Posted by 
There has been a great deal of speculation about whether Elon Musk might deny Ukraine access to his satellite network system, Starlink – and what might happen if he did.
Musk fuelled talk of a possible shutdown when he posted recently that: “My Starlink system is the backbone of the Ukrainian army. Their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off.”
He later denied that he would ever do so or use the satellites as a bargaining chip. But along with the temporary US pause in some military intelligence sharing (which is now due to be lifted), the suggestion may have contributed to the pressure on Ukraine to agree to the US ceasefire plan, which the two countries have now put to Russia.
The episode has certainly demonstrated the danger posed when there is an overreliance on a system that is largely controlled by private sector players who can refuse access whenever it suits them, and an intelligence provider that has arguably become an unreliable ally.
Since the beginning of the conflict in 2022, Starlink has been a vital component of Ukraine’s defence capability. As well as providing communication for troops where there is no mobile coverage, Starlink is used on the Ukrainian frontline as part of its drone command and control system.
If Musk were to remove its services, then Ukraine’s ability to challenge for control of the air would be severely damaged.
Ukraine’s dependence on Starlink shows a degree of strategic naivety. While Kyiv would have certainly expected US support to continue after Donald Trump’s election, it should arguably have taken steps to diversify its sources of technological support.
This is what Polish foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, was implying when he responded to Elon Musk’s original post by suggesting that Ukraine should seek alternatives to Starlink. After this incident, shares in French-owned satellite company Eutelsat, a European rival to Starlink have rocketed by almost 400%.
The removal of access to Imint (image-based intelligence), provided by the US company Maxar, would also affect Ukraine’s surveillance capability of Russian troop movements and the damage caused by Ukrainian attacks. That’s vital for tactical level decision making. That said, the US, while being the main provider of Imint to Ukraine, is unlikely to be the sole supplier.
One of the challenges may be how far western nations other than the US are willing and able to provide these sources of intelligence in the wake of the decisions being made in the White House.
Certainly, Ukraine can look to other nations for support in protecting its critical infrastructure networks from cyberattacks. Estonia, Latvia and the Netherlands could replace the technological support that Ukraine receives from the US.
Fighting blind
The Ukrainian public fears the casualties that further limitations on intelligence sharing could cause. But the recent pause is likely to have had a greater impact at the strategic level rather than at the tactical level.
Russia has become bolder in its efforts to make further inroads into Ukraine. The prospect of a potential ceasefire combined with the very public reduction in American support for Ukraine has given Russia greater motivation to push forward.
Further Russian territorial gains will give it greater bargaining power in any negotiations. Trump announced last month that he felt Ukraine will have to cede Ukrainian sovereign territory to Russia as part of any peace deal. This has recently been confirmed by the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio.
Further military successes, whether Russian advances in Ukraine or the seemingly inevitable pushback of the Ukrainian counter in Kursk, will result in greater diplomatic leverage for Putin.
Of course, now that Ukraine has agreed to a 30-day ceasefire the path is open to even more serious peace talks. But the episode illustrates how vulnerable Ukraine, or any smaller nation, is to a larger power’s aggression or bullying.
Five eyes, one blinking?
There are wider implications too. The limitation of US intelligence sharing with Ukraine will also have placed greater strain on the Five Eyes alliance. This intelligence-sharing network comprising the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, has come under scrutiny recently.
According to media reports last month, White House official Peter Navarro, a close advisor to Donald Trump, called for Canada to be removed from the alliance (although Navarro has since denied this). Whether this is related to Trump’s suggestion that he would like to annex Canada is unclear.
Canada aside, Washington’s allies must be raising questions about America’s reliability as a security partner. They are willing to share their intelligence because of the inherent level of trust that has – at least until now – existed within the group.
But Trump’s recent actions and pronouncements could have caused severe damage to this level of trust. The apparent transactional nature of the White House in foreign affairs, combined with a willingness to leverage the sheer power of the United States, will continue to erode the trust of what were until recently the closest of allies.
Both Canada and the UK have publicly declared their willingness to continue their support of Ukraine in its attempts to repel the Russian invasion, despite the stance of the Trump administration.
The UK’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, is seemingly managing to walk the tightrope in maintaining an amicable relationship with both the US and Europe, for now.
But his prolonged support for Ukraine could jeopardise not just the UK’s relationship with the US but the future of the Five Eyes alliance. This seems to be the new reality that Europe is going to have to accept and work within – in the short-term, at least.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
