Ukraine's leader says US is not on 'right side of history'

The reported cutoff involved Ukraine’s access to Starlink, a satellite internet service operated by Elon Musk’s SpaceX. The service matters because Ukrainian officials said earlier disruptions harmed military capabilities during a Russian missile attack. Losing communications during combat can quickly affect coordination and response.

Zelenskyy told Piers Morgan that he felt betrayed by US President Donald Trump. Kyiv and its allies feared Washington was using pressure tactics, including possible limits on intelligence sharing and Starlink, to force Ukraine to surrender to Russia. Zelenskyy said, “This is not the right side of history.”

Kyiv later said SpaceX restored access. Musk said that any limits on access are decided by Trump. The episode left Ukraine worried that vital communications support could become conditional, especially during attacks. It also deepened the deterioration in relations between Kyiv and Washington.

Starlink is a satellite internet network operated by SpaceX. It uses many satellites in orbit to connect specially designed user terminals with internet services. This can provide communications without depending entirely on local cables, cell towers, or other ground-based systems. The article identifies Starlink as the service whose access Ukraine reportedly lost.

A Starlink terminal sends data to a satellite overhead. That satellite passes the data through the network or toward a ground station connected to the wider internet. The process allows users to get online from places where ordinary infrastructure is damaged or unavailable. The article does not explain Starlink’s technical design, so this mechanism comes from established general knowledge.

In Ukraine, the service has military and civilian importance. Ukrainian officials said earlier disruptions hampered military capabilities, while Kyiv later reported that access had been restored. The dispute showed how control of a private satellite network can affect wartime communications.

The article reports that Russian missiles plunged 600,000 people into darkness overnight. This figure describes the scale of the immediate electricity disruption, not the number of people who lost Starlink access. The distinction matters because the attack created both a physical emergency and a communications crisis.

The reported blackout happened as relations between Kyiv and Washington deteriorated. Ukrainian officials said earlier Starlink disruptions had hampered military capabilities while Russia was raining down missiles. Zelenskyy warned, “People will die,” linking communications problems to the dangers faced during the attack.

The article does not provide further details about the affected locations or the blackout’s duration. It does show how quickly missile strikes can affect large populations. It also explains why Ukraine viewed reliable communications support as urgent. Kyiv later said SpaceX restored Starlink access, but the dispute raised concerns about future interruptions during attacks.

Starlink access can matter to Ukraine because wartime forces need dependable communications to coordinate people, share information, and respond to attacks. If that connection disappears, units may have greater difficulty communicating when other systems are damaged or overloaded. The article directly states that earlier disruptions hampered Ukraine’s military capabilities.

The clearest example came during a night when Russia rained down missiles and 600,000 people were plunged into darkness. Ukrainian officials complained that the Starlink interruptions affected military capabilities during the attack. Zelenskyy said, “People will die,” presenting the communications loss as a direct danger rather than a minor inconvenience.

The article does not specify which military systems were affected or how long the disruptions lasted. Kyiv later said access had been restored. Still, the episode showed that reliance on Starlink creates vulnerability if access can be interrupted. Ukraine’s allies feared such pressure could push Kyiv toward capitulation.

SpaceX provides and operates Starlink, the satellite service at the center of the dispute. Elon Musk is identified with SpaceX, while Donald Trump is the US president whose administration Kyiv believed was applying pressure. Their roles matter because Ukraine’s communications access appeared connected to decisions outside Kyiv’s control.

The article says Ukraine blamed Washington and Elon Musk’s SpaceX for cutting off Starlink use. Kyiv later said SpaceX restored access. Musk then asserted that any limits on access are decided by Trump. This presents SpaceX as the service provider and Trump as the decision-maker Musk identified for access restrictions.

The article does not describe a formal legal chain of command or explain how a decision was implemented technically. It does show conflicting political responsibility around a private communications network. The dispute worsened relations between the United States and Ukraine. It also made continued access a major concern for Kyiv and its allies.

Intelligence sharing can give a country information needed to understand battlefield conditions and respond to threats. Communications support helps forces and officials exchange information when attacks disrupt ordinary networks. Together, these forms of assistance can support coordination during war. The article presents both as important enough to be used as possible pressure tools.

The Financial Times’ Ukraine correspondent wrote that Kyiv and its allies feared Washington might cut off intelligence sharing and restrict Starlink. They believed the aim could be to force Ukraine to capitulate to Russia. That fear arose as Russian missiles struck Ukraine, plunging 600,000 people into darkness overnight.

The article does not identify specific intelligence systems, messages, or operations affected. It does state that Ukrainian officials said Starlink disruptions had hampered military capabilities. Kyiv later said access was restored, but the dispute showed how dependent wartime support can become politically sensitive. It also contributed to worsening relations between Washington and Kyiv.

Satellite communications can remain useful during war because they do not depend entirely on damaged local infrastructure. Electricity failures, destroyed cell towers, and broken cables can interrupt ordinary communications. A satellite link can connect a terminal to orbiting equipment and, through the wider network, to distant internet infrastructure. This general mechanism is not explained in the article but is established telecommunications knowledge.

Ukraine’s situation illustrates why that resilience matters. Russian missiles plunged 600,000 people into darkness overnight, while Ukrainian officials said earlier Starlink disruptions had hampered military capabilities. Satellite service could therefore provide an alternative path when parts of the ground network are unavailable. Its value is greatest when forces must communicate during attacks.

The article also shows the limitation: technical resilience does not guarantee political availability. Kyiv later said SpaceX restored access, while Musk asserted that Trump decides any limits. Ukraine’s military may need satellite connectivity, but its access can still depend on decisions by governments and private companies.