The new era of war: when geopolitics bows to chanology giants

We are used to new technoloies’ constant presence in our life. Digital systems are means though which we complete many daily tasks, so big information companies have gained a growing importance in the global market.

These are also acquiring new room in a field where usually decision making is preserved from private actors: geopolitics. As recent conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza show, this society, mut mostly personality linked to it, are becoming key actors also in international crisis.

The best example is Elon Musk’s Starlink, but actually all information giants, like Amazon, Google and Microsoft, have actively participated in recent wars’ evolutions.

Amazon’s support and its cloud service were crucial in guaranteeing Ukraine an advantage and government data protection during Russian invasion. Similarly, Microsoft actively acted to protect Ukrainian civil and government networks from possible Russian hacker attacks.

Worth remembering that these services were guaranteed on a completely voluntary basis: these private actors had no duty nor interest of sorts. These companies only chose a “party” to support and only gave their support in a silent manner, as explained by Microsoft’s President Brad Smith, who declared entering geopolitics to him was “unusual and even caused distress, but is becoming key to consumers’ protection”.

Not all actors involved are only keeping themselves basically “backstage”. Starlink is demonstrating how a single person’s choices can move giant weights, reaching the point of deciding about civil population’s life and death.

Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX and of Starlink project, has started providing, through a system of thousands low-altitude satellites, an internet connection able to reach remote territories. This service, that experts define “irreplaceable” at the moment, was the heart of continuous debates about its growing importance and influence in Ukraine and Gaza wars.

At the beginning of 2022, it was decided Kiev government could use Starlink technology, after Russian aggression swept away every communication means, making it the column of Ukrain’s resistance allowing fighting people to be always connected via radio and internet.

The situation shifted abruptly in February 2023, when SpaceX imposed some restrictions on Starlink use, prohibiting its use for “military offence reasons”, as for example checking assault drones.

Therefore, when Kiev declared the extension of the connection to Crimea territory to use submarine drones in a military operation against Russian navy located in Sevastopol city, Elon Musk decided not to accept the proposal.

“Our service terms prohibite the Starlink use to conduct military actions” wrote Musk on X, “as civil system” (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/s...). Also SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell confirmed the limitations the company is imposing on Kiev in using Starlink technology regarding military operations by drones.

Moreover, Ukrainian troops found out SpaceX system functions stop working in freed areas, preventing communication due to “geofencing” limitations. It consists in creating a virtual border on functionality and then allocating this perimeter to a given geographic area, beyond which connection stops.

Trusting such a key question to a single person caused not few doubts in public opinion, beside strong negative reactions in Ukraine, where Musk is accused of giving “Russians another chance of using navy in the Black Sea to kill more people”.

The same happened when, following communications blackout in Gaza, on socials people started invoking Musk’ and his Starlink’s intervention to provide a continued connection.

Initially, SpaceX’s CEO denied the possibility of Gaza terminals to connect to Starlink satellites, declaring doubting on who actually controlled said terminals. Public opinion kept asking for the his help, until Musk announced Starlink would support connectivity in Gaza, only to “help coordinate international organization’s camp activities”.

The actual chance SpaceX system operates freely in Gaza is a big question, though. As said by Marc Owens Jones, Middle East Studies professor at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Doha in an interview with Al Jazeera, beside the installation issue, the main question is alimentation, as West Bank territory has no fuel to allow the system’s stable operativity, at the moment.

According to Israeli government, the chance has to be considered that Hamas takes up the installations and uses them to conduct and organize terror activities. Israeli Communication minister Shlomo Karhi said it, when he busted out against Musk menacing him of closing Israeli government’s relationships to SpaceX. The company’s heads responded fast explaining that, before accessing a terminal, this has to be strictly crosschecked between the American and Israeli’s governments.

A totally different reply arrived from World Health Organization’s Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who declared the organization could benefit a lot in case the medical personnel could connect with all structures in Gaza.

What about the American government? What does the American elite think of this new private actor gaining more and more importance in fields usually closed off to single persons but reserved to nations and international bodies? Whashington kept perfectly silent on the question, as showed by Secreaty of State Anthony Blinken’s “no comment” when asked on it in an interview with the CNN.

Differently from Blinken, American Aeronautical Secretary Frank Kendall, though not openly criticizing Musk, stated the Pentagon should develop a strategy as soon as possible to relate to market structures and systems that are proving to be key to the operational functioning of State military services, with the aim to have solid reassurances on that in the future.

What emerges from public institutions’ timid and heterogeneous responses is a way not yet fully ready to confront the need to check private actors’ behavior, often operating in international security topics for economic reasons rather than fragile humanitarian ideals.