When Russia invaded Ukraine, tech companies like SpaceX, Microsoft, and AWS quickly stepped in to help. They provided crucial digital support, showing how private companies are now key in modern warfare. The U.S. needs to prepare for future conflicts by partnering with these companies to protect security.
Authors: Matt Kaplan, Michael Brown
On February 26, 2022, two days after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation, sent an urgent plea to Elon Musk to provide Internet access to the country through his Starlink system. The invasion, which Russia had preceded with a campaign of cyberattacks, had seriously disrupted Ukraine’s digital networks. By the very next day, Musk responded that Starlink was active in Ukraine and that the company would soon be sending more ground terminals to the country.
Starlink, which is a subsidiary of Musk’s SpaceX, was not the only Western technology company to come to Ukraine’s aid. By detecting samples of Russian malware before the war began, Microsoft had warned Ukraine about how the impending conflict could affect the country’s information systems. Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft then migrated crucial government data to their cloud servers for safekeeping, and after the war began, Google and Microsoft offered continuing cybersecurity services. The European aerospace conglomerate Airbus, the U.S.-based satellite manufacturer ICEYE, and the space technology companies Capella Space, HawkEye 360, and Maxar Technologies have all been providing invaluable battlefield imaging and data. The analytics company Palantir has been aggregating this data to paint a more complete picture of the war on the ground.
Although corporations have long been involved in modern wars, their past roles have almost always focused on the production of goods and equipment under government contracts. By contrast, the conflict in Ukraine has initiated a new era of warfare in which commercial companies, many of them American, are likely to provide and secure critical digital infrastructure themselves—crucially, at their own discretion and even for no cost. For example, because of AWS and Microsoft’s efforts to secure Ukrainian government data, Russia’s targeting of data centers outside Kyiv at the start of the war failed to disrupt key government services. Russia’s effort to deploy malware also had little effect because of Microsoft’s intervention. And although Russia hacked Viasat, a U.S. company whose satellites were vital to Ukrainian military and civil communications, Ukraine was able to pivot within a few days to Starlink, on which President Volodymyr Zelensky relied for nightly broadcasts to assure Ukrainians he was still in Kyiv and disprove Russian misinformation that he had fled the country. Without such assistance from Western companies, Ukraine’s government might have quickly collapsed. None of these companies build weaponry; nonetheless, their ability to provide crucial services in the digital realm has become what might be called warfare’s new “commercial frontier”: essential battlefield capabilities that are controlled and furnished by civilian technology firms.
Since the private sector drives innovation in so many of these digital technologies and can deploy them more nimbly than governments can, technology corporations are likely to play an ever more important role in future wars. The challenge will be ensuring that these companies’ interests are aligned with national ones. In Ukraine, this alignment was largely due to chance. Ukrainian leaders had developed close personal relationships with some of the corporations that later came to the country’s aid. Moreover, Western countries felt a sense of urgency to defend Ukraine and, crucially, anticipated that the war would be short; the companies offering their services—mostly for free—assumed that the costs of doing so would be low.
Future conflicts, however, may have more complicated circumstances. One of the central geopolitical unknowns of the present era is whether the United States would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. But this question cannot be answered by the U.S. government alone. In any such offensive, China’s plans would almost certainly include attacks on Taiwan’s digital infrastructure, scenarios that Beijing has already tested by launching cyberattacks and severing Internet cables. Many of the same companies that protected Ukraine will be needed to protect Taiwan. But many U.S. technology firms today have a far greater economic stake in China than they did in Russia in 2022, and it’s highly uncertain whether they would choose to support Taiwan. Corporate leaders’ increasing involvement in global politics and foreign policy will only add to this uncertainty. In October, for instance, The Wall Street Journal reported that Elon Musk has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin since 2022; at one point, Putin requested that Musk withhold Starlink access to Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping. (It was not reported whether Musk agreed.) Making matters even more complex, Musk is now a close adviser to President Donald Trump and leads the administration’s government efficiency efforts. Several other of the tech industry’s biggest names also joined Musk at Trump’s inauguration. By seeking closer ties to the administration, the country’s biggest tech firms may be trying to move national interests toward their own, which may prioritize shareholder value more than national security.
The only way for the U.S. government to ensure that its own interests are advanced at the commercial frontier of warfare is to secure that frontier for itself. To do so, the government must understand the capabilities needed to protect an ally’s digital infrastructure during conflict and then seek to manage their use by contracting the relevant vendors to provide their services under U.S. governmental auspices. The government must seek to contract these new capabilities before conflict breaks out, preposition these technologies’ physical assets in potential geopolitical hotspots, and begin to treat the companies that are providing these services as allies. Only then can the United States protect digital critical infrastructure in the wars in which it is involved, whether directly or indirectly.
CORPORATE DEPLOYMENT
In the early days of the war in Ukraine, firms such as AWS, Microsoft, and SpaceX could not draw on any previous experience of involvement in global conflict. And ultimately, their actions were not spurred by grand strategies or government directives. They all made quick decisions that were often based on direct contact with Kyiv or Washington and that drew on favorable circumstances.
In the weeks leading up to the war, Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s then ambassador to the United Kingdom, and Liam Maxwell, AWS’s director of government transformation, discussed the idea of moving Ukraine’s data to the cloud. Prystaiko, a former computer scientist, had previously befriended Maxwell, a former chief technology officer for the British government. On the day of the invasion, they sat together and listed, with pen and paper, the essential data that would need to be moved from government servers to the cloud, such as records pertaining to land ownership, tax payments, and bank transactions. The massive migration happened just before Russia attacked areas around Kyiv that house critical data centers.
Corporate support for Ukraine also relied on relationships with U.S. officials. Hours before the invasion began, Microsoft uncovered a Russian malware attack on Ukraine’s government ministries and financial institutions. During previous incidents, Tom Burt, a senior security executive at Microsoft, had asked Anne Neuberger, the White House’s senior cyber official, with whom he had a personal relationship, to connect him to Ukrainian officials he could trust. When the larger malware attack came, Microsoft had a direct line to Ukraine and was able to quickly notify the country’s top cybersecurity authority.
The urgency of Russia’s all-out invasion also created a special demand for corporate involvement, because the private sector was better equipped than the U.S. government to respond in real time. Big tech firms were able to transfer huge quantities of Ukraine’s sensitive data almost immediately, with AWS even delivering to Ukraine physical data-storage units known as Snowballs to facilitate data transfers that would have taken too long to do over the Internet. SpaceX activated Starlink in Ukraine just two days into the war. In addition to covering all the initial service costs, SpaceX also paid to ship enough terminals to meet Ukrainian demand from Southern California, where SpaceX is based. “People were dying, and we thought we could be helpful in that urgent phase of the conflict,” one SpaceX official later said. In contrast, it took two weeks for the U.S. military to deliver its first supplies to Ukraine, and some forms of military assistance took much longer. Major General Steven Butow, the director of the Space Portfolio at the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit, said, “When we had delivered 25 things, there were already over 1,000 Starlink terminals being used every day.” Starlink has been described as “the essential backbone” of Ukrainian battlefield communications.
The cost of all this aid has become significant. To date, Microsoft’s support, which includes hosting Ukraine’s data on its cloud for free, amounts to more than $500 million worth of services. SpaceX spent more than $80 million on Starlink terminals and services. The companies denied that financial interests played a role in their decisions, but they also did not expect their involvement to last as long as it has. At the start of the war, the predominant view among the U.S. foreign policy establishment was that Ukraine would lose and lose quickly. These companies had the same expectation, but once it proved false some began to withdraw. Microsoft, for instance, still provides the Ukrainian government with free cloud storage, but SpaceX transferred the cost of Ukraine’s Starlink access to the U.S. government in late 2022. The service became part of the United States’ aid package to Ukraine. Some terminals have been provided by European allies, too.
THE FIRE NEXT TIME
If Ukraine was the technology industry’s initial foray into warfare, it won’t be the last. Yet in future wars, many of the conditions that pushed corporate entities to deliver massive aid to Ukraine may be different. For one thing, the personal relationships that encouraged direct, fast communication between the Ukrainian government and the big U.S. companies that could help it may not exist. The corporations that mobilized for Ukraine were also acting on decisions they had never anticipated making. They are far more aware of the risk that conflicts can last longer than expected, that costs can accumulate to significant levels, and even that overwhelming public support to help a country in conflict can wane over time. As of December 2024, opinion polls showed that for the first time, a majority of Americans expressed a desire to end the war in Ukraine quickly, even if it meant Ukraine forfeiting territory.
All these factors will influence how the commercial frontier will play into what might be the next big conflict: Taiwan. A Chinese invasion of the island would likely start with a campaign to dismantle the Taiwanese government’s digital infrastructure. In anticipation, Taiwan has discussed Starlink access with both SpaceX and U.S. government officials. But Musk’s appetite for supporting Taiwan through Starlink appears low. In 2023, he compared China’s relationship with Taiwan to that between the United States and Hawaii, and asserted that the island was an “integral part of China.” Taiwan is wary of relying on Starlink access, as well, owing to Musk’s business links to China, where Tesla operates several large factories and recently broke ground on its first energy-storage plant outside the United States. As a result, Taiwan has decided to partner with Eutelsat OneWeb, a European provider, and discussed partnering with Amazon’s Project Kuiper, too. Neither has nearly as many satellites or the same proven resilience as Starlink. Separately, Taiwan has begun building its own satellite network, though by its own projections it will not have a communications satellite in orbit until at least 2026, and it will take far longer to field the constellation of satellites needed to operate an effective system.
SpaceX is not the only company whose support for Taiwan is uncertain. Although AWS, Google, and Microsoft have all significantly curtailed their operations in China, each continues to rely on Chinese manufacturing and sells to the Chinese market. That these tech firms will have potential conflicts of interest underscores the importance of developing a U.S. strategy for the commercial frontier, centered on guaranteeing to allies such as Taiwan the availability of essential technological capabilities before a military confrontation arises. Doing so would ensure a greater alignment between governmental and corporate interests in future wars; establish any necessary relationships and connections in advance; and involve newer companies in emerging industries, such as artificial intelligence and mesh communications networks, with technologies that could one day prove essential on the battlefield. Deploying such capabilities now has geopolitical advantages, as well. In the case of Taiwan, a U.S. government-led effort to secure the island’s digital infrastructure would not only support the island in the face of a Chinese invasion—it could help to deter an invasion in the first place, because China would feel less certain about its ability to cripple Taiwan without armed conflict.
READY, SET
The U.S. government, through the Department of Defense, should build strategies for protecting allies’ digital infrastructure ahead of potential conflicts. First, the department must fully understand each country’s needs. It must then contract the relevant vendors, such as the companies that supported Ukraine, to provide access to their services immediately in the event of a conflict. Physical assets like Starlink terminals and AWS Snowballs should be in place beforehand. For capabilities that do not require pre-positioning, such as AWS cloud licenses or radio-frequency satellite communications, the U.S. government does not even have to spend the money today; it can contract now for future services, so that if an emergency arises, pricing and provisioning for vendors’ licenses are set and vendors know what they need to deliver. Given the lessons of the war in Ukraine, which demonstrated that private-sector companies could deploy technologies far faster than the government, the United States should provide contracts in advance for companies that can offer immediate logistical support to an ally in the event of an invasion.
The Department of Defense’s authority over the use of these capabilities would not only help ensure that the right technologies reach allies in a time of need but also ease concerns over some regulatory controls. Ukraine’s use of Starlink, for example, raised questions about possible violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which govern the ability of U.S. companies to provide military technologies to other countries. Management by the Department of Defense will also streamline the process of introducing new technologies into warfare’s commercial frontier. To identify new players and determine necessary capabilities, the Department of Defense should establish an advisory group comprising officials from the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency as well as executives from the companies that supported Ukraine and policy experts who have war-gamed Taiwan scenarios. The department has tools to reduce acquisition time of new capabilities to a few years or to deploy existing solutions under development urgently at 80 percent readiness. It can also make any immediate purchases through its Rapid Acquisition Authority, which has a budget of $800 million.
The U.S. government should manage public-private partnerships with active diplomacy, treating corporate entities and their leaders as it would allies. This means being prepared to hold technology companies accountable for actions that may undermine the national interest. But it also means including them in national security discussions, providing certain personnel with security clearances, and sharing information about threats that their technologies could be used to counter. Additionally, the government should praise firms for acting in the national interest, appealing to their desires to maintain positive public images. Ukraine, for instance, awarded “peace prizes” to AWS, Google, and Microsoft; Ukrainian officials have likewise praised Musk and SpaceX publicly and privately.
The U.S. government, on the other hand, has missed critical opportunities to recognize these firms’ work in Ukraine. For instance, in September 2022, when SpaceX tried to shift the cost burden of Starlink service in Ukraine over to the Pentagon, after months of paying for most of it itself, media coverage framed the company as uncharitable—a characterization the U.S. government did not attempt to change. A year later, Musk was heavily criticized after he refused to activate Starlink for a Ukrainian drone operation in the Black Sea because he feared the operation would be too escalatory. The U.S. government likely felt the same—at this point, it was prohibiting Ukraine from using U.S. weapons for offensive operations—but remained silent. Other tech leaders watched Musk deal with the complexities of war without the apparent support of the U.S. government; this experience may lead them to hesitate to offer their own solutions in the future.
In the decisive early days of a Taiwan conflict, resilient digital critical infrastructure may again prove vital, as it did in Ukraine. Securing that infrastructure for the future requires that the U.S. government act now. Leaders in Washington must recognize that, although corporate interests and national interests will not always align, commercial capabilities may be essential to national security objectives. Because of this, the government must devise a framework that allows these interests to complement each other. The United States’ continued ability to defend its allies and partners may soon depend on how well it can harness U.S. tech companies’ growing power.
Credits: TCA, LLC.