Control of Starlink must be taken away from Elon Musk: Nobel Prize-winning economist

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has lashed out at Elon Musk saying it was time to take Starlink away from him as no private individual should have the power to make decisions that could affect a country’s national security. In a Substack post, Krugman described Starlink as a crucial military asset and argued that decisions about its use should be treated as matters of foreign policy and national security.The critique comes in response to a WSJ piece about Musk’s alleged role in Starlink disruptions in Ukraine amid its ongoing war with Russia. Musk has since admitted to restricting Starlink services in Ukraine accusing the Ukraine military of violating Starlink’s terms of service by allegedly using it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. Ukraine maintains it has been using Starlink for defensive purposes and recent disruptions had hampered its defensive operations for more than a week.Krugman believes that allowing Musk to decide when and how Ukraine can access Starlink gives him a direct influence over the war, which according to him, should rest with governments and not on business owners. “No private individual should, or indeed even have the capability to, make national security policy,” the American economist writes in the post which is titled, “It’s Time to Take Starlink Away from Elon Musk.”His comments highlight a growing concern for Ukraine -- its biggest technological advantage over Russia could also be its biggest vulnerability. Starlink has helped the country keep its military connected and operate drones against Russian forces. But because the network is controlled by Musk's SpaceX, Ukraine remains dependent on a private company whose decisions could directly affect its ability to fight, Krugman argues. Starlink is not available in Russia. Russia in fact is building its own Starlink-rival, or rather a competitor to Starshield which is essentially Starlink tailored for US defence. Why Paul Krugman wants Starlink control taken away from MuskKrugman's central argument is that private ownership should not give someone the power to make decisions that could undermine a country's security interests. He compares Starlink's importance in modern warfare to that of military equipment supplied by defence companies.To explain his point, Krugman gives the example of Lockheed Martin, which makes F-16 fighter jets used by Taiwan. He asks readers to imagine the company suddenly cutting off access to spare parts, upgrades and other support, perhaps as part of a business deal with China. According to him, the US government would not simply treat this as a private business decision. It would be expected to step in. Applying the same argument to Musk, Krugman says Starlink is now as important to modern warfare as traditional military technology. He argues that decisions about which countries can access the network should not be left to one individual.He concludes with a direct demand: “Control of Starlink must, one way or another, be taken away from Elon Musk.” He adds that it is a matter of “national security: we cannot let private individuals make foreign and defense policy, and it would be totally irresponsible to leave a crucial military asset in the hands of a racist, authoritarian conspiracy theorist”What Elon Musk says about Starlink's use in UkraineMusk, however, has defended SpaceX's position by arguing that Ukraine's military has used a civilian commercial service – Starlink – for purposes that were never permitted under its terms.In a post on X on October 25, Musk said, “Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be.” Musk also distinguished between Starlink and Starshield, SpaceX's separate service designed for military customers. He said Starshield was controlled by the US government and that decisions about its use were up to the government.At the same time, Musk has acknowledged how critical Starlink has become to Ukraine's defence. He wrote that it was the only system that could not be jammed or destroyed, at least for now, and warned that “the Ukrainian front line would collapse immediately” if Starlink were switched off. He described this as a statement of fact, not a threat.How Starlink became critical to the Russia-Ukraine warWhen Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, missile strikes and cyberattacks damaged the country's digital infrastructure. Musk initially stepped in by donating thousands of Starlink antennas to hospitals, power plants, government offices and humanitarian organisations, helping Ukraine stay connected.The Ukrainian military soon began using the network to operate drones and maintain communication on the battlefield. Starlink gave Ukraine an advantage because Russian forces did not have access to the network and could not easily jam its signals. This allowed Ukrainian drones to carry out attacks on Russian positions.But concerns about Ukraine's dependence on the system grew after a confidential memo was sent to Ukrainian military officers on October 11, warning them to prepare for a possible loss of Starlink access. According to The Atlantic, service disruptions began two days later, grounding drones and halting military operations in parts of the war zone. The report also cited two people familiar with a mission in which Ukrainian naval drones were lost in the Black Sea.The seriousness of the dependence was captured by a senior US military officer, who told The Atlantic, “Without Starlink, the war would grind to a halt.”The disruption has also drawn attention to the political implications of Starlink's control. The Atlantic reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin praised Musk at a televised summit in Moscow, calling him a genius and saying Russia remained in contact with American counterparts, including Musk, over satellite technology.That seems precisely the problem Krugman wants governments to address. For him, Starlink is no longer just an internet service. It has become an important part of Ukraine's defence, and he believes decisions over such a critical system should not rest with one private individual.- Ends