Scope Note
This essay does not claim that Elon Musk caused
the war in Ukraine, acquired Ukrainian mineral assets, entered into a secret
arrangement with Russia, or personally directed military operations. It
examines a narrower and more uncomfortable question: what happens when a
privately controlled communications network becomes part of a war’s nervous
system while its owner’s strategic and financial position rises.
The argument is analytical and interpretive. It
distinguishes between proven facts, public reporting, business interests,
political risk, and propaganda frames that may later be built around those
facts. Where the text discusses possible accusations against Musk or Starlink,
it treats them as accusation frames, not as verdicts.
This
essay does not claim that Elon Musk caused the war, acquired Ukrainian mineral
assets, or entered into a secret arrangement with Russia. It examines a
narrower and more uncomfortable question: what happens when a private
communications network becomes part of a war’s nervous system while its owner’s
strategic and financial position rises.
When speaking about Musk, it is no longer enough
to talk about Tesla, rockets, and a large ego. The war in Ukraine has revealed
another dimension: the man is not merely selling a car, a rocket, or satellite
internet. He stands at a point where connectivity, government contracts, war,
minerals, and political pressure run into the same knot.
There is no need here to claim that Musk started
the war, acquired Ukrainian mines, or signed a secret deal with anyone. Those
would be cheap and unproven claims. The real tension lies elsewhere. A business
interest does not live only in ownership. A business interest can mean access,
position, dependency, contract, a layer of control, and a valve.
Starlink is precisely such a valve.
It can be switched on. It can be restricted. It
can work in one area and not in another. It can be allowed for one user group
and denied to another. It can be civilian communications, but in war that same
connection becomes part of fire control, drones, intelligence imagery, and the
chain of command. If a connection can be regulated, then it is no longer merely
a service. It is leverage.
The war in Ukraine made this visible.
Starlink was activated for Ukraine right at the
beginning of the full-scale war. At first, it could be presented as a
humanitarian gesture: internet for a country under bombardment. But very
quickly the meaning changed. If a connection keeps a state, a military unit, a
drone, fire control, evacuation, and intelligence imagery functioning, then it
is no longer ordinary internet. It is the nervous layer of war.
And now comes the fact that cannot be left out:
Musk’s wealth rose during the years of the Ukraine war on a scale that is no
longer an ordinary fluctuation in billionaire rankings. In 2021, he was already
a historically rich man. In 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale war
against Ukraine, his wealth was estimated in the hundreds of billions. After
SpaceX’s 2026 stock market debut, talk had already moved into the
trillion-dollar range.
That cannot be written directly onto the account
of the Ukraine war. That would be too simple and too stupid. Musk’s paper value
moved through a combination of Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, artificial
intelligence, investor belief, government contracts, the space market, and
stock-market mania. But the timing is politically poisonous. During the war,
Starlink became a symbol of battlefield communications, drones, targeting,
national resilience, and military command. At the same time, SpaceX’s strategic
value grew, the Pentagon needed satellite communications, allies were learning
a new kind of war, and states understood that a communications network can be
as important as a tank battalion.
Musk’s wealth did not rise in empty space. It
rose in a world where war proved that connectivity can be the nervous system of
a weapons system.
Here comes the first division: the ability to
strike at distance and the physical front line.
The ability to strike at distance means: how far
you can make the enemy feel pain. Moscow, the Kapotnya refinery, Rostov,
Crimea, bridges, airfields, oil infrastructure, drone swarms, satellite
imagery, targeting, Starlink. This is the upper floor of war — visibility,
communications, strike depth, psychological pressure.
The physical front line means: who holds the
ground. Village, road, high ground, trench, minefield, artillery, infantry,
rotation, evacuation of the wounded. This is the lower floor — blood, mud,
ammunition, land.
Starlink belongs to the first floor, but its
effect reaches into the second. It does not take a village. It does not hold a
trench. But it gives eyes, nerves, and a chain of command to those who take or
hold villages. When Starlink works, a unit is connected. When Starlink is
restricted, darkness appears. If Starlink can be regulated geographically or by
user, then it is no longer merely communications. It is a valve.
That is why it is wrong to speak only of
“capability.” Capability sits in a spreadsheet. Ability exists at night. In
Ukraine’s case, the question is not only whether they have drones, satellites,
and Starlink. The question is whether they can use all of it repeatedly so that
Moscow, Crimea, Rostov, and refineries become uncomfortable places for the
Russian rear.
The ability to strike at distance shows how far
the war reaches. The physical front line shows who pays for land in blood and
whether they can keep it.
Then comes the question of minerals.
Musk does not need to own a mine in Ukraine. That
would be too simple an accusation and too easy to dismiss. A business interest
can be much quieter and much stronger: access, position, contract, supply
chain, dependency, a layer of control.
Ukraine has critical minerals: lithium, graphite,
titanium, manganese, uranium, possible rare metals, gas, coal, metals. Some are
in Ukrainian-controlled areas. Some lie on military maps. Some are under
Russian control or close to it. If Kyiv can no longer physically hold
territory, then on paper the mineral may remain Ukrainian, but access is
determined by the front line.
Law does not mine ore. Ore is mined by whoever
can hold the area, secure it, feed it, power it, and move it out by rail or
through a port.
Here is the hard formula:
Starlink controls connectivity.
The front line controls minerals.
A contract controls only what someone can actually access.
If some of Ukraine’s mineral wealth remains under
a Russian soldier’s boot, then the smell of old power politics appears. Not
necessarily some direct deal between Musk and Putin. That would be too direct
and too convenient. Rather, it is a Molotov–Ribbentrop-type logic in a new
package: first the map is changed by force, then comes “territorial reality,”
then negotiations, then risk assessment, then intermediaries, then business
says: we do not do politics, we merely operate in the world as it exists.
That is more unpleasant than a conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theory wants one secret agreement. The real world often works
without a signature. It is enough for a situation created by force to last long
enough for business to begin taking it into account.
Here Krupp enters the picture.
Krupp is not Musk. Musk is not Krupp one-to-one.
The parallel does not work in that crude way. But Krupp shows how a private
company, war industry, the state, and moral responsibility can melt into one
another.
Bertha Krupp inherited the Krupp industrial
empire. Gustav Krupp became its public head and bearer of the family name.
“Dicke Bertha,” or Big Bertha, tied the Krupp name to weapons, scale, and the
state war machine. Later came the Nazi regime, rearmament, forced labor,
plunder in occupied territories, and finally Lex Krupp.
Hitler did not make Bertha the ruler. Quite the
opposite. Bertha was already at the center of the ownership axis. With the 1943
Lex Krupp, ownership was reshaped so that Alfried Krupp became the sole master.
Other heirs were pushed aside, family ownership was concentrated, and the
company was made a more suitable tool for the war state. The state did not have
to simply buy the company. It reshaped its inheritance and power.
After the war came the Krupp Trial. Alfried Krupp
was convicted of crimes related to plunder and forced labor, but not of
preparing aggressive war. He was sentenced to prison and his property was
confiscated. Later he was released, his property was partly restored, and the
industrial body of Krupp remained.
The Krupp company did not end in 1945 with a bang
and a seal. The family’s direct dynastic rule ended later, when after Alfried’s
death the assets passed to a foundation and Krupp’s industrial body eventually
merged into the new corporate Germany. Family power ended. The industrial
function remained inside the system.
This is the unsettling parallel in Musk’s case:
the moral problem of a war industrialist or an owner of war infrastructure does
not end with the fact that the company makes a good product or is necessary to
the state. Necessity is precisely what makes it dangerous. If the system needs
you, your private property becomes a political instrument. If war needs you,
your technology becomes part of war. If later there is a court case or
propaganda campaign, the accusation will be: you were not outsiders; you were inside
the machine.
Musk is not an artillery manufacturer in the old
sense. His cannon is connectivity. His metal is not only steel, but satellite,
terminal, data flow, geofencing, user permission. His Bertha does not thunder
from a railway carriage; it hangs in orbit. Starlink does not make the
explosion. It makes the explosion possible, visible, guidable, or preventable.
In this sense, Musk is more Edison than Tesla.
The Tesla myth is the solitary genius, wireless energy, a great vision, and
tragic failure. Edison is laboratory, patent, capital, production, network,
investor, and reputation. Musk sells Tesla, but acts like Edison: he gathers
engineers, capital, government contracts, brand, and infrastructure.
The story of Tesla’s papers fits here from
another angle. It has not been proven that Tesla’s boxes contained ready-made
free energy or a working death ray. But the state took control of his materials
after his death, assessed them, sorted them, copied them, some later reached a
museum, and the movement of some material remained unclear. The conspiracy is
not proven. But complete verifiability was lost. If the source material was in
the hands of the state for a period of time, then the later statement “there
was nothing there” means only this: we looked, and we decided.
The same logic threatens Starlink. Not everything
has to be secret. It is enough that the valve sits in a place where later
control is difficult. Who decided? When was it restricted? Whose terminal
worked? Whose did not? Who paid? Who used it? For what purpose? How was
civilian communication separated from military targeting? These questions do
not disappear.
And then comes the prosecutor’s logic.
Russia does not need to prove that Musk wanted
war. For propaganda, the chain is enough:
terminal → drone → strike → corpse → Musk.
That is not my factual claim. It is an accusation
frame that can be built. And it can be built precisely because Starlink’s real
role in the war in Ukraine was too large to later repaint it as an innocent
internet service.
The accusation package is ready: Starlink was the
nervous system of the Ukrainian army. Starlink helped prolong Ukrainian
resistance. Starlink enabled coordination of drones and units. Musk became
richer in a world where the military value of his infrastructure increased.
Musk was not a neutral seller of communications equipment. His company stood
inside the nervous system of the front.
The methodology may be filth. But in the
information space it works. A prosecutor does not need to find one great crime.
He takes smaller, partly true pieces and builds a package of moral guilt. “Give
me a body, and I will find the statute.” Here the statutes are stacked on the
table.
The worst thing for Musk is that his defense and
his guilt come from the same place.
When Starlink works, it is indispensable.
When Starlink is restricted, he is the man turning the valve.
When he speaks of peace, people ask why his company stands in the nervous
system of war.
When he speaks of business, the mineral map appears in the background.
When his wealth rises during the war years into the trillion-dollar range,
people ask how much of that value came from a world in which war proved the
necessity of his infrastructure.
This is not an automatic conviction. But it is a
political risk that cannot be washed away with the sentence: “we only provided
internet.” If your internet is a battlefield communications layer, a nerve for
drones, an argument for defense contracts, an object of military pricing, and a
diplomatic pressure tool, then it is no longer ordinary internet.
Ukraine may need Starlink. The Pentagon may need
Starlink. Small states may fear it and desire it at the same time. An investor
may say: here is the future defense infrastructure. Russian propaganda may say:
here is a blood network. All of those claims may be partly true at once.
Here is Musk’s tightrope.
The height is not measured by Tesla stock. The
height is measured by Starlink.
Musk walks a rope beneath which there is no
circus net, but war, minerals, government contracts, dead soldiers, propaganda,
investor belief, and a possible future indictment. Starlink made Musk large in
the war in Ukraine. The same Starlink may later make him an accused figure.
And now there is one more floor below: wealth. If
Starlink were only a moral adventure, that would be one thing. But Starlink is
a revenue engine for SpaceX, part of U.S. military data infrastructure, and a
future system sold to investors. If war raises the necessity of that system, it
also raises the owner of that system. Not necessarily directly. Not one-to-one.
Not as a verdict. But enough for the question to remain on the table.
Final Q.E.D.:
Edison and Tesla laid the foundations of the
electric world.
Krupp showed how an industrialist, a family, a state, and war can fuse into one
machine.
Hitler’s Lex Krupp showed that a war state can reshape company ownership and
inheritance when an industry is strategically too important.
The Krupp family’s power ended, but the industrial body remained inside the
system.
Musk stands in another age over a similar danger: not with cannons, but with a
connectivity valve.
The ability to strike at distance shows how far
the war reaches.
The physical front line shows who controls the land.
Starlink controls connectivity.
The mineral is controlled by the force standing above it.
Musk’s wealth grew in the same age in which Starlink became the nervous layer
of war.
This is not a verdict. It is a rope. And that
rope is very high.
References
and Sources
Starlink, the
War in Ukraine, and the Communications Valve
- Reuters. “Musk says Starlink active in Ukraine as Russian invasion
disrupts internet.” 26.02.2022.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-says-starlink-active-ukraine-russian-invasion-disrupts-internet-2022-02-27/
- Reuters. “Musk ordered shutdown of Starlink satellite service as
Ukraine retook territory from Russia.” 25.07.2025.
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/musk-ordered-shutdown-starlink-satellite-service-ukraine-retook-territory-russia-2025-07-25/
- Reuters. “US could cut Ukraine’s access to Starlink internet services
over minerals, say sources.” 22.02.2025.
https://www.reuters.com/business/us-could-cut-ukraines-access-starlink-internet-services-over-minerals-say-2025-02-22/
- Reuters. “Starlink used by Russian forces deactivated on battlefield,
Ukraine says.” 05.02.2026.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/starlink-used-by-russian-forces-deactivated-battlefield-ukraine-says-2026-02-05/
- Reuters. “Ukraine working with SpaceX to stop Russian drones’ use of
Starlink, Kyiv says.” 29.01.2026.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/ukraine-working-with-spacex-stop-russian-drones-use-starlink-kyiv-says-2026-01-29/
- Reuters. “Pentagon spars with SpaceX over Starlink price hike during
Iran war.” 26.05.2026.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-spars-with-spacex-over-starlink-price-hike-during-iran-war-2026-05-26/
SpaceX,
Defense Contracts, and Musk’s Wealth Increase
- Reuters. “SpaceX surges past $2 trillion in Nasdaq debut, closes in on
Amazon.” 12.06.2026.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/after-record-ipo-musks-spacex-faces-next-test-market-debut-2026-06-12/
- Reuters. “Elon Musk becomes world’s first trillionaire: what does that
mean?” 12.06.2026.
https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW826012062026RP1/
- Reuters. “US Space Force awards SpaceX $2.29 billion contract for
military space data network.” 26.05.2026.
https://www.reuters.com/science/us-space-force-awards-spacex-229-billion-contract-military-space-data-network-2026-05-26/
- Reuters. “SpaceX wins $4.16 billion US Space Force contract for
threat-detection satellites.” 29.05.2026.
https://www.reuters.com/science/us-space-force-awards-spacex-416-billion-deal-2026-05-29/
- Forbes. “Forbes’ 35th Annual World’s Billionaires List: Facts And
Figures 2021.” 06.04.2021.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2021/04/06/forbes-35th-annual-worlds-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures-2021/
- Forbes. “Forbes Billionaires List.”
https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
- Forbes. “Elon Musk profile.”
https://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/
Ukrainian
Minerals and the Economic Meaning of the Front Line
- Reuters. “What are Ukraine’s critical minerals and what do we know
about the deal with US?” 01.05.2025.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/what-are-ukraines-critical-minerals-what-do-we-know-about-deal-with-us-2025-05-01/
- Reuters. “What are Ukraine’s critical minerals and why does Trump want
them?” 12.02.2025.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/what-are-ukraines-critical-minerals-why-does-trump-want-them-2025-02-12/
- Reuters. “US, Ukraine may wait decade or more to see revenue from
minerals deal.” 01.05.2025.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-ukraine-may-wait-decade-or-more-see-revenue-minerals-deal-2025-05-01/
- Reuters Graphics. “Mapping Ukraine’s mineral deal with the US.”
26.02.2025.
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UKRAINE-CRISIS/USA-MINERALS/gdpznylnqpw/
- Reuters. “US-Ukraine deal is heavy on symbolism, light on minerals.”
02.05.2025.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-ukraine-deal-is-heavy-symbolism-light-minerals-andy-home-2025-05-02/
- Reuters. “Russian billionaire Potanin eyes rare earth metals
exploration.” 18.03.2025.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-billionaire-potanin-eyes-rare-earth-metals-exploration-2025-03-18/
Krupp, Bertha,
Lex Krupp, and the Historical Parallel of War Industry
- Thyssenkrupp. “History.”
https://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/company/history
- Thyssenkrupp. “Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach and Bertha Krupp
von Bohlen und Halbach.”
https://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/company/history/the-founding-families/gustav-krupp-von-bohlen-und-halbach-and-bertha-krupp-von-bohlen-und-halbach.html
- Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Foundation. “thyssenkrupp AG.”
https://www.krupp-stiftung.de/en/institutionen/thyssenkrupp-ag/
- Yale Law School, Avalon Project. “Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1.”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/v1-11.asp
- Yale Law School, Avalon Project. “Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Vol.
2, Chapter XVI.”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap16_part13.asp
- United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Subsequent Nuremberg
Proceedings: Case 10, The Krupp Case.”
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/subsequent-nuremberg-proceedings-case-10-the-krupp-case
- WorldCourts. “The Krupp Trial: United States v. Alfried Krupp et al.”
https://www.worldcourts.com/imt/eng/decisions/1948.06.30_United_States_v_Krupp.pdf
- Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Big Bertha.”
https://www.britannica.com/technology/Big-Bertha-weapon
Nikola Tesla,
Wardenclyffe, and the Seizure of Papers
- PBS. “Tesla: Master of Lightning — The Missing Papers.”
https://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_mispapers.html
- PBS. “Tesla: Master of Lightning — Tower of Dreams.”
https://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_todre.html
- FBI Vault. “Nikola Tesla.”
https://vault.fbi.gov/nikola-tesla
- Smithsonian Magazine. “Nikola Tesla and the Tower That Became His
‘Million Dollar Folly.’”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nikola-tesla-tower-that-became-million-dollar-folly-11074324/
Ukrainian
Long-Range Strikes and the Moscow Attack Context
- ERR / BNS / The Kyiv Independent / BBC-based article: “Ukraine carried
out the largest attack on Moscow so far in the war.” 18.06.2026.
- Reuters. “Ukraine hits Moscow refinery in major attack on Russian
capital.” 18.06.2026.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-attacks-kyiv-with-missiles-local-authorities-say-2026-06-17/
- Reuters. “Ukrainian drone strike halts operations at Moscow oil
refinery, sources say.” 16.06.2026.
https://www.reuters.com/world/moscow-oil-refinery-damaged-ukrainian-drone-attack-mayor-says-2026-06-16/
- Reuters. “Russian regulator demands explanation after one Moscow
petrol retailer hikes prices by 19%.” 18.06.2026.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-regulator-demands-explanation-after-one-moscow-petrol-retailer-hikes-2026-06-18/
Copyright /
Rights Notice
© Esper Thompson / Thavet Atlas. All rights
reserved.
No part of this essay may be copied, reproduced,
republished, distributed, translated, adapted, publicly displayed, publicly
communicated, used as the basis for another article, video, broadcast, training
material, AI-generated derivative, or other public work without the author’s
prior written permission, except to the extent expressly permitted by
applicable copyright law.
Short quotations are permitted only where allowed
by law, for purposes such as criticism, review, commentary, reporting,
research, or scholarship, and only with clear attribution to the author, the
title of the work, and the original place of publication.
Any substantial use, republication, translation,
adaptation, or derivative use requires prior written permission from the
author.
Legal basis and reference points:
Berne Convention / WIPO: copyright protection is
generally automatic and does not require registration.
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/copyright
United States Copyright Office: fair use may
permit limited quotation for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news
reporting, and scholarship, depending on the circumstances.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
UK Government: fair dealing for quotation,
criticism, review, and reporting current events is allowed in limited
circumstances and requires sufficient acknowledgement.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright
Estonian Copyright Act, § 13 and § 19: the author
has exclusive economic rights to the work; limited quotation and other free
uses are permitted only under the conditions set by law.
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/Aut%C3%95S
