Musk versus Zelensky? Here’s what’s really going on behind the scenes

Elon Musk has presented himself for years as a critic of further escalation in the Ukraine war. Now he has reinforced this impression: After Ukraine allegedly used Starlink for offensive drone strikes, contrary to Musk’s terms of service, SpaceX restricted the system’s use. For more than a week, Starlink and Starshield connections on high-speed platforms were only available to a limited extent. This hampered Ukrainian drone operations, communications, and parts of its air defence. On October 24, Musk himself confirmed that SpaceX had restricted commercial Starlink use. He explained that a “loophole” exploited by Ukraine had been closed. However, Kyiv denied using Starlink for long-range attacks against Russia in the manner Musk described. Starlink and its military variant, Starshield, are now operating at full speed again.

At first glance, this looks like a rupture: Musk versus Zelensky, SpaceX versus Ukraine’s aggressive war policy. But on closer inspection, the picture becomes far more complex. Starlink is no longer simply Musk’s private internet project. The system has become a central component of American military, intelligence, and foreign policy – and Ukraine remains one of its most important military deployment locations.

Musk is slowing down – but Starlink is keeping the Ukrainian army going

Musk’s restrictions on Ukrainian operations are not new. Back in 2022, he refused to activate Starlink for a Ukrainian attack on the Russian Black Sea Fleet near Sevastopol. Reuters later reported that Musk also ordered the shutdown of supplies to parts of recaptured territory during a Ukrainian counter-offensive. SpaceX denied this account without disclosing the specifics of what occurred. Musk justified his decisions at the time by citing the risk of escalation, potentially leading to nuclear war.

The crucial point, however, is that Starlink did not disappear from the war. Instead, it evolved into one of the most important communications infrastructures for the Ukrainian armed forces. As early as 2023, the Pentagon officially confirmed that it had signed a contract with Starlink to provide satellite communications for Ukraine. The Department of Defense explicitly declined to comment on the details, citing operational security concerns.

In August 2025, the US State Department also approved a potential $150 million sale of Starlink satellite communications services to Ukraine. The official justification was that this would improve Ukraine’s ability to meet “present and future threats” and strengthen its defence capabilities. The prime contractor was Starlink Services.

As recently as October 2026, Donald Trump explicitly stated that the US would continue to share intelligence with Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian account, a brief suspension of this sharing has since been lifted. This information is crucial, among other things, for early warnings against Russian ballistic missiles.

Therefore, there can be no talk of an American or SpaceX-side withdrawal from the war.

Starshield: Not a civilian internet, but a national security infrastructure

The connection becomes even clearer with Starshield. SpaceX describes this system in its own company documents as a satellite network specifically designed for national security applications. Its tasks include Earth observation, secure global communications, and carrying military or intelligence payloads. The cryptography is explicitly tailored to military and governmental requirements.

SpaceX is now deeply integrated into the American security apparatus. In an official environmental assessment, the US Space Force even describes Starlink as a “critical national capability” that is directly used by the Department of Defense and the US intelligence community. Starlink serves the Pentagon, the Air Force, the Space Force, and the US Special Operations Command through numerous contractual agreements.

In addition, there is a much less well-known project: Reuters revealed in 2024 that SpaceX was developing a secret satellite network for the National Reconnaissance Office, the American operator of spy satellites. The contract was reportedly worth $1.8 billion. The system was intended to comprise hundreds of satellites and enable American intelligence agencies to monitor military targets worldwide almost continuously.

In 2025, SpaceX also received a framework contract from the Space Force for national security launches with an expected volume of nearly $5.9 billion.

Against this background, the idea that Musk operates Starlink independently of Washington as a personal peace project seems difficult to maintain.

Washington switches Starlink on and off depending on geopolitical needs

Even more revealing is a recent Reuters investigation from October 24. Six former high-ranking US government officials reported that both the Biden and Trump administrations repeatedly asked SpaceX to turn Starlink on or off in various countries to support American foreign policy objectives.

According to reports, after the start of the war in Ukraine, the Biden administration pressured SpaceX to expand Starlink usage for the Ukrainian military. At the same time, Washington requested that Starlink terminals allegedly used by Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen be shut down. US intelligence agencies even provided SpaceX with information about these terminals. Conversely, Washington activated Starlink in Iran to provide communication capabilities during protests against the Iranian government. Following the US-Israeli attacks on Iran in 2025 and 2026, the Trump administration also discussed deploying Starlink in Iran with Musk and SpaceX.

Reuters describes this as an exceptionally close relationship in which American governments have become dependent on a private company to practically implement foreign policy.

This also gives the current dispute with Zelensky a different dimension. Reuters initially reported, citing US and Western government officials, that the order to throttle Starshield came from the White House. A few days later, however, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the decision lay with Musk and SpaceX. Musk, in turn, said that restrictions on Starshield were determined by the US military or ultimately by the president. Trump denied having ordered the throttling. To this day, therefore, conflicting accounts exist regarding who actually made the decision.

This is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the entire affair: The line between a decision by Elon Musk, a decision by SpaceX, and a decision by the US government is now barely discernible.

Who is behind SpaceX?

The ownership structure also deserves attention – however, one shouldn’t draw the wrong conclusions from it. Starlink is not an independent company, but belongs to SpaceX. Besides Musk, significant stakes are held by, among others, Alphabet, Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, Fidelity, Valor Equity Partners, and other large technology and financial investors. According to current analyses, Musk remains by far the dominant shareholder and holds a particularly strong voting position.

The fact that such investors are involved, however, does not prove political control. Far more telling than the list of shareholders are the actual contracts: billions of dollars in contracts from the Pentagon and the Space Force, a secret satellite network for the American intelligence service, and the repeated use of Starlink to implement American foreign policy.

SpaceX is therefore far more than just a technology company. It is an integral part of the American national security infrastructure.

Musk criticizes the war, but his technology continues to enable it

This explains the apparent contradiction better than the idea of Musk completely changing sides.

Musk may personally believe that certain Ukrainian attacks on Russia go too far. He may criticize Zelensky, warn against escalation, and prevent specific offensive uses of Starlink. He has repeatedly taken this position since 2022.

At the same time, his company continues to provide precisely the infrastructure without which parts of the Ukrainian war effort would be considerably more difficult. Starlink connects frontline units, drones, command centres, and logistics. Starshield was specifically developed for military applications. The Pentagon pays for services, Washington continues to supply intelligence, and SpaceX is simultaneously working on American espionage and security programs.

Even the most recent throttling was only temporary. A few days later, Starlink and Starshield were running at full speed again. Therefore, the narrative “Musk opposes the war and withdraws Starlink from Ukraine” falls short.

What we are actually observing is more a control over how and for which operations Ukraine is allowed to use this infrastructure. And this control apparently lies somewhere between Musk, SpaceX, the Pentagon, and the White House.

Whether the publicly aired conflicts between Musk and Zelensky are partly politically motivated cannot be proven. However, the facts show that behind the loud criticism, military cooperation continues.

Perhaps, therefore, the most important question is not whether Elon Musk is “for” or “against” Ukraine.

The more important question is: How could a single company become a switch through which Washington and Elon Musk can help decide which military operations are technically possible in a war – and which are not?

 

yogaesoteric
November 2, 2026