Ukraine’s Vulnerability in a Corporate-Driven War: The Satellite Failure

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