Elon Musk, the American entrepreneur and billionaire, used the social platform X to address questions about Starlink in Crimea, stating that access had not been restricted by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. He also noted that his company SpaceX did not activate its satellite system in the region at the outset.
He wrote that the areas where Starlink is supposed to operate had not been activated and that SpaceX had not disabled any service. This response came amid reports claiming that engineers were secretly instructed to turn off Starlink during a major Ukrainian offensive to prevent Ukraine from launching attacks on the Russian navy.
Simultaneously, Musk confirmed receiving an urgent request from Ukrainian authorities to expand Starlink coverage as far west as Sevastopol. He explained that Kyiv appeared to aim at sinking a substantial portion of the Russian fleet, a goal he described as escalating the conflict if SpaceX were to comply.
In his post, Musk warned that honoring such wishes would place SpaceX squarely in the middle of a potential act of war, stressing that both sides should pursue resolution through negotiated talks rather than unilateral actions. The exchange touched on the broader debate about private sector involvement in wartime communications and the responsibilities that come with it.
Earlier coverage from CNN referenced a biographical work by Walter Isaacson that portrays Musk as having restricted Starlink operations in Crimea in 2022 to deter a Ukrainian strike on Russian naval forces. The account suggested Musk made that move amid fears Russia might respond with nuclear options in what was described as a modern-day parallel to a strategic surprise. The attribution is drawn from Isaacson’s writing and related reporting at the time .
Former American journalists have also commented on Musk’s public persona, noting that he can shift into a highly assertive, sometimes controversial mode during high-stakes moments, a pattern discussed in various profiles and interviews that accompany ongoing coverage of his ventures and public statements. The commentary reflects the broader tension around a private company navigating war-time communications and geopolitical risk, alongside questions about the role of technology leaders in international crises .