Starlink in Ukraine: Musk admits the throttling, Europe must end its space dependence

The network is back, the question remains. On Saturday 24 October, Ukraine announced it had recovered a stable connection to Starlink and to Starshield, its military version, after several days of throttling that disrupted its drones on the front line. The same day, Elon Musk acknowledged on X that SpaceX had indeed restricted the service, accusing the Ukrainian army of breaching its terms of use. For Europeans, who fund a large share of these terminals, the episode raises a simple question: who decides, in the last resort, on the connectivity of an allied army?

The facts

According to the Belga news agency, as carried by La Libre, Elon Musk said on Saturday that the Ukrainian army was using Starlink for offensive drone strikes, which the service's terms do not allow. He added that this loophole had been "fixed last week", while specifying that Starshield is controlled by the US government, leaving Washington responsible for decisions on that side.

The first disruptions date back to 13 and 14 October. According to several Ukrainian and European media, the terminals lost their connection above roughly 160 km/h, which directly affects interceptor drones. On 16 October, Reuters, citing two US officials and a Western official, reported that the order to limit Starshield allegedly came from the White House and was passed on to the Pentagon, the service's main customer. A White House source nevertheless insisted that the order did not come from Donald Trump himself, as RTBF noted. The US president has since said he did not make that decision, according to the Associated Press.

As reported by the AP, carried by PBS, Ukrainian commanders described lost drones and disrupted missions during the throttling period, at the very moment Russia was stepping up its air attacks.

The positions at stake

Elon Musk defends a principled line: Starlink is said to be a civilian service, whose use for killing has never been allowed. This argument deserves a hearing. A private company can legitimately refuse to let its commercial product become a weapon, and the United States may wish to keep control over a military tool it finances.

Kyiv disputes the facts. Serhii Beskrestnov, adviser to President Zelensky on defence technology, found it "very strange" that the head of SpaceX was unaware of the restrictions already in force, according to the AP. In his view, drones connected to civilian Starlink are capped at between 70 and 90 km/h in Ukraine and do not work in Russia, which would make any deep strike impossible. Volodymyr Zelensky had already stated that the system was used to repel Russian drones.

On the European side, the assessment is clear-eyed but uncomfortable. On 16 October, in Brussels, the Union's top diplomat acknowledged the continent's limits.

Europe cannot replace this capability in the short term. — Kaja Kallas

Poland, which according to Warsaw funds nearly 29,000 terminals for Ukraine, was the most outspoken: its foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, publicly challenged Elon Musk on X as early as 14 October.

The analysis

This episode cannot be reduced to a quarrel between a billionaire and a government. It reveals a strategic fragility. An army that Europe supports, with terminals partly paid for by Europeans, saw its capabilities reduced by a decision taken elsewhere, without anyone yet knowing precisely by whom. Whether the order came from a company or a foreign administration, the result is the same: sovereignty cannot be shared with a supplier.

France learned this lesson long ago. It was in the name of national independence that General de Gaulle wanted nuclear deterrence, and that Europe acquired Ariane and then Galileo, so as no longer to depend on American GPS. Connectivity in space is the new ground for this requirement.

The European response exists on paper. According to the European Space Agency, the agreement signed on 7 August expands the IRIS² constellation to 348 satellites, with first launches targeted for 2029. But Euronews points out that the initial timetable was two years earlier and that launch capacity remains a bottleneck. Until then, Ukraine, and perhaps other partners tomorrow, will remain dependent on choices made across the Atlantic.

It would nevertheless be unfair to turn this affair into a trial of the United States. The Atlantic alliance remains indispensable, and Starlink has played an important role in Ukrainian communications since 2022. The point is not to break away, but to rebalance: an ally is not a sole supplier.

Conclusion

This dependence has a cost, and it is not only military. Investing in IRIS², in launchers and in European operators also means protecting industrial jobs, guaranteeing public and secure access to communications, and not leaving a strategic asset to market logic alone. France, one of the main contributors to the European space effort, should propose that the Union's next budget ring-fence these funds and speed up the timetable. One question remains open: how many more warnings will it take before Europe gives itself the means to have its own voice in space?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.