In the 21st century, power may not belong only to those who control territory, weapons, or oil. It may also belong to those who control the internet connecting an army on the battlefield.
Elon Musk's Starlink has brought that very question into focus after controversy over satellite communications used by Ukraine's military. Now, as Musk pushes for Starlink's entry into India amid a public dispute with Mukesh Ambani, the stakes go beyond business rivalry.
What happens when a private company's decisions can affect a country's communications during a crisis, particularly when its interests may not align with those of the country depending on it?
According to a report by The Telegraph, Musk approached US President Donald Trump with a proposal to restrict the speed of Starshield, SpaceX's military-grade satellite communications system used by Ukraine. The report, citing sources familiar with the discussions, claimed the restrictions affected Ukraine's ability to intercept Russian drones. Musk denied responsibility, saying decisions on restrictions were made by the US military and ultimately Trump.
Trump, in turn, denied ordering the restrictions and said he did not believe Musk was responsible either. The Pentagon also had not publicly explained who authorised them.
The power to disconnect
In the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, satellite connectivity has become increasingly important as both sides rely heavily on drones for surveillance and combat operations. These systems depend on reliable communication links to transmit information, coordinate drone activity, and maintain control over aircraft operating far from their pilots.
Starshield, the military-grade version of Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network, is designed to support communications with drones operating at high speeds. According to the report, a speed cap was imposed on Ukraine limited drones using the system to around 160 kmph, making it virtually impossible for them to intercept Russian jet-powered drones and missiles travelling at roughly twice that speed.
If the allegations hold true, it showshow asatellite company operating the network does not need to fire a single shot to influence how a military operation should go in whose favour.
Musk versus Ambani: More than a business battle?
The debate over Starlink’s entry into India has become increasingly public. Musk has accused unnamed business interests of trying to block the service to protect their dominance in the telecom market. He subsequently questioned on social media whether Reliance Industries chairman MukeshAmbani was the “real boss of India”, bringing Reliance Jio directly into the controversy.
Musk also addressed the billionaire as “Prime Minister Ambani” in a sarcastic X post.
The government has rejected Musk's allegations, saying three satellite communications operators are at broadly the same stage of the regulatory process, with security assessments underway. Reliance has also said it welcomes competition and that its satellite communications venture is awaiting the necessary clearances.
Starlink has obtained key permissions and built 20 gateway sites in India, according to SpaceX executive Lauren Dreyer. However, its commercial launch remains subject to outstanding regulatory and security requirements.
For India, the benefits of Starlink could be considerable. But the government must also ensure that providers comply with Indian law and that critical communications remain reliable, including the safeguarding of users' personal data.
What remains less clear is just how much influence a satellite internet provider can exercise over the people and institutions depending on its network, and how far its decisions can go. Ukraine's experience has exposed a question that countries should not ignore.
Dreyer has assured that Starlink would follow India’s security rules and keep Indian users’ data within the country.But whether these promises will hold up in practice is another question.
Currently, Starlink’s satellite internet service is available in more than 160 countries, territories and markets worldwide.
India’s Starlink Dilemma
Satellite internet could bring connectivity to remote villages and far-flung areas without the need to lay extensive cables or build conventional network infrastructure, while urban users could also benefit from additional high-speed internet options.
However, if India were to rely heavily on Starlink (maybe even become a ‘monopoly’at some point), Musk could potentially wield significant influence over a network that people and institutions depend on, even if any restrictions would be subject to applicable Indian regulations.
The situation could almost be similar in the case of X, formerly Twitter, which Musk acquired in 2022 and now owns. His control over the platform gives him significant influence over its policies, moderation decisions and the accounts that can use it.
Though the two serve different purposes, both Starlink and X show how much influence a single billionaire can have over the technology people use every day.
This is not to suggest thatElon Musk will necessarily restrict Starlink's services in India over some political reason suddenly. The Ukrainian case also involves military-grade Starshield, not simply the commercial broadband service proposed for India.
The point is that a foreign company's commercial decisions, technical policies or obligations to another government could affect a network that Indian users may eventually depend on.
While Reliance Jio and Bharti-backed Eutelsat OneWeb are also pursuing satellite connectivity in India, Starlink could gain an early-mover advantage if it receives the remaining regulatory clearances and launches its service first.
Musk may never face a moment when his company's decisions directly affect India's communications. But the country should not build critical dependence on the assumption that it never will.