian infrastructure, ensuring connectivity for hospitals, emergency services, and displaced populations.

It has also supported cyber operations, intelligence-sharing with Western allies, and securing Ukraine’s digital infrastructure against Russian cyberattacks. In short, Starlink isn’t just an advantage — it’s a necessity.

Musk vs. Ukraine, Poland, and, Well, Everyone

This latest controversy kicked off when Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski claimed that Poland was footing the bill for Ukraine’s access to Starlink. Musk, never one to let a challenge slide, shot back that Poland only pays a “tiny fraction” of the actual cost.

Things escalated when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio jumped in, accusing Sikorski of making things up and reminding everyone that without Starlink, “Russians would be on the border with Poland right now.”

Musk, never shy with his words, told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man,” and reiterated that Ukraine has no viable alternative to Starlink.

Yep, it’s infuriating.

But the Starlink controversy doesn’t stop with Poland. In a separate but related Twitter storm, Musk proposed imposing sanctions on Ukraine’s top ten oligarchs — especially those with luxury mansions in Monaco.

This came in response to Republican Senator Mike Lee, who suggested cutting funding for Ukraine altogether. Musk also took the opportunity to mock Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, amplifying Russian disinformation and implying that Ukraine was no longer a truly independent nation.

Meanwhile, Washington has been using Starlink as a subtle diplomatic pressure point. Reports surfaced that the US threatened to cut off Ukraine’s access to the service unless Kyiv agreed to the critical minerals deal.

Musk denied this, but the timing of the report — just as US military aid and intelligence sharing were temporarily frozen — raises eyebrows. The agreement, meant to secure rare earth minerals for American industry, stalled after a heated Oval Office clash between President Donald Trump and Zelensky.

As frustration over Musk’s erratic involvement grew, Ukrainian officials started looking for alternatives. French satellite operator Eutelsat is now in discussions with the European Union to potentially replace Starlink in Ukraine, a sign that Kyiv is keen to diversify its digital lifeline before Musk decides to upend the board once again.

Would Musk Really Cut Ukraine Off?

Approximate Starlink coverage (shaded) of Ukraine as of September 2023, according to the official map on the Starlink website. Areas along the Belarusian and Russian borders, Crimea, and parts of the Donbas are not covered. By CodemWiki — Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0

Musk himself has given mixed signals. In one breath, he boasts that Starlink is the backbone of Ukraine’s defense, and in the next, he suggests that the war is an unwinnable “meat grinder” and should end with peace negotiations.

In a more measured moment, he clarified that while he disagrees with US policy on Ukraine, he would never actually turn Starlink off.

However, that hasn’t stopped concerns from mounting. Musk has already restricted Ukraine’s use of Starlink in specific circumstances, including limiting its role in offensive operations.

Ukrainian officials have repeatedly raised concerns over instances where Starlink terminals suddenly stopped working in contested areas, particularly near Crimea, sparking fears that Musk is imposing de facto battlefield limitations. SpaceX has also refused to extend Starlink coverage over Russian-occupied areas, which Ukrainian forces have interpreted as an indirect handicap in their counteroffensive efforts.

Additionally, Musk’s cozying up to high-profile figures advocating for an end to US aid to Ukraine raises suspicions about his long-term intentions. His recent social media activity has increasingly aligned with voices calling for de-escalation, despite overwhelming evidence that Russia remains the aggressor.

His public statements about wanting to “end the slaughter” may sound noble, but critics argue they ignore the realities of Russia’s continued territorial ambitions.

Even if Musk personally insists that Starlink will never be used as a bargaining chip, the broader geopolitical landscape suggests otherwise. The US government has already floated the idea of taking direct control over Ukraine’s Starlink access, possibly as part of future military aid packages.

The Pentagon’s involvement in partially funding Starlink terminals for Ukraine means Musk may not have the final say in a potential shutdown.

What Happens If Starlink Did Go Dark?

Ukraine relies on Starlink for everything from battlefield management to artillery coordination. The Delta Battlefield Management System, which gives Ukrainian commanders real-time situational awareness, is entirely dependent on the satellite network.

A sudden loss of Starlink would have far-reaching consequences across Ukraine’s military and civilian sectors.

On the battlefield, Ukrainian forces would be forced to rely on more vulnerable radio and cellular networks, which Russia has already demonstrated it can jam or intercept. This would severely impact frontline communications, delaying or completely disrupting the coordination of defensive and offensive operations.

Ukrainian drone warfare, a cornerstone of its military strategy, would be particularly affected. Many of Ukraine’s long-range and hybrid drones, which rely on Starlink for high-bandwidth video streaming and remote piloting, would either lose functionality or suffer from severe latency issues.

This would degrade Ukraine’s ability to conduct precision strikes, gather real-time intelligence, and execute maritime drone attacks in the Black Sea. Without Starlink, Ukraine’s dominance over the Western Black Sea would erode, giving Russia more operational freedom.

Artillery coordination and precision strikes would also take a hit. The ability to guide HIMARS, long-range artillery, and missile systems depends on rapid, secure communication.

Without Starlink, relaying targeting data would slow down, making strikes less accurate and giving Russian forces more time to reposition and evade attacks.

Beyond the battlefield, Starlink’s shutdown would create immediate logistical and humanitarian challenges. Medical evacuations, resupply missions, and command-and-control operations all rely on secure digital communications.

Without reliable connectivity, Ukrainian units in remote or contested areas would struggle to coordinate reinforcements, supplies, and emergency medical aid.

The impact on intelligence-sharing and cybersecurity would be another major concern. Ukraine depends on Starlink to securely communicate with NATO and Western allies, providing real-time battlefield updates and coordinating military aid.

A sudden blackout would disrupt these critical channels, leaving Ukraine more vulnerable to Russian cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns.

On the civilian front, hospitals, emergency services, and humanitarian aid organizations would face significant disruptions. Starlink has been a vital lifeline for maintaining internet access in war-torn regions where infrastructure has been destroyed.

A shutdown would leave millions of Ukrainians disconnected, impacting everything from emergency response efforts to basic communication with loved ones.

While Ukraine has begun exploring alternative satellite providers, no current system matches Starlink’s bandwidth, low latency, and resilience against electronic warfare.

France’s Eutelsat has entered talks with the European Union to provide a backup solution, but integrating a new system would take time and resources. In the interim, Ukraine would be left scrambling to patch together a less reliable communications network.

Moscow, of course, is well aware of Ukraine’s dependence on Starlink and has thrown everything it has at disrupting it. Russia’s electronic warfare (EW) capabilities are some of the most advanced in the world, leveraging a multilayered, multi-domain approach to degrade Ukrainian battlefield communications.

However, Starlink has proven remarkably resilient in the face of these attacks.

One of Russia’s primary tools in this EW campaign is the Borshchevik tactical system, which detects Starlink terminals by scanning for Ku-band radio signals.

This system can pinpoint Starlink terminals within a range of up to 10 kilometers, making them vulnerable to targeted strikes using FPV drones, artillery, or precision-guided munitions.

To counteract this, Ukrainian forces have developed techniques such as shielding Starlink terminals in pits or using metal mesh to reduce their signal emissions and avoid detection.

Another major component of Russia’s EW arsenal is the Tobol system, designed to jam satellite uplinks and disrupt GPS signals. While its exact effectiveness remains uncertain, Ukraine has acknowledged that Starlink connectivity has, at times, been degraded due to Russian jamming attempts.

However, SpaceX has responded by deploying rapid software updates and using narrow-beam encrypted signals, making it significantly harder for Russia to successfully jam Starlink communications.

Beyond traditional jamming, Russia has also explored cyberattacks against Starlink’s infrastructure. The country’s military hackers have attempted to compromise the satellite network, though SpaceX has thus far managed to fend off these efforts.

In one particularly notable case, Ukraine’s Minister of Digital Transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, confirmed that Russia is constantly testing new methods to interfere with Starlink, further emphasizing the service’s importance to Ukraine’s war effort.

Despite Russia’s best efforts, Starlink’s decentralized, low-Earth orbit (LEO) architecture gives it a significant advantage over conventional geostationary satellite communications, which are more susceptible to interference.

By utilizing a vast network of satellites and frequent system updates, Starlink has managed to maintain its role as Ukraine’s most reliable communication tool on the battlefield.

Despite the rhetoric, a complete shutdown of Starlink in Ukraine is unlikely for several reasons:

First, Starlink isn’t just helping Ukraine — it’s also supporting US and NATO intelligence-sharing and missile defense coordination in the region.

Second, cutting off a key ally in the middle of a war would be a PR disaster for both Musk and Washington — although admittedly, Trump seems to be fine with this at the government level. A private company is a different matter.

Third, there is a lack of alternatives. While France’s Eutelsat is in talks to offer a backup system, nothing matches Starlink’s speed, low latency, and resilience against jamming.

Despite these challenges, a Starlink shutdown would not be an immediate death blow to Ukraine’s war effort. The country has demonstrated remarkable adaptability in overcoming technological and logistical obstacles.

Workarounds, such as distributing more hardened radio communications and expanding fiber-optic networks in safer areas, could mitigate some of the disruptions. However, the loss of Starlink would undoubtedly weaken Ukraine’s operational capabilities and give Russia a significant advantage.

At the end of the day, Musk’s latest social media outburst is more noise than substance. Ukraine isn’t about to lose Starlink, and even if Musk wanted to flip the switch, the geopolitical stakes are too high for Washington to allow it.

That said, this whole saga puts an exclamation point on an uncomfortable reality: Ukraine’s war effort is still, in part, dependent on the whims of a man-child billionaire who enjoys stirring the pot. And if any of this makes you a little uncomfortable, then good; you are experiencing the right amount of discomfort.

That’s it for today, friends.

Crimea is Ukraine.

Слава Україні!