Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Russia blackmails families of POWs via Starlink: registration poses legal risk

The Coordination Headquarters warns of cases of extortion demanding registration of Starlink terminals — this is not just pressure but a potential legal trap. We explain why this happened and how families of captives should act.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 10, 2026 · 2 min read

Russia blackmails families of POWs via Starlink: registration poses legal risk
Starlink (Ілюстративне фото: Depositphotos)

What happened

The Coordinating Headquarters on the Treatment of Prisoners of War reported instances in which Russian security forces are putting pressure on relatives of Ukrainian prisoners and demanding that they officially register Starlink satellite communication terminals. This came after the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, in cooperation with engineers from SpaceX, shut down a number of illegal terminals that, according to reports, the Russians used for unit communications and for controlling UAVs.

“Seeking a way out of the difficult position they found themselves in, the occupiers turned their attention to the families of prisoners. Cases have been recorded of threats and demands to officially register Starlink terminals in their names. That equipment would then be used against Ukraine and Ukrainians.”

— Coordinating Headquarters on the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Why this matters and is dangerous

Officially registering a terminal requires identity verification — so a record of the owner appears in the systems. If such a terminal is later used to control drones that damage infrastructure or harm people, the registered person may come under suspicion of involvement. In other words, forcing someone under pressure to sign on to a risk is a way to legalize equipment for subsequent attacks.

Context: on January 29 the Ministry of Defense reported joint work with SpaceX on the problem of Starlink being used on Russian drones; on February 1 Mykhailo Fedorov reported a plan to disable unverified terminals; on February 7 there were reports that Russians were looking for ways to reactivate terminals, including by recruiting Ukrainians for money.

What families and society should do

The Coordinating Headquarters and law enforcement advise: do not register terminals under pressure, document threats and seek help. Collecting evidence (screenshots, call recordings, testimony) increases the chances of bringing those responsible to account and protecting families.

It is also important to use official verification channels and follow instructions for the legal registration of equipment — these procedures exist to separate civilian use from hostile use. In case of offers or threats, one should immediately contact the Coordinating Headquarters and law enforcement agencies.

What’s next

This is an example of how the enemy is trying to turn humanitarian ties into a tool of pressure. The task now for technical partners and law enforcement is to turn warnings into mechanisms that protect families and ensure verification, so that responsibility for the use of equipment rests with the actual users, not with those who are forced to sign documents.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026