Agent Musk? Part 2 - Starlink, Ukraine, and USAID--A CIA Officer's Deeper Look

Were Musk's Actions Acts of Sabotage on Behalf of Russia, or Something Else?

Yesterday I wrote about the claims that Elon Musk is a Russian asset or agent, and reached a provisional conclusion that the evidence shows that Russian intelligence surely sought contact with Musk, and almost certainly made contact and had interactions. But I found the available evidence insufficient to assess that Musk was/is acting as an agent or asset on behalf of Putin’s Russia. Some knowledgeable readers brought up some behavior by Musk that warrants further scrutiny, so here’s a Deeper Look at his actions with Starlink, Ukraine, and USAID.

1. The Starlink “Crimea Episode” in 2022

In September 2022, Ukrainian forces attempted a naval drone strike against Russian ships docked in Sevastopol, Crimea. At the time, Crimea was under Russian occupation and adminstration and had been in that state since 2014. The drones were equipped with Starlink terminals for navigation and communications. However, the attack failed—because the drones lost connectivity with Starlink before reaching their targets.

Initial media reports, based partly on Walter Isaacson’s biography of Musk, claimed that Musk "turned off" Starlink to thwart the attack. That created an uproar, and to this day, at least in the popular culture telling of things, Musk is still considered to have “turned off Starlink” to help Russia and in the process, thwart Ukraine’s attack. (This claim in fact was mentioned yesterday in comments.). I took a deeper look, and as is frequently the case in intelligence — the truth of the matter is a little complicated.

First, there was never Starlink coverage of Crimea for Musk to “turn off.” As noted above, Crimea in 2022 had been occupied and administered by Russia since 2014 and for commercial licensing purposes had, by then, been well established as part of Russia. For that mundane reason, Starlink had never been “turned on” for Crimea because Starlink had no license deal with Russia, and to “turn on” Starlink would be at least a technical violation of US sanctions against Russia that were in place in 2022. Of course an exception could have been made to allow the Ukrainian drones to reach their target but there would have to have been some paperwork and coordination well in advance to accomplish that —and the Ukranians chose not to do that, presumably for operational security reasons.

Against the foregoing backdrop, what seems to have actually happened was that Ukraine, wishing to keep plans secret as long as possible, chose not to go through any substantial advance coordination that would have resulted in US approval and instead went directly to Musk and Starlink at the last minute asking for Starlink to extend coverage into Crimea for the specific purpose of facilitating the Ukrainian strike on Sevastopol.

That request put Musk in a difficult position, to say the least. Starlink’s license for Ukraine operations (and hence support for the Ukraine war effort) was already a sensitive matter — and suddenly extending coverage to Crimea, which was administratively part of Russia and had been so for eight years, was no small matter.

Against the foregoing backdrop, Musk appears to have been confronted with a last minute request by Ukraine to ignore the sanctions and, without coordination or approval by the US Government, unilaterally extend Starlink coverage to Crimea for the specific one-time purpose of assisting Ukraine to attack targets in Sevastopol. Regardless of where one comes down on this — it is clear that this was a pretty big “ask.”

Musk stated:

"Starlink was barred from turning on satellite beams in Crimea at the time, because doing so would violate US sanctions against Russia. We received an unexpected request in the middle of the night to activate Starlink in Crimea in a matter of a few hours from the Ukraine government, but received no request or permission to override sanctions from the US government." TASS

Musk’s most detailed explanation came at the All-In Summit in Los Angeles on September 12, 2023. A video of his speech can be viewed here.

"The sanctions include Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on the connection to a sanctioned country without explicit government approval," he said, adding that the Ukrainian government asked for the connection to be turned on "in the middle of the night," for what Musk said was "a Pearl Harbor type attack on the Russian fleet in Sevastopol." Musk claimed that Ukraine was "asking us to take part in a major act of war," and added "if I had received a presidential directive to turn it on, I would have done so," he added.

(MS Comment: The foregoing is largely Musk’s explanation. I tried to verify it as much as possible. It is true and verifiable that Crimea was under sanctions at the time. Executive Order 13685, issued on December 19, 2014, prohibits new investment in Crimea by U.S. persons and the exportation or importation of goods, services, or technology to or from Crimea. I also found that at the time Musk and Starlink only had a commercial contract with Ukraine — there was no military contract yet and Musk was providing military support voluntarily, without the kind of structure and procedures that would come with a military agreement. Re the USG not being consulted — I couldn’t find any statement confirming or denying this. Re the request coming at the last minute — PBS/Newshour reported on this and confirms it. Finally, I talked to some Pentagon and CIA sources who all agree that Musk’s layout of the situation is essentially accurate.)

Ukrainian Response

Ukrainian officials expressed frustration over Musk's decision. Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, criticized Musk's action, stating

"By not allowing Ukrainian drones to destroy part of the Russian military fleet via Starlink interference, Elon Musk allowed this fleet to fire Kalibr missiles at Ukrainian cities. As a result, civilians, children are being killed. This is the price of a cocktail of ignorance and big ego." RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty+2UNILAD+2Wikipedia+2

Clarification on Starlink's Coverage

Conclusion re Starlink

Musk's refusal to activate Starlink over Crimea highlights the complex interplay between private enterprise, international law, and geopolitical strategy. His explanation of what happens depicts a decision that was rooted in legal caution and concern over escalation. Is the explanation self-serving? I would say yes, it’s self-serving, but it also appears to be accurate in terms of depicting the totality of the circumstances.

The May 2024 USAID Investigation of Starlink

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Ukraine’s Vice Prime Minister publicly appealed to Elon Musk for communications assistance. Within days, Musk responded by activating Starlink coverage over Ukraine, and the first shipment of Starlink satellite internet terminals arrived by February 28. These terminals—portable ground-based user devices—became a critical component of Ukraine’s emergency digital infrastructure.

Initially, the arrangement was entirely commercial and ad hoc. Starlink was provided on a voluntary basis by SpaceX, with some terminals funded by donations and others by governments, including the U.S — but also other governments as well. As of mid-2023, over 15,000 Starlink terminals had been deployed across Ukraine.

The vulnerability of this model became clear in September 2022, when Ukraine attempted the drone strike on Russian naval assets in Crimea that we looked into above. The drones were equipped with Starlink-based systems but lost connection as they neared their targets—because Starlink coverage had never been activated over Crimea. Musk later explained that the Ukrainian government had requested this activation with little notice, and that he declined the request due to concerns over U.S. sanctions and the risk of escalating the war. At that time, no formal U.S. military contract governed SpaceX’s operations in Ukraine.

That changed in June 2023, when the Pentagon signed a contract with SpaceX to provide Starlink services for Ukraine under official Department of Defense authority. In August 2024, a follow-up agreement expanded Ukraine’s access to Starshield, a militarized and encrypted version of Starlink. Of approximately 3,000 operational Starlink terminals, 2,500 were covered under this new military arrangement.

By May 14, 2024—when the USAID Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated its investigation—Starlink had become deeply embedded in the Ukrainian defense and civilian infrastructure, with thousands of terminals funded in part through U.S. foreign aid. The stated aim of this investigation was to determine how the Ukrainian government utilized the USAID-funded Starlink systems and how USAID monitored their deployment. This inspection was part of a broader effort to ensure accountability in the use of U.S. taxpayer-funded resources in Ukraine’s war effort.

While the inquiry was nominally about oversight, its implications were unmistakably political and strategic. USAID had spent millions to subsidize the cost of Starlink terminals in Ukraine, effectively making U.S. foreign aid a sponsor of Elon Musk’s network. Musk, in turn, retained operational authority over the systems, including where and when they functioned—despite their centrality to Ukraine’s battlefield communications.

What triggered particular concern was the Crimea incident in 2022, which showed that Musk could unilaterally deny connectivity for military operations even in life-or-death moments. The fact that such a consequential infrastructure system could be subject to the decisions of a private citizen prompted the OIG to probe deeper. Was there sufficient guidance from USAID? Were there safeguards in place? What contractual levers existed, if any, to compel compliance in future crises?

The probe also exposed how little formal oversight the U.S. government appeared to have over Musk’s battlefield decisions. The Starlink initiative—initially hailed as a tech-powered lifeline for Ukraine—was now being reconsidered through a far more sober lens: not just as a philanthropic gesture, but as a sovereign capability effectively outsourced to a tech billionaire.

In that light, the OIG investigation marked a turning point. What had previously been cast as a voluntary heroic partnership with Ukraine was now entering the domain of federal scrutiny, with broader implications for warfighting, procurement, and accountability in an era of privatized power.

(MS Comment: It seems reasonable to assume that Musk resented the IG inspection. It’s unclear to me whether the IG inspection was politically motivated or was just something that would occur in the natural course of things. It does seem that the uproar over the 2022 drone attack played a role - but it also seems justified just as a normal/reasonable part of oversight of a sensitive and expensive program. But I do find it likely that Musk resented it — and Musk’s subsequent actions vis-a-vis USAID need to be seen with this investigation in mind.)

2. The USAID Affair

This episode is murkier—and in some ways more troubling.

The OIG investigation launched in May 2024; the election occurred in November, and in January 2025 Trump took office and installed Musk as the de facto head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Almost immediately thereafter, Elon Musk, acting through DOGE, clearly targeted USAID.

In early 2025, Musk publicly referred to USAID as a "criminal organization" and declared: “Time for it to die.”

Within weeks, DOGE operatives:

• Revoked employee access to USAID systems

• Took down its website and internal infrastructure

• Issued termination notices to thousands of staff

• Merged USAID’s functions into the State Department

These actions effectively dismantled USAID—a decades-old agency central to U.S. global health, development, and humanitarian assistance. Supposedly USAID could only be shut down by Congress, but DOGE, Musk, and Trump managed to do it without congressional involvement.

Assessment and Commentary

Many observers attribute DOGE’s extraordinarly aggressive actions against USAID to be payback from Musk for the investigation. Or, perhaps, an effort to protect Musk from investigation? Possibly. The timing aligns. But remember — what we’re looking into here is whether Musk has acted as an agent or asset of the Kremlin. Was the decimation of USAID a Kremlin-inspired takedown? For sure, Putin and the Kremlin would welcome the crippling of USAID, perhaps almost as much as China would welcome it. Both have to compete with USAID around the world and frankly, USAID is extroardinarly effective in promoting the US brand. Lately China has been attempting to compete, and has done so effectively in places like Africa. Russia too, although not as effectively as China. But both would stand to benefit significantly from a diminished (decimated would be a better word) USAID presence.

But …

Musk's aggressive dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in early 2025 did not occur in isolation; it was deeply rooted in a broader MAGA-driven campaign that portrayed the agency as emblematic of "woke" excess, corruption, and liberal globalism. For years, MAGA-aligned figures criticized USAID for allegedly promoting progressive agendas abroad. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast condemned the agency for funding initiatives like distributing condoms to the Taliban and promoting atheism in Nepal, accusing it of conducting a cultural war on African Christians . Right-wing influencers amplified these sentiments; Mike Cernovich labeled USAID as the "skeleton key to unlocking all of the corruption," while Catturd declared, "all corruption leads to USAID" Accusations of financial impropriety further fueled the firestorm. MAGA commentators alleged that USAID funneled millions to media outlets like Politico, with Benny Johnson claiming, "Trump & Elon deleted their funding. Now Politico will go out of business. The corruption is endless. Good riddance" . These narratives painted USAID as a conduit for leftist propaganda and fiscal mismanagement.

So when we look at Musk’s actions through the lense of a) a vendetta over the investigation or b) helping Putin — we have to also be mindful of c) this charged environment in which MAGAworld was out for USAID’s head ona platter. Musk's actions resonated with the MAGA base. He publicly denounced USAID as a "criminal organization" and asserted that it was "beyond repair," signaling an intent not just to reform but to dismantle the agency entirely . This rhetoric aligned seamlessly with the MAGA narrative that viewed USAID as an embodiment of the "deep state" and liberal overreach.

My bottom line on the USAID piece of this? I would assess that Musk’s aggressive decimation of USAID reflects mainly two factors — a) the MAGA crusade against USAID as a corrupt example of “woke” liberalism, b) an opportunity to shield himself from the investigation. As to whether “helping Putin” was simply a collateral consequence of actions undertaken for other reasons, or a conscious objective — I haven’t seen anything yet that really shows it to be a conscious objective.

3. Other Actions Worth Noting

• Engagement with the AfD in Germany: Musk hosted far-right AfD leader Alice Weidel in a livestream on X. While not illegal, it was politically significant—and aligned with the Kremlin’s preference for destabilizing EU democracies.

• Shifts in Ukraine Policy Messaging: Musk’s public statements on X have increasingly echoed Kremlin narratives—questioning continued aid to Ukraine, floating peace proposals favorable to Russia, and casting doubt on Western unity.

• Relationship with China: While not related to Russia, Musk’s deepening economic dependence on China raises parallel concerns about foreign influence, particularly given China’s growing alliance with Russia.

Conclusion: Not a Spy, But Something Stranger

Is Elon Musk a Russian agent? Todays “deeper look” exercise has not changed my opinion from yesterday, which is that the evidence does not support a claim that Musk is acting as an asset or agent of Putin/Russia. There is a confluence of interests in a number of situations, particularly the USAID piece. But there’s no smoking gun, and what’s known doesn’t rise to the level of clandestine recruitment or control.

I also look at Musk and his position in the world — and it strikes me that his relationship with Putin would prehaps better be characterized as a situational ally, rather than an asset or agent. Does it go beyond situational? Is there a deeper alignment? Possibly. But Musk’s decisions to me seem to be shaped by a combustible mix of ego, ambition, techno-libertarian ideology, and economic self-interest.

As I have written previously, Musk seems to me to be a character straight out of a Robert Heinlein novel—a hybrid of tech visionary and geopolitical disruptor. (Remember Delos Harriman, The Man Who Sold the Moon? Or Jubal Harshaw, the brilliant, eccentric polymath from Stranger in a Strange Land?) To some, Musk is a hero; to others, a villain. But unlike traditional spies, Musk’s power lies in his platforms, his reach, and his willingness to inject himself into global crises.

Those sci-fi visionaries and Musk all seem to share a sense of destiny, an almost Nietzschean superiority, and a willingness to push the world toward their vision whether it was ready or not. Somebody like that, with more wealth than anyone else in the world — it’s hard to see him as anybody’s spy, agent or asset. An ally, maybe. But even that would be subordinate to his ego and economic self interest. I would assess those aspects, and not geopolitical alignment, as the driving factors in his behavior.

That said, close scrutiny and a continue open mind is called for. If new facts become available , I would reassess. But for now, I think what we are seeing is primarily a function of ego and economic self-interest. As they used to say on the local TV editorials: Responsible opposing views are welcome. That’s a big part of what the comment thread is for.