Geopolitical Risks of Monopolised Infrastructure in Orbit: The Case of Starlink

In recent years, the rapid ascent of Starlink has redefined the balance of power in low Earth orbit (LEO) and brought with it some international risk. Backed by SpaceX and supported by the U.S. Government, Starlink now operates the majority of active satellites in space, with more than 6,500 already deployed and thousands more planned. Marketed as a tool for global connectivity, Starlink is increasingly being understood not simply as a technological marvel, but as a powerful node of geopolitical influence.

This consolidation of orbital infrastructure under a single private actor introduces a new layer of strategic vulnerability for states, international risks, and complexity for a variety of actors. As global reliance on satellite internet accelerates, particularly in underserved and high-risk regions, Starlink’s dominance has raised urgent questions around sovereignty, access, and the resilience of critical communications infrastructure. This article explores the implications, and some of the international risks.

From Private Innovation to Strategic Infrastructure

Starlink’s trajectory reflects a broader trend, the increasing entanglement of private enterprise with state power in the space domain. The U.S. government has played a decisive role in accelerating Starlink’s rise, from fast-tracked spectrum licenses and defense contracts to regulatory privileges and political access. What began as a commercial solution to rural internet coverage now sits at the heart of defense planning, humanitarian coordination, and even wartime command and control networks.

In this week’s Monday episode, Chilean space policy expert Victoria Valdivia Cerda reflects: “We can no longer observe Elon Musk as just a private, super-rich individual, we must observe him as a geopolitical actor.” Valdivia, a Global Fellow at the European Space Policy Institute and a lecturer at Chile’s National Academy of Strategic and Political Studies, argues that this fusion of private capital and public power is reshaping the global regulatory landscape in ways that many nations are unprepared for.

The Fallout from Unregulated Dependence

The risks of this concentration and a lack of competition are no longer theoretical. During the early stages of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, disruptions to Starlink’s service, whether deliberate or collateral, highlighted how deeply military, civilian, and humanitarian actors had come to depend on the system. What was less publicised was that these interruptions reverberated globally, with users as far as Patagonia reporting connectivity failures linked to activity in Eastern Europe.

This reflects the inherently transboundary nature of satellite communication. A disruption intended to degrade one actor’s military advantage can ripple across continents, affecting disaster response, healthcare delivery, and basic communication for isolated populations. In countries prone to natural disasters, like Chile, where remote regions rely heavily on uninterrupted communication infrastructure, the stakes are existential.

Valdivia emphasises that “telecommunication is the most transversal kind of technology,” and that access to it should be treated as a human right, not a byproduct of commercial availability. When that access is tied to the geopolitical decisions of a single actor, vulnerabilities deepen.

The International Risk from This Global Governance Gap

The Starlink case underscores a broader failure of global space governance. Existing multilateral institutions have proven ill-equipped to regulate the pace of commercial expansion in orbit and the associated international risks. No binding international framework currently limits the number of satellites a single entity can deploy, nor are there enforceable standards for equitable access to orbital infrastructure or emergency service continuity.

Valdivia notes that this regulatory vacuum is not just a failure of legal frameworks, but of imagination. Too often, she argues, space is treated as a technical or scientific domain, not as an essential dimension of national security and geopolitical competition. “If we continue treating space as a science project,” she warns, “we will miss the strategic failures already forming.”

A Southern Perspective on Sovereignty

Chile presents a compelling counter-narrative. Despite its smaller footprint in aerospace, Chile has taken proactive steps to embed space considerations within its broader national security and resilience strategies. Valdivia describes this as a form of “state consciousness,” the ability to mobilise human, institutional, and infrastructural resources around a coherent and functional space policy. This is in stark contrast to many regional peers, where space initiatives often lack long-term vision, measurable goals, or integration into broader state planning.

Yet even Chile faces systemic challenges. Across Latin America, fragmented ecosystems and short-term thinking plague public and private space efforts alike. “Many startups are launched without clear business models, and policy is often written after the project begins,” Valdivia observes. “This backwards approach leads to costly inefficiencies and fragile infrastructure.”

Trust, Resilience, and the Path Forward

Ultimately, the greatest risk to global space security may not be technological or military, it may be diplomatic. The erosion of international trust has made it harder to coordinate responses to shared threats, whether cyber vulnerabilities in orbital systems or the unchecked proliferation of space debris. Fragmented governance leads to duplicated efforts, increased militarisation, and a growing divide between dominant and emerging space actors.

Valdivia believes a more resilient future will depend on broadening the space policy conversation beyond engineers and technocrats. Lawyers, diplomats, and strategic planners must be part of shaping rules for access, sustainability, and equitable development. Valdivia insists that nobody will be saving themselves alone, and we need collective governance that reflects the interdependence of our orbital future.

The Starlink case is a warning. When infrastructure that underpins democratic communication, emergency response, and even military deterrence rests in the hands of a single private actor, risk is no longer a background concern, it becomes the system itself.