<
article id=”post-952114″>
“Were Starlink to be turned off,” Elon Musk wrote, “the Ukrainian front line would collapse immediately.”
The line appeared in a thread in which he admitted throttling Ukraine’s service and accused its military of using Starlink “for offensive drone strikes to kill people.” The loophole, he said, had been closed the week before.
Taken at face value, the episode is a billionaire’s temper colliding with someone else’s war. But defense ministries from Manila to New Delhi to elsewhere in Asia should read it as a contract notice.
Musk said Washington controls any change to Starshield, the military version of Starlink. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the matter is “governed by a private commercial contract.”
US Vice President JD Vance hinted at coordination with Musk, while Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denied any involvement. The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk ordered the slowdown himself, around the time of phone calls with President Donald Trump. Each official pointed at someone else while Ukraine’s drones fell from the sky.
An adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said the cap on Starshield was 160 kilometers an hour. Ukrainian interceptors chasing faster Russian drones lost guidance, and commanders reported lost aircraft.
A switch that nobody owns is a convenient tool for a government that controls it. For a government that rents Starlink, including for defense purposes, it is a liability with a monthly fee.
Southeast Asia increasingly rents Starlink’s service. The Philippine Navy’s unit in Palawan operates US-supplied uncrewed vessels that report to shore over Starlink. In February, coast guard spokesman Jay Tarriela said Starlink connections on Philippine ships near the Scarborough Shoal contested with China in the South China Sea had been jammed.
Manila already knew Beijing-controlled jammers could potentially cut a link from outside. Kyiv has now shown that the vendor can cut it, too.
Every Asian defense ministry that rents Starlink services should be asking three urgent questions. First, how does SpaceX, the company that owns and runs Starlink, define “offensive?” Musk insists Starlink’s terms have always described a civilian system. Kyiv denies breaking them.
Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, put the obvious question back to Musk: “What do you think defending your country is?” A day after the Pentagon’s LUCAS attack drones first flew in combat over Iran, Musk wrote that putting a commercial terminal on a weapon system breaks Starlink’s terms. If that binds the US military, then it binds the Philippine Navy, too.
Second, what happens to prices in wartime? Reuters reported in May that SpaceX pushed the Pentagon from about $5,000 per terminal toward an aviation tier costing about $25,000, and that the Pentagon agreed to pay, almost doubling the cost of a LUCAS drone priced near $30,000.
Musk said the Reuters report was false. Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s commercial satellite office says it is hunting for Starlink competitors, presumably for a better deal. Yet the Pentagon, which supplies about a fifth of SpaceX’s revenue, the Pentagon, reportedly paid up. A Coast Guard ship patrolling the South China Sea is unlikely to get better terms.
Third, who can force a reversal of an arbitrary Starlink shutdown? A bipartisan group of senators prepared holds on Trump’s nominees until full Starlink-Starshield access was restored to Ukraine, and Trump then apparently asked Musk to lift the limits. Service was restored because Kyiv has friends in the US Senate. No ASEAN capital likely has comparable pull.
Asian capitals had begun doing the math before Musk posted anything. In June, security agencies under India’s Home Ministry withheld Starlink’s final clearances, partly because terminals had turned up in the Iran war, where Starlink holds no license.
South Korea approved a plan in July for a domestic low-orbit network by 2035, justified as a matter of communications sovereignty. Malaysia’s MEASAT signed with SpaceSail, the Chinese operator whose Qianfan constellation passed 200 satellites in orbit this year.
Singapore opened a national space agency on April 1 with connectivity in its remit. Singtel already sells shipowners a multi-orbit service that switches between Starlink and geostationary capacity, so ships leaving Singapore can buy that failover today. But the region’s navies have yet to write it into their tenders.
None of this is an argument for abandoning Starlink. Nothing else in orbit matches its density or its price per terminal. Qianfan is a fraction of its size, Korea’s network is nine years out and few ASEAN treasuries could fund a constellation of their own. For the next decade, the region will rent capacity in someone else’s sky, American or Chinese, and the contract is the only leverage it holds.
Any government buying satellite capacity for security use should therefore define permitted use in the contract before the first terminal ships, not after the first confrontation with an adversary.
The same contract should guarantee 72 hours’ notice of any change to speed or coverage, and a price lock during a declared emergency; the Pentagon has already watched its terms rewritten and inflated in the middle of a war.
Disputes belong in arbitration outside the vendor’s home jurisdiction, and Singapore’s arbitration center is as impartial as it gets in the region. Tender specifications should require terminals that can switch between at least two constellations, as Singtel’s service already does for cargo ships.
A single government asking for these protections risks getting Kyiv’s treatment. Several asking together have the leverage to win better terms.
The obvious venue to ask was Cebu, where ASEAN defense ministers met there on October 28. The ADMM-Plus followed a day later, with eight dialogue partners, the United States and China, whose companies sell the region its satellite capacity.
The Manila Joint Declaration found room for artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and the blue economy, but space and satellites do not appear in the document. The ADMM-Plus produced a joint statement on youth, peace and security.
The Philippines and India will co-host a 2027 conference on maritime security resilience amid emerging technologies, offering another opportunity to engage Starlink jointly. A patrol boat that loses its link near a disputed shoal in the South China Sea is a maritime security issue by any reading.
If commercial satellite terms are missing from that meeting’s agenda as well, the region will one day learn Kyiv’s lesson the way Kyiv did – through an arbitrary, unaccountable suspension of Starlink when the service was needed most.
Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs. He has been a regular contributor to publications such as Newsweek, The Hill, Nikkei Asia, South China Morning Post, Foreign Policy in Focus, Info Libre, Brussels Morning, TRT World and Asia Times.
