Subscribe to our newsletter and stay informed
In a revelation that underscores the intricate interplay of technology and geopolitics, Elon Musk recently disclosed that he intervened to thwart a Ukrainian military operation against Russia by refusing to activate Starlink, his satellite internet service. While Musk asserts that he aimed to avoid complicity in a "major act of war," this episode raises profound questions about the influence of billionaires in matters of global military significance.
The account, unveiled in Walter Isaacson's forthcoming biography of Musk, recounts a scenario from 2022 when Ukraine planned an offensive against Russia's navy near Crimea. The success of this operation hinged on Starlink for connectivity, but Musk declined Ukraine's "emergency request" to activate the service. As a result, the unmanned vessels lost connectivity and posed no threat to the Russian navy.
On the surface, this appears as a straightforward matter – a government requested a service from a private company, and the company's leader deemed it inappropriate and refused. However, this incident exposes the risks associated with relying on private entities for military endeavors. In essence, Musk, though indirectly, played a role akin to that of a mercenary or arms dealer, albeit without direct involvement in violence.
Yet, there is a more disconcerting interpretation of these events. An American billionaire made a unilateral military decision for a foreign ally, prompting concerns about the influence wielded by individuals outside the military-industrial complex.
Musk's rapid promotion of Starlink for use by Ukraine following Russia's invasion brought the technology to the forefront, leading to his pivotal role in this situation. However, it raises questions about the appropriateness of Musk offering a crucial service to support Ukraine, only to withdraw it at his own discretion.
Musk defended his decision, stating that compliance would have implicated SpaceX in a "major act of war and conflict escalation." While this justification has merit, it lacks critical context. Starlink had already enabled numerous military actions, and Musk's comparison of the situation to a "mini-Pearl Harbor" is seen by many as misguided, considering the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Mykhailo Podolyak, advisor to the Ukrainian Prime Minister's office, highlighted the gravity of Musk's decision, noting the inevitable human cost it incurred. The dilemma Musk faced transcended a mere business choice; it involved determining who would live or die in a distant war.
The question arises not about Musk's capacity to make such choices but whether any individual in a similar position of civilian or commercial power should be entrusted with such decisions. As Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion and prominent activist, succinctly put it: "SpaceX & Starlink are marvelous, but if Musk's delusional 'anti-war' agenda leads him to interfere with their services to Russia's advantage, it's a huge risk."
