Author

Brianna Bell

Diplomacy Donald Trump Featured Geopolitics Mexico and Latin America Security and Conflict United States

Seizing the Shadow Fleet

Following a weeks-long pursuit, the United States boarded and seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic on January 7th, 2026. When the US Coast Guard first attempted to intercept the vessel last month for transporting sanctioned oil to Venezuela, it was sailing under the Guyana flag and named Bella-1. By the time of its seizure, the ship had been renamed Marinera and its crew had painted a Russian flag on its hull.

Such name and flag changes are typical of Russia’s “shadow fleet” – the ships the country uses to circumvent the G7 price cap on Russian oil exports. In order to bypass the restriction set by this price cap – which sets a maximum price at which Russian seaborne crude oil can be purchased – Russia has sought alternative shipping fleets that are not insured or financed by Western companies. These vessels have obscure ownership, are poorly maintained, and often conceal their movements by manipulating or disabling their AIS, the tracking system required on all commercial vessels for the safety of maritime traffic. Typically, the ships take such action not only in order to enjoy more permissive regulations and evade sanctions, but also to distance themselves from any association to Russia.

What’s unusual about this case however, is that Russia did not attempt to distance itself. In fact, the country did just the opposite. Not only did the Russian military move around naval assets and to protect the ship ahead of its seizure, but the country also issued a formal diplomatic request asking the US to stop its pursuit.

For years, Russia has denied using shadow vessels to transport oil and energy products. By taking such action to protect the Marinera, Russia is now saying “we are connected to the shadow fleet,” explains Elisabeth Braw, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Russia’s increased protection expands beyond the Marinera. Recent months have seen a significant uptick in shadow fleet activity, and the European Union, the UK, and the US have been increasingly cracking down on these vessels as a result. Not only have they imposed sanctions, but in some cases they have also begun resorting to military action, especially following a series of episodes in which shadow vessels were linked to damage inflicted on undersea cables. As a result, 17 shadow fleet tankers adopted the Russian flag last month, and more than 40 have done so since June 2025. According to Maritime experts, they are doing so in order to invoke the threat of a Russian response in case there are any moves to deter them.

The spectre of Russian retaliation did not stop the US from capturing the Marinera however, and American forces intercepted the ship before any Russian vessels arrived. At the time, the ship was being escorted by a Russian submarine, which threatened the possibility of a direct confrontation between Washington and the Kremlin.

This spectacle was a show of force by the US, most definitely – something which the Trump administration certainly favours. But it could have unintended consequences. As Braw says, “if you board a Russia-flagged vessel, you should have thought about it before going ahead, because the risk of retaliation is much higher.”

“On the oceans what is clear is that what is legal was not always wise,” Braw continues. And while the US’s taking of the Marinera was probably legal, it could have the potential to put American ships in danger. While the US seized the Marinera without incident, Russia has been more aggressive about protecting shadow fleet ships that are closer to its shores. With the White House vowing to continue seizing sanctioned oil tankers, many analysts and observers are concerned that this will significantly increase tensions with Russia.

Not only this, but concerns extend to the message this could send beyond Russia. The Russian Ministry has condemned the US’s seizure for breaching the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which states that “no state has the right to use force against vessels duly registered in the jurisdictions of other states.” While the US has not ratified this convention, it generally recognizes its provisions as customary law. Beyond the legal dispute itself, experts warn that actions like this could have far-reaching consequences for global maritime norms.

In a geopolitical landscape where global standards of behavior are becoming increasingly ignored, a show of force such as this could “send a message to every other country in the world […] that they can take action against vessels on the high seas,” Braw says. “And who is going to stop them?” It is becoming increasingly clear that the aggressive, if justified, actions undertaken by the US could have unintended repercussions in future global interactions.

Image source: openverse

April 1, 2026 0 comment

China East Asia Featured Geopolitics Security and Conflict

Weaponized Dependence: How the Global Reliance on Rare Earth Minerals Has Strengthened China’s Geopolitical Leverage

written by Brianna Bell

During a visit to Baotou, Inner Mongolia, in 1987, former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping famously said that while “the Middle East has oil, China has rare earths.” In retrospect, Deng was decades ahead of the rest of the world. Since his proclamation, Rare Earth Elements (REEs) have indeed become the new oil. This group of 17 minerals – critical to the manufacture of modern technologies across the energy and defense sectors – is used in everything from fighter jets, missiles, and drones to wind turbines, electric vehicles, and smartphones. As a result, these crucial, strategic resources have been thrust onto the global stage – and China has a chokehold on the industry.

China is home to a third of rare earth reserves – around 44 million tons of deposits – but through a decades-long process of strategic state intervention, the country also has mining investments on five continents and controls roughly 60% of global mining and nearly 90% of global processing capacity. As a result, China has built a commanding monopoly over rare earths, currently providing over 90% of the world’s REE supply. This control has allowed China to undercut global competitors and cement near-total control across the entire value chain, from mining and refining to manufacturing.

Now, as geopolitical tensions intensify and trade dependencies come under scrutiny, rare earths have also become a flashpoint in international policy and foreign relations.

Holding such great sway over the REE industry, China has been able to create what investment manager Louis O’Connor likened to a “tap system” which it can turn “on and off.” Seen as the world economy relies on magnets from China, any move to “turn off” the tap, restricting rare earth shipments, would result in massive ramifications felt across the globe. China therefore holds a great deal of power – and Chinese President Xi Jinping is leveraging it in ways “intended to be coercive.” In other words, Xi is using China’s “tap system” to influence foreign policy decisions and to achieve political objectives.

In 2010, for example, prompted by a territorial dispute over the East China Sea, China restricted rare earths exports to Japan. After cutting shipments of the critical metals used by high-tech companies and auto makers, Japan was left scrambling to find alternative supplies. Similarly, in April 2025, China added seven of the 17 rare earth metals to a list of export controls in direct response to US President Donald Trump’s 54% tariff imposed on the country. This move caused significant disruption to global supply chains, and major companies such as Ford and Suzuki had to pause production as a result. With the US military, tech, and automotive sectors depending on REEs, China’s action succeeded as a defensive strategy, allowing the country to hold substantial leverage as it entered into its trade and technology negotiations with the US.

So, when geopolitical tensions run high, or when moving toward a certain political goal, China has proven both its ability and readiness to weaponize global dependence on rare earth metals. Xi calls this power a “deterrent,” but Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission, labels it “blackmail.” Until countries build secure, independent capacity across the critical minerals supply chain, they remain vulnerable to potential disruptions should China turn off its “tap.” As a result, most are trying to lessen their dependency. In June, the G7 agreed to “work together and with partners beyond the G7 to swiftly protect our economic and national security” by “diversifying the responsible production and supply of critical minerals.” Other countries are similarly working to invest in alternatives to China; Australia, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Vietnam all have initiatives and investments underway to bolster REE mining, processing, magnet manufacturing, and research and development.

But the concern held by many analysts and security experts – as former Obama Administration appointee to the US Department of Defense, Dewardric L. McNeal, points out – is that REEs are still being viewed as mere commodities. The past few months and years have shown countries around the world that dependence on China’s REE industry could be disruptive at best and devastating at worst. Without diversifying their supply chains, or at least making efforts to stockpile, recycle, or invest in new rare-earth projects, countries remain susceptible to such “blackmail,” and will be affected if – and when – China decides to use its “deterrent” to chase foreign policy goals.

This outcome is avoidable only if the rest of the world grasps the fact that REEs are more than just valuable resources. Unless China is to maintain its strategic advantage, the world needs to “treat critical minerals not as commodities, but as instruments of geopolitical power.” China is certainly already doing so – and it is reaping the benefits.

Image source: Openverse

November 18, 2025 17 comments

China Donald Trump Economics Free Trade The International Economy

Shaking Hands Not Fists: US Tariffs Are Pushing Allies Towards China

written by Brianna Bell

On April 2, 2025, American President Donald Trump imposed a 10 percent tariff on all imported goods to the United States, as well as further individualized tariffs on dozens of countries. Named “Liberation Day,” the purported purpose was to “level the playing field and protect America’s national security.” But over the last month, American consumers have mainly faced a melange of economic volatility, plunging stock markets, and looming trade wars.

In mid-April, bowing to market volatility, the Trump administration recalibrated, scaling back its ill-considered tariffs for all countries except China for 90 days. But the damage had already been done. Not only did global stock markets experience their worst period since the COVID-19 crisis, but the US’s relationships with its trading partners and allies have also been greatly damaged. Now, after three months of insulting, threatening, and tariffing some of the US’s closest allies, the Trump administration is finding that most of its long-term allies and trading partners are not responding to the negotiation strategy as expected. Instead of conceding or agreeing to pay the US “a lot of money on a yearly basis,” as Trump stated was his goal, many countries are planning to retaliate by reducing security dependence or – most overwhelmingly – finding alternative trading partners to the US.

In light of this response, the country most likely to benefit from “Liberation Day” is the very country the Trump administration was attempting to target: China. Economic tensions between Washington and Beijing have been on the rise since 2018, but the first few months of Trump’s second term have seen major escalation. Sky-high tariff rates on both countries earlier this year created stress on both countries domestically, as well as significantly straining the global economy. For American consumers, it fueled concerns of higher costs and impending supply shortages at home; for the world economy – global economic downturn, sharp price hikes, and fears over a global recession. The US economy shrank by 0.3% in the first quarter, and China has experienced a slowdown in commerce.

With the world’s two largest economies on a collision course, representatives from both countries met in Switzerland over the weekend of May 10th in an attempt to reach an economic truce. Following these talks, the US agreed on Monday to cut its tariff rate from 145% to 30%, and China from 125% to 10% for the next 90 days. Global markets have reacted positively, but even US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent – who negotiated the agreement announced Monday – has acknowledged that it will take much longer to properly reset the US-China trade relationship. At a time when industries, businesses, and consumers are looking for consistency, both countries now have 90 days to attempt to reach a more permanent resolution.

Trump and his allies have hailed the agreement as proof that his aggressive tariff strategy will pay off, but others view it as a capitulation – a vacillation in Trump’s tariff strategy that has done little to assuage the uncertainty that has impacted investors, consumers, and entire countries alike. The mutual reduction in trade measures is most certainly a step in the right direction, but it is not the all-out victory the Trump Administration claims it to be. It does not reverse the damage already inflicted by increased costs, disrupted supply chains, and weakened US credibility.

Over the last few months, Trump has alienated many of the US’s allies. Now, even as China’s economy flutters, Beijing is strategizing. With many countries looking for alternatives, China is taking advantage of the US’s faltering relationships, working to position itself as a stable partner in sharp contrast to the US and Trump’s flip-flopping policies.

Stephen Collinson, a senior reporter for CNN Politics covering the White House, explains that “a unified North American trading powerhouse” has historically been one of the US’s strongest bulwarks against China. The US’s relationships, especially in the Indo-Pacific region, therefore hold a great deal of significance in the competition against its main economic rival. At the end of March, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth highlighted this importance when he toured the Indo-Pacific, pledging his support for US allies in Asia. However, it was only a week later that Trump declared economic war on some of those very same countries.

So, even as Trump tries to turn his global trade war into a one-on-one confrontation with China, he is finding that, without the support of these key allies, the US will not hold the same influence in the region, nor be able to boost its position in a fight against China.

All the while, Chinese President Xi Jinping is making economic and strategic moves in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. While Washington is promoting a message of protectionism and “America First,” Beijing is doing the opposite. “In the face of external uncertainties,” Lin Jian, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, stated in a press briefing, “China will insist on shaking hands rather than shaking fists, tearing down walls instead of building barriers, [and] connecting instead of decoupling.”

In other words, China is working to expand its circle of trading partners and diversify ties.

As part of this approach, China is embracing its neighbors. At the end of March, China, South Korea, and Japan held their first economic dialogue in five years as they sought to facilitate regional trade. Xi also kicked off a three-nation tour of Southeast Asia on April 14th, meeting with officials in Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia – three countries facing tariffs up to 46%, 24%, and 49%, respectively. Beijing has made even wider overtures of friendship, instigating dialogue with countries such as Australia and Canada, in addition to the European Union. These countries may be considered traditional US allies, but they were not left out of Trump’s effort to “level the playing field,” facing tariffs as high as 26%.

The poorest and weakest countries in the Global South had already been greatly impacted by the cutting off of US humanitarian aid. But the imposition of US tariffs has caused countries all over the world – especially in Asia and Europe – to lose confidence in their ability to trust the US. “If our partners can’t rely on us,” former US diplomat Wendy Cutler argues, “Guess what? These other countries, including China, look more attractive.”

The relationship between the US and China has been changing considerably since Beijing’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, declared in 2021 that the US could no longer “speak with China from a position of strength.” A shift in the balance of power between the US and China is underway, and with steady advancements in China’s industrial, technological, and military capabilities, this change is rapidly becoming more and more evident. China was already working to expand its alliances due to this shift, but as the US’s capacity and credibility erode due to his policies, Trump has just expedited this process.

In the past, China has not necessarily been considered a paragon of unity and certainty in the Indo-Pacific. The country has come under a great deal of criticism in recent years for fueling trade tensions and provoking its neighbors. But rather than working with Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and other countries that have been impacted by what Trump describes as China’s unfair trade practices, the US has instigated an economic “war” against its friends, “crippling our ability to deal effectively with China,” as former US national security advisor John Bolton said.

Vina Nadjibulla, the vice president of research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, explains that, while the “US is preoccupied with competing with China, it is ceding ground and losing influence by essentially making China the only possible alternative for many of these economies.” China now has the opportunity to play the foil to the US, and, by going on a “charm offensive,” many countries are facing an impossible – or for some, all too simple – choice.
Trump seems to believe he can be cavalier in his policies because he assumes that other countries cannot afford to turn their backs on the US. But with Beijing shaking hands while the US shakes fists, this belief comes under strain. If the US’s trade war with China continues in any form, it’s going to need partners. Ultimately, the balance of American and Chinese international influence depends more on each countries’ relationship with the rest of the world than it does on US-China bilateral relations. Even as the two countries meet over the negotiation table, Xi is building up key relationships for China, engaging with countries to a degree that makes it clear that he is not going to stop in Southeast Asia. “If Trump had any sense,” Bolton argues, “he would be doing the same thing.”

May 18, 2025 310 comments

President Trump standing in front of a large American flag.

Diplomacy Donald Trump International Law Vladimir Putin

Trump’s New World Order

written by Brianna Bell

Two days after Donald Trump won the United States presidential election in November, Russian president Vladimir Putin took the stage in Sochi, Russia. “In a sense,” he announced, “the moment of truth is coming.”

Now, over a month into Trump’s presidency, Putin’s declaration is taking on new meaning: the moment of truth is here, but it is here not just for Russia or the US. The ramifications of this moment of truth will reverberate on a global scale.

Trump is prioritizing might over diplomacy, and by doing so, he is effectively rewriting the rules of US diplomacy. In each new foreign policy action he has taken since the inauguration, he has revealed his “contempt for anything that looks like cooperation between the strong and the weak,” as journalist and novelist George Packer explains. This is the era of the strongman, and Trump has signaled a strong desire to rule like one. He has made clear that it is his view, just as it is Putin’s and Xi Jinping’s, that the most powerful countries should be able to determine the rules of the road, while smaller, less powerful countries have no choice but to listen and follow.

Accordingly, Trump has been flexing the US’s power from the moment he stepped into office. He has suspended aid to Ukraine; turned his back on Europe; ignited a trade war; sent asylum seekers escaping persecution in China, Iran, and Afghanistan to a remote camp in Panama; and threatened to annex Canada; bomb Mexico, buy Greenland; take over the Panama Canal; and “clean out” Gaza.

Through these actions, the US has taken a sledgehammer to its previous policy positions, alienated its allies, and lost much of its international credibility. And in exchange? Trump has garnered only trivial political gains and “great television.” Trump inherited a country of tremendous power, one underpinned by a set of strong alliances and the world’s largest economy. Now, through his actions, he is taking it apart.

On the international front, this is dangerous for three main reasons.

First, by estranging the US’s allies, Trump is chipping away at the country’s position as a dominant world leader, which will eventually undermine its influence in international affairs. Trump has created artificial crises in relations with both Denmark and Canada, two of the US’s closest allies for over 80 years. In doing so, as historian and professor Timothy Snyder contends, he has created a “bloodily moronic situation in which the United States will have to fight wars to get the things that, just a few weeks ago, were there for the asking.” Trump’s claim that the US should absorb Canada and Greenland in no way benefits the US. Instead, as French center-right politician Claude Malhuret argues, he is only proving to Denmark, Canada, and the US’s allies at large that “being his ally serves no purpose, as he will not defend you.” Without strong and dependable allies, the US’s influence wanes. Trump is therefore working the US into what has the potential to be a very tight spot: fighting meaningless battles while cut off from long-standing security advancements and diminished in international importance.

Second, Trump’s actions are likely to harm America’s long-term security. Trump has instigated a strategic surrender to Putin in an attempt to end the Ukraine war, preemptively ceding crucial and long-held positions to Moscow because he wants “to see it end fast.” Prioritizing speed, he is not considering the costs of such a deal. Putin’s ambitions go beyond Ukraine, and he is not negotiating in good faith. He has made it abundantly clear that he aims to establish a new, dominant position for Russia in Europe. A deal with Trump is not going to sway him from this goal. Therefore, Trump’s haste to reach a deal – practically granting Putin everything he wishes – will imperil Europe and make Russia a more assertive and attractive ally to the US’s adversaries around the world.

Third, Trump is rewriting international norms and expectations – and not in a good way. Jon Favreau, political commentator and former speechwriter for President Barack Obama, points out that the world has been watching every move Trump has made. As Trump has threatened to take over Canada and Greenland, demeaned Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and ceded to Putin, “all the bad actors in the world” have been watching and realizing that “Trump and the United States aren’t going to step in” if they decide to do something similar.

Consequently, this is the emerging picture of the world order: international relations and foreign policy are no longer being determined by multilateral rules and institutions. Instead, they will be decided by strongmen and business-esque deals. Former MI6 chief Alex Younger says that this is “Donald Trump’s mindset, certainly Putin’s mindset [and] Xi Jinping’s mindset.” The post-World War II world order has held for 80 years, managing to stave off wars among the great powers. But now it’s collapsing. Norms are being ignored, allies turned against, and might now makes right.

“A serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order,” Putin said in Sochi. Malhuret described it as a “war.” This is the moment of truth. What happens over the next months and years of Trump’s presidency will have far-reaching consequences that will change fundamental aspects of the US’s international relations, as well as geopolitics more broadly. The new world order is turning the previous one on its head, but this is a change – an irreconcilable struggle, a war – that will not happen quietly. “We were at war with a dictator,” said Malhuret on Europe’s stand against Putin. “Now we are at war with a dictator backed by a traitor.”

April 3, 2025 344 comments

Russia

Russia’s Escalating Hybrid War: The “Shadow Fleet” and Undersea Internet Cable Sabotage

written by Brianna Bell

“If I had a nickel for every time a Chinese ship was dragging its anchor on the bottom of the Baltic Sea in the vicinity of important cables,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis posted on X (formerly Twitter) in November, “I would have two nickels, which isn’t much, but it’s weird that it happened twice.”

Landsbergis is right. It is weird that twice now, a Chinese ship has damaged a vital undersea internet and communications cable in the Baltic Sea. But what is weirder is the fact that not just two, but eleven important undersea cables have been damaged by ships in professed accidents in the Baltic region – all in only the past fourteen months.

Beijing has denied any involvement in the two instances of dragging anchor, but in many ways, this concern is overshadowed by what many NATO countries consider to be the bigger issue at play: Russia. It is Russia, not China, that has most countries worried, as it is the presumed suspect in the other nine instances of cable damage.

Most countries suspect Russia for one main reason: since 2022, Russia has been waging a hybrid war against the US and NATO more broadly – a covert campaign of sabotage against supporters of Ukraine that is now escalating in both scope and intensity.

Sometimes referred to as “shadow” or “grey-zone” warfare, hybrid warfare is a military strategy in which a country uses both military and non-military strategies and instruments to cause instability without declaring an all-out war. Russia has long preferred “punching back at NATO in the shadows,” as journalist and Washington Post columnist David Ignatius describes. But in the past few years, these covert attacks have become far more serious. Using strategies such as cyberattacks, political manipulation, and the spread of disinformation, Russia has caused disruption and created chaos in ways that might look minor in isolation, but taken together indicate a new phase in Russia’s war against the West.

Now, as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explains, it seems that “sabotage actions against critical infrastructure” – specifically undersea cables – amount to Russia’s next stage in its hybrid war.

These claims of sabotage are further bolstered by the fact that Russia’s “shadow fleet” has become more and more active in the Baltic region over the past year. Since the start of the Ukraine war, Russia has been building up a fleet of mostly aging and repurposed ships – “shadow vessels” – which it has used to circumvent the G7 price cap on Russian oil exports. These vessels have obscure ownership, are poorly maintained, and often obfuscate their movements by manipulating or disabling their AIS, the tracking system required on all commercial vessels for the safety of maritime traffic. They also frequently change their flag registration, flying under so-called “flags of convenience” to enjoy more permissive regulations, evade sanctions, and distance themselves from Russia.

Growing steadily in number since 2022, around 17 percent of all oil tankers on the oceans today are estimated to belong to the shadow fleet. Used primarily in the past to transport Russian crude oil, it appears that these ships are now being used to conduct espionage activities for Moscow, including charting – and sometimes destroying – vital undersea cables.

In January 2025 alone, two undersea cables were destroyed by vessels suspected of being part of Russia’s shadow fleet: the Cook Island-registered shadow tanker Eagle S and the Maltese-flagged Vezhen. So at this point, “no one believes that [the] cables were cut accidentally,” as German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said. As Landsbergis makes clear in his quip regarding China, the idea that so many cables have been damaged in the same region accidentally is hard to believe. NATO is convinced, but this has led to speculation as to what Russia’s end goal might be.

These cables are what German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock calls the “communication arteries that hold our world together.” There are hundreds running across the seabed of the world’s oceans, forming a network through which most communications and internet traffic travels, as well as accounting for more than $10 trillion in daily worldwide financial transactions. A coordinated attack could therefore disable a critical piece of the world’s communications infrastructure, significantly disrupting private, government, and military communications, as well as industries that rely on such information, including financial markets and energy suppliers.

Since these cables also play a role in energy supply and production, Russia’s ability to monitor and supposedly damage these cables is “the equivalent of Russia having an off switch for a big part of Europe’s energy production,” as Foreign Policy columnist and Atlantic Council senior fellow Elisabeth Braw explains. By sabotaging these cables, Russia could have the ability to disrupt the whole of Europe.

Moscow has not claimed responsibility, but it is not going to. It is clear that Russia’s efforts to monitor and access undersea infrastructure are expanding, becoming formal, systematic, and far-reaching. As former Russian president and close Putin ally Dmitry Medvedev stated in 2023, there are no longer any constraints left “to prevent us from destroying the ocean floor cable communications of our enemies.” It is clear that Putin holds a similar view, spreading the task of maritime special operations across multiple organizations within the government, including a dedicated military unit called GUGI, or the “General Staff Main Directorate for Deep Sea Research.”

Knowing the stakes, governments are working quickly. NATO has started increasing patrols of the Baltic Sea by way of a new operation, the “Baltic Sentry,” the US and UK have instituted new sanctions on Russia’s oil sector to target the shadow fleet, and many countries have prioritized introducing and strengthening insurance requirements, port restrictions, and collective monitoring of suspected shadow vessels.

Any remaining doubts as to Russia’s culpability have practically disappeared, and NATO countries are responding accordingly. But this leaves them in a difficult situation. If the US and countries surrounding the Baltic are correct in their accusations of Russian sabotage, it amounts to a major escalation of conflict on the world stage. Even as they institute these defensive measures, many countries are questioning what such an escalation might mean, as well as what will happen next.

The fact that Russia is now likely targeting such important infrastructure in ways that have had, and will have, such enormous consequences for a large portion of the world, suggests that Moscow is becoming far more brazen in taking its war west. By targeting undersea cables, Russia aims to sow discord and uncertainty, with the likely goal of undermining Western unity in opposing Russian aggression and switching the focus from Ukraine.

The German Foreign Minister calls these cable cuttings an “urgent wake-up call,” and she’s right – it’s one we need to listen to. Living in a digitalized world, an attack on undersea cables is an attack on our communication life force. Therefore at the same time that NATO continues the fight against Russian aggression in Ukraine, it also needs to correct the vulnerable nature of undersea digital and energy infrastructure – one cannot distract from the other. In order to fully close enforcement gaps, and to avoid any sabotage operations that could plunge data and energy systems into crisis, NATO-allied countries can work to enhance intelligence sharing and monitoring, address and target flag of convenience states, and establish collective cable security standards and regulations across both the physical and digital domains.

Neither Russia nor NATO would benefit from all-out and head-on conflict, but every time one attacks and the other responds, the danger of a misstep gets worse. In every tit-for-tat action, one truth becomes more and more evident: Russia’s hybrid war is escalating, and soon it will reach a tipping point.

February 24, 2025 295 comments

Security and Conflict Technology Ukraine United States

Starlink and Ukraine: How Elon Musk’s Company Has Made Him a Key Figure in Global Affairs

written by Brianna Bell

In February 2022, two days after Russia invaded and launched a cyberattack to take down the satellite system used by the Ukrainian military, Ukraine’s Digital Minister Mykhailo Fedorov sent a tweet to Elon Musk. In the tweet, Fedorov urged Musk to do his part in aiding their war effort, asking him “to provide Ukraine with Starlink stations.” Less than 48 hours later, Musk had adjusted his Starlink satellites and sent internet-ready Starlink terminals to Ukraine.

Starlink, the satellite internet technology made by Musk’s rocket company SpaceX, has seen its influence grow over the past few years. Since 2019, Musk has been delivering dozens of satellites into orbit almost every week that can transmit high-speed internet by communicating with terminals on Earth. Today, Starlink satellites make up more than 50% of all active satellites, with around 6,426 Starlink satellites in orbit as of September 2024 – facts which have together pushed the value of SpaceX to nearly $210 billion.

But recent events have made it abundantly clear that Musk’s technology is not just a valuable technological innovation, but also a significant political tool. Starlink is often the only way to get internet access in war zones, remote areas, and places affected by natural disasters, and it has become integral to Ukraine’s war effort. Fedorov called Starlink the “blood of our entire communication infrastructure,” and indeed it has enormously aided Ukrainian success. However, the sheer magnitude of Musk’s influence over the conflict has raised some serious concerns.

Already leading SpaceX, Tesla, and X, Musk has become the dominant power in satellite internet technology. Starlink has made him a key player in global affairs, a fact he acknowledged in April 2023 when he boasted that “between, Tesla, Starlink & Twitter, I may have more real-time global economic data in one head than anyone ever.” With so much data “in one head,” Musk has become a power broker that US officials cannot ignore, especially considering his vacillating, ambiguous politics and wide-ranging business interests. With little oversight or regulation, political leaders around the world have become increasingly concerned over his next moves, as well as his motives.

A large part of the problem is that Musk’s views on Ukraine are alarmingly contradictory. At the same time that he has provided Ukraine with Starlink terminals, Musk has also echoed many pro-Russian viewpoints, including the belief that Russia should be allowed to keep the annexed territory of Crimea, and has reportedly spoken directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin over the phone.

Unelected, unvetted, and with no clear loyalties, Musk has proved willing to flex his near-total control of the Starlink system. He alone can decide to shut down Starlink internet access for a customer or country, and already, he has restricted Starlink access for Ukraine multiple times during the war. Last year, he denied the Ukrainian military’s request to turn on Starlink near Crimea, the Russian-controlled territory, which disrupted a Ukrainian sneak attack on the Russian naval fleet.

Musk defended this decision by asserting that such an attack would lead “to a major escalation” in the war, explaining that “we did not want to be a part of that.” Yet in so condemning and interfering with Ukrainian strategy, Musk gave the Russian naval fleet the freedom “to fire Kalibr missiles at Ukrainian cities,” as Mykhailo Podolyak, top advisor to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, explains, which led to significant Ukrainian civilian losses. Podolyak insists that “this is the price of a cocktail of ignorance and big ego” that is Elon Musk.

More recently, reports from Ukrainian defense and intelligence officials have suggested that Russian forces are now using the technology in Ukraine. These reports, as well as an investigation by The Wall Street Journal, indicate that Russia has acquired Starlink terminals through third-party intermediaries and neutral countries. These black market networks have funneled thousands of the devices not only into Russia, but also into the hands of certain American adversaries and accused war criminals, granting SpaceX – and Musk – an acting role in the turbulent geopolitics of warfare. The proliferation of the technology inside Russia has significantly improved the operational coordination and efficiency of Russian troops, and has contributed to Ukrainian connection problems.

Democrats on the US Congressional Oversight Committee wrote to SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell due to these reports, explaining that they were “concerned” that the company “may not have appropriate guardrails and policies in place to ensure … technology is neither acquired directly or indirectly, nor used illegally by Russia.”

Musk has denied any involvement, stating on X that “to the best of our knowledge, no Starlinks have been sold directly or indirectly to Russia.” He has also assured that the company is working with the US Department of Defense to find and disable Starlink satellite terminals that have fallen into Russia hands.

So far, however, the problem has not improved, in fact, Ukrainian intelligence spokesman Andriy Yusov has stated that Russian use of the technology “is starting to take on a systemic nature.”

In a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin in May, Senator Elizabeth Warren voiced her concerns about unsanctioned Starlink terminal proliferation, stating that the status of efforts to remedy the problem “is unclear at best,” despite Musk reportedly being aware of “hostile actors circumventing US sanctions to acquire its terminals since at least February of this year.” Warren explained that even more worrying was the report that Ukrainian officials made Starlink aware of their concerns over Russia using the service, but allegedly “feared pressing the issue with SpaceX because of the ‘unpredictable’ nature of tech billionaire Elon Musk.”

The past few years have shown that Musk has the power to change the outcome of conflict operations – and that he is willing to use it – single-handedly affecting the tide of foreign policy. Cybersecurity expert Dmitri Alperovitch explained why this development is so concerning, pointing out that “this is not just one company, but one person … You are completely beholden to his whims and desires.”

With the three-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion looming, Ukraine and US officials are in uncharted territory. Musk has become a separate actor in the war – another factor to balance – and relying on the goodwill of an unpredictable billionaire has become a crucial part of the war effort. Now, in light of Musk’s burgeoning relationship with president-elect Donald Trump, who has cast doubt as to continued US commitment to Ukraine once he begins his presidency, this goodwill may very well dry up.

Even as Starlink’s satellite numbers continue to rise, Musk’s political, social, and economic influence only grows, seeming, at least for the near future, a fixture of modern global affairs.

Image source: Flickr

December 26, 2024 311 comments