Russia’s suspected work on a new anti-satellite system aimed at Starlink has turned a once-hypothetical risk into a concrete strategic problem for NATO. As the Alliance races to harden its space posture, the prospect of a strike on commercial constellations is forcing governments to rethink how they protect everything from battlefield communications to civilian internet access.
What is emerging is not just another twist in the war in Ukraine, but a broader test of how the United States, European allies and private operators manage the militarisation of orbit. The same Starlink network that has become a lifeline for Ukrainian forces is now at the center of a contest over deterrence, escalation and the legal status of commercial assets in war.
From battlefield tool to strategic target
Starlink’s transformation from tech curiosity to strategic asset began when Ukrainian units started using its terminals for battlefield communications, weapons targeting and basic connectivity after Russian attacks degraded terrestrial networks. Intelligence assessments now describe Starlink’s high-speed internet service as integral to Ukrainian forces, which makes the constellation a tempting target for Moscow as it seeks to blunt Kyiv’s resilience.
That battlefield dependence is precisely why NATO intelligence services have zeroed in on reports that Russia is developing a new “zone-effect” capability designed to hit Elon Musk’s Starlink network. Officials briefed on the findings say the system is intended to disrupt or damage multiple satellites at once, a shift from one-off kinetic strikes to a broader area effect that could degrade coverage across a region rather than destroy a single spacecraft.
What NATO thinks Russia is building
According to assessments shared among Allies, Russia is believed to be working on a weapon that would create a cloud of small fragments in orbit, potentially only a few millimetres in size, that would be difficult to track from the ground yet capable of disabling vulnerable spacecraft. NATO officials have warned that such a “zone-effect” system could be used against Starlink, while stressing that they do not want to see Russia use such weapons at all because of the risk to the wider orbital environment.
Reporting based on NATO intelligence indicates that this new system is in active development and is tailored specifically to undermine Musk’s constellation rather than to conduct a traditional anti-satellite test. Analysts describe it as a “weapon of fear” that could threaten chaos by silently degrading services across a swath of orbit, a concept echoed in detailed accounts of how Nato believes Russia is trying to move beyond crude missile strikes toward more sophisticated orbital disruption.
Inside the intelligence picture on a Starlink-killer
Western services have pieced together this picture through a mix of technical collection and classified analysis, tracking Russian research and development activity that appears to be aimed at anti-satellite capabilities. Officials who have seen the underlying material say the emerging system is possibly still experimental, but they treat the threat as credible enough to brief senior leaders and to shape NATO planning for space defense and other vital needs, a concern reflected in detailed intelligence agencies assessments.
Those same assessments, compiled through careful analysis of Russian testing patterns and industrial activity, suggest that Moscow is exploring ways to interfere with Starlink without necessarily creating the kind of large debris field that followed its 2021 missile strike on a defunct Cold War-era satellite. The research methods behind the warnings, described in briefings that urge policymakers to “Educate your inbox” and “Subscribe to Here’s the Deal” for deeper context, underscore how seriously experts take the possibility that the system is possibly just experimental today but could mature quickly into an operational System.
How a “zone-effect” strike on Starlink might work
Technical analyses of Russia’s options outline several ways Moscow could try to hit Starlink without resorting to a single, spectacular missile launch. One scenario involves releasing a cloud of small projectiles into the orbital paths used by the constellation, creating a hazardous zone that forces satellites to maneuver repeatedly or accept a rising risk of impact, a concept that has been explored in depth in discussions of How Russia might trigger catastrophic global chaos.
Another option would be to use non-kinetic means, such as powerful jamming or directed energy, to blind or disrupt clusters of satellites over a particular theater, effectively carving out a dead zone in coverage. Intelligence from two NATO nations indicates that planners are especially worried about a weapon that can affect multiple Starlink satellites at once, which would align with the description of a new “zone-effect” system that NATO intelligence suspects is being tailored to the realities of the war in Ukraine.
Russia’s track record of threatening commercial satellites
Russian officials have not been shy about signaling that privately owned spacecraft could be drawn into the conflict. A senior figure in the foreign ministry warned that commercial satellites supporting Ukraine “may become a legitimate target” for retaliation, a statement that explicitly linked Western companies to Kyiv’s resistance to the Russian invasion and framed them as part of the battlefield infrastructure that Moscow feels entitled to hit, a threat documented in detail in analysis of how On October 27 a Russian official escalated the rhetoric.
France’s Space Command has declined to comment directly on the classified intelligence about a Starlink-specific weapon, but it has publicly accused Russia of engaging in irresponsible behavior in orbit in recent years, including close approaches to other nations’ satellites. That pattern, combined with explicit warnings about commercial targets, has convinced many in the Alliance that Moscow is prepared to test the boundaries of what is acceptable in space, a concern that informs the cautious language from France and other allies who say they do not want to see Russia use such a weapon at all.
NATO’s evolving space doctrine and the Hague pivot
Faced with this mix of rhetoric and emerging capabilities, NATO has been racing to formalize its approach to space as an operational domain. Allies are investigating ways to strengthen NATO’s access to and use of space in support of the Alliance’s deterrence and defense posture, including better protection of satellites owned by individual members such as the United Kingdom and the United States, a shift captured in the Alliance’s own description of how Allies are rethinking orbital security.
The NATO Hague Summit marked a turning point for European defense, with member states moving beyond crisis-driven spending toward long-term preparation for competition in domains that now explicitly include space. Analysts note that, simultaneously, the Hague discussions helped lock in a new consensus that commercial constellations like Starlink are part of the Alliance’s critical infrastructure, a view that is driving fresh investment in aerospace and defense capabilities as NATO members prepare for long-term competition.
Why Starlink’s design both helps and hurts its defenses
Starlink’s architecture, with thousands of small satellites in low Earth orbit, is inherently more resilient than the older model of a handful of large, high-value spacecraft. Knocking out a single node does little to the overall network, which is why intelligence officials believe Russia is experimenting with ways to affect multiple satellites at once rather than repeating a one-off missile test like the 2021 strike that destroyed a defunct Cold War-era satellite.
Yet the same scale that gives Starlink redundancy also creates vulnerabilities if an adversary can contaminate an orbital shell with debris or saturate a region with interference. Analysts warn that a “zone-effect” weapon could force the constellation into constant evasive maneuvers, draining fuel and shortening satellite lifespans, or could create a persistent hazard that undermines confidence in the network’s reliability, a scenario that has been explored in reporting that puts Starlink in the crosshairs of Russian planning.
Escalation risks and the fading guardrails of New START
The potential targeting of Starlink is unfolding against a backdrop of eroding arms control between Washington and Moscow. The Treaty Structure that underpins the New START framework, formally titled The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction of strategic offensive arms, is set to expire in early 2026, removing one of the last formal guardrails on the nuclear relationship as described in the official outline of the Treaty Structure.
Experts warn that after the New START agreement lapses, there is little prospect of a quick replacement, leaving both sides freer to expand and modernize their arsenals without the verification mechanisms that once provided a measure of transparency. Analyses of the Russia-US nuclear pact stress that it is set to end in 2026 and that we will not see another in the near term, a sobering assessment that highlights how Russia and the United States are drifting into a less regulated era just as new domains like space become more contested.
How a Starlink strike could ripple far beyond Ukraine
Strategists worry that an attack on Starlink would not stay confined to the Ukrainian theater. The constellation underpins civilian internet access in remote regions, supports airlines and shipping, and is increasingly woven into emergency response plans, so a deliberate disruption could trigger cascading effects across global communications and commerce. Detailed scenarios of how Russia could target Starlink with anti-satellite weapons warn that such a move could “trigger catastrophic global chaos” by undermining confidence in orbital infrastructure that modern economies take for granted, a risk laid out starkly in assessments of Starlink’s centrality.
There is also the question of alliance solidarity and escalation. If Russia were to damage satellites that serve not only Ukraine but also NATO territories, leaders in Brussels and Washington would face pressure to respond, potentially treating the incident as an attack on Allied infrastructure. Commentators have described such a weapon as a “weapon of fear” that could threaten chaos precisely because it blurs the line between military and civilian targets, a phrase that appears in reporting on how Starlink in the crosshairs would test the Alliance’s resolve.
Why NATO is treating space as the next front line
For NATO planners, the emerging threat to Starlink is less an isolated problem than a preview of a broader contest over space infrastructure. The Alliance’s formal recognition of space as an operational domain, combined with its efforts to integrate commercial providers into defense planning, reflects a view that future conflicts will be decided as much by who controls data links and navigation signals as by who fields more tanks or aircraft. That logic underpins the growing body of NATO reports on Starlink in the crosshairs of Russian weapons development.
At the same time, the Alliance is trying to balance deterrence with restraint, signaling that it will defend its space assets while urging Moscow not to cross a line that could litter orbit with debris and endanger satellites belonging to neutral states. Analysts who track NATO’s approach argue that the current moment is a test of whether existing norms can adapt quickly enough to cover commercial constellations that now play military roles, or whether a new set of rules will have to emerge from the hard lessons of crises like the one now swirling around Starlink.
More from MorningOverview