Did Russia Order the Starlink Attack in Poland? What International Law Says

Introduction

The Starlink sabotage in Poland has raised allegations that Russian intelligence services organized an attack on satellite communications infrastructure using foreign criminal intermediaries. On September 23, 2026, arsonists targeted a Starlink ground station south of Warsaw. Polish authorities subsequently identified two Turkish nationals as suspects and publicly attributed the operation to Russian intelligence. The deliberate nature of the fire has been established by Polish investigators, but the evidence connecting its alleged organizers to the Russian state has not been fully disclosed.

Russia could be held internationally responsible for sabotage committed by foreign nationals if their conduct were attributable to the state and breached an international obligation. Under Article 8 of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, private individuals may act on a state's instructions or under its direction or control. Neither the perpetrators' nationality nor their possible involvement in organized crime prevents such attribution (ILC, 2001, Art. 8).

The Polish investigation presents a difficult evidentiary question. Authorities have reconstructed the arson and identified suspected perpetrators, while German investigative reporting points toward a Turkish criminal network with possible Russian connections. Whether those connections establish international responsibility depends on evidence linking Russian officials to the particular operation. Poland's official intelligence assessment is significant, but it does not independently establish the legal conditions for attribution.

1. Starlink Sabotage in Poland: Established Facts

On the evening of September 23, 2026, a fire damaged electrical infrastructure serving a Starlink satellite communications ground station in Wola Krobowska, in Poland's Masovian region, south of Warsaw. Firefighters worked for more than six hours to contain the blaze. Poland's Internal Security Agency, the Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego (ABW), subsequently determined that the fire had been deliberately started (ABW, 16 October 2026).

Surveillance recordings showed two masked individuals crossing the facility's perimeter fence, pouring flammable liquid onto equipment controlling the electrical installation, and setting it alight. They left approximately three minutes later. The operation targeted ground-based equipment supplying satellite communications infrastructure, rather than satellites in orbit or computer networks. Reuters reported on October 13 that the fire had affected the station's power system and backup generator (Reuters, 13 October 2026).

Polish prosecutors opened an investigation on September 25. Investigators collected DNA traces, fingerprints, surveillance recordings, and travel information. According to ABW's reconstruction, two Turkish nationals residing in Germany entered Poland through Świecko, stopped in Łódź, traveled to Wola Krobowska, and returned to Germany following the attack.

On October 7, prosecutors formulated charges against Ümit E. and Müslüm T., alleging activity for a foreign intelligence service and sabotage. The Warsaw Regional Court issued European Arrest Warrants on October 10, followed by their arrests in Germany on October 12. A German court ordered their provisional detention the following day, while proceedings concerning their surrender to Poland continued (ABW, 16 October 2026).

Investigators also identified another suspect accused of conducting reconnaissance at the facility. ABW reported that this person received preliminary assignments from an unidentified commissioner, transmitted photographs and recordings through Telegram, and was subsequently instructed to inspect the station's security arrangements. A Polish court ordered three months of pretrial detention on September 30.

The investigation extended beyond those individuals. Reuters reported on October 13, citing Polish broadcaster RMF FM, that German authorities had detained two additional people, including a woman suspected of acting as a driver. German investigators subsequently released at least one additional detainee after participation in the attack could not be established, according to reporting by Michael Götschenberg and Paul Schwenn for ARD on October 16. The available accounts do not establish how many additional suspects remained in custody (Reuters, 13 October 2026; Götschenberg and Schwenn, 16 October 2026).

Starlink's strategic importance arises from its role in satellite communications, including services used by Ukrainian forces resisting Russia's invasion. However, the importance of the wider network does not establish the operational significance of this particular ground station. The publicly disclosed evidence does not demonstrate that the Wola Krobowska fire caused a system-wide outage or a measurable interruption of Ukrainian military communications.

2. Did Russia Order the Starlink Attack?

Polish officials have publicly attributed the sabotage to Russian intelligence services. At an October 12 press conference, Tomasz Siemoniak, Poland's minister responsible for coordinating intelligence services, stated that the authorities had no doubts Russian services were behind the incident. He also described an increasing tendency for Russian intelligence to recruit individuals associated with criminal organizations (Polish Ministry of the Interior and Administration, 12 October 2026).

These statements represent Poland's official assessment, supported by an investigation involving national security agencies and cooperation with German authorities. Their significance should not be dismissed merely because the underlying intelligence has not been made public. Governments may possess classified communications, intelligence reports, or information obtained from confidential sources that cannot immediately be disclosed without compromising ongoing operations.

The published findings, however, do not identify a Russian intelligence officer who commissioned the attack or demonstrate a complete chain of operational instructions. ABW's October 16 statement confirmed that investigators were continuing to examine possible organizers and commissioners. Moscow has rejected broader Western accusations of involvement in European sabotage operations as baseless, although those general denials do not resolve the evidence concerning Wola Krobowska (ABW, 16 October 2026; Reuters, 13 October 2026).

Poland's allegations also arise within a wider European security context. German authorities have separately attributed an attempted attack involving explosive drones at Leipzig/Halle Airport to Russia. The Leipzig drone attack and Russian responsibility for hybrid operations raise similar questions concerning covert operations, evidence, and state attribution. Nevertheless, evidence concerning one incident cannot substitute for establishing responsibility for another.

2.1 The Alleged Daltons Connection

Investigative reporting published on October 16 by ARD-Hauptstadtstudio and STRG_F identified a possible connection between the two Turkish suspects and an organized criminal network known as the Daltons, or Daltonlar. The organization originated in Turkey and has reportedly developed activities in Germany. German law-enforcement authorities have associated criminal networks of this kind with extortion, threats, and illegal firearms trafficking (Götschenberg and Schwenn, 16 October 2026).

The reporters emphasized that membership in such organizations can be difficult to establish. Criminal affiliations may change, local groups may develop independently, and individuals sometimes adopt an organization's name without a demonstrable institutional relationship. The reported association between the suspects and the Daltons remains an investigative allegation rather than an established judicial finding.

ARD also identified possible Russian connections involving individuals associated with the network. Its reporting named Berat Can Gökdemir, known as Can Dalton, as the group's alleged leader and indicated that he was believed to be in Russia. Earlier reporting by ARD's Kontraste program had examined other apparent links, including videos purportedly showing soldiers serving Russia congratulating Gökdemir on his birthday (Götschenberg and Schwenn, 16 October 2026).

These circumstances may justify further investigation, but they do not demonstrate that Russian intelligence commissioned the Polish attack. A criminal organization's connections to individuals in Russia, the location of its alleged leadership, or expressions of political sympathy cannot independently establish that the organization acted under instructions from Russian state authorities.

A documented British prosecution provides a useful comparison. On March 20, 2024, arsonists attacked a warehouse in London containing humanitarian aid and Starlink equipment destined for Ukraine. In proceedings that concluded with sentencing in October 2025, British prosecutors established that Dylan Earl and Jake Reeves had organized the operation after recruitment associated with the Wagner Group. Other participants were recruited to carry out the fire without necessarily knowing the identity of the organization behind it (Crown Prosecution Service, 24 October 2025).

The British convictions established individual criminal responsibility under domestic law, including offenses connected to the National Security Act 2023. They did not amount to an international judicial finding attributing the warehouse attack to Russia under Article 8. The case nonetheless demonstrates how intermediaries can separate those who commission an operation from those who physically execute it. A comparable arrangement in Poland remains an allegation requiring evidence specific to the September 23 attack.

3. When Can Russia Be Responsible for Private Sabotage?

International law distinguishes responsibility for an internationally wrongful act from individual criminal liability. Article 2 of the International Law Commission's 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts requires two elements: conduct attributable to a state and a breach of an international obligation binding upon it. These requirements are cumulative. Establishing that sabotage occurred does not, by itself, establish responsibility on the part of another state (ILC, 2001, Art. 2).

The ILC Articles are not a treaty. They were adopted by the Commission in 2001 and subsequently annexed to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 56/83. Several provisions, including the central rules governing attribution, reflect customary international law recognized in international judicial decisions. The broader doctrine of state responsibility in international law concerns the conditions under which states incur responsibility and the legal consequences of internationally wrongful acts.

The conduct of private individuals is not ordinarily attributable to a state merely because its government benefits from their activities, shares their political objectives, or maintains relationships with them. International law nevertheless recognizes circumstances in which private conduct becomes attributable through a sufficiently established connection with state authorities. The distinction is especially relevant where intelligence services are alleged to have employed criminal intermediaries.

3.1 Russian Intelligence and State Organs

Article 4 attributes the conduct of state organs to the state, regardless of whether they exercise legislative, executive, judicial, or other governmental functions. Intelligence agencies fall within this principle. Actions undertaken by Russian intelligence officers acting in their official capacity would ordinarily be attributable to Russia under international law (ILC, 2001, Art. 4).

If Russian officials selected the Starlink facility, organized reconnaissance, commissioned its destruction, or issued operational instructions, their own actions could engage Russian responsibility if those actions breached an international obligation. This basis of attribution is distinct from the question of whether the Turkish suspects' conduct could itself be treated as conduct of Russia.

Article 7 further provides that conduct by a state organ may remain attributable even when the organ exceeds its authority or contravenes instructions, provided that it acts in an official capacity. The rule is relevant to clandestine intelligence operations because secrecy or departure from authorized procedures does not automatically transform official conduct into private activity. Its application would still require evidence establishing the relevant officers' status and actions (ILC, 2001, Art. 7).

3.2 Article 8: Instructions, Direction, and Control

Article 8 addresses individuals or groups acting on a state's instructions or under its direction or control in carrying out particular conduct. It recognizes that private persons may perform operations for a state without becoming formal members of its institutions. Attribution requires an identifiable factual relationship between the state and the conduct concerned, rather than a general political or organizational association (ILC, 2001, Art. 8).

The International Court of Justice examined this distinction in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (1986). Although the United States had provided substantial assistance to the Contras, the Court did not consider that support sufficient to attribute all their conduct to the United States. Responsibility for particular violations required evidence of effective control over the military or paramilitary operations during which those violations occurred (ICJ, 1986, para. 115).

The Court reaffirmed this approach in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) (2007). It distinguished state instructions and effective control concerning particular operations from a more general relationship between a government and a group. The Court also rejected the broader overall-control approach adopted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Tadić as the general standard for attributing wrongful acts to states (ICJ, 2007, paras. 398–406).

The ICJ's Nicaragua judgment is particularly relevant because it demonstrates that extensive assistance to a non-state group may constitute internationally wrongful conduct without making every action of that group attributable to the supporting state. Responsibility for a government's own assistance and responsibility for acts committed by private individuals require distinct legal assessments.

Specific instructions and effective control are alternative grounds for attribution under Article 8. Where a state has instructed private individuals to carry out a particular operation, it is not necessary to establish effective control through a separate inquiry. Conversely, general financial assistance, political encouragement, or organizational connections do not automatically demonstrate the necessary relationship.

This distinction is decisive for the Polish investigation. If Russian intelligence officers instructed criminal intermediaries to arrange the destruction of the Starlink facility, the use of several intermediaries would not necessarily prevent attribution. The evidence would need to establish that the instructions concerned the operation in question. Even then, attribution would extend only to conduct satisfying the applicable requirements, not automatically to every activity undertaken by the criminal organization.

4. What Evidence Would Establish Russian Responsibility?

The central evidentiary question is whether Russian state authorities instructed, directed, or controlled the September 23 operation. Relevant material could include communications identifying the commissioner, payments connected to the attack, instructions concerning the facility, and records establishing relationships between suspected intermediaries and Russian intelligence officers. Evidence directly connecting the state to the particular sabotage would carry greater legal significance than proof of general contacts with Russian individuals or organizations.

The reconnaissance activity identified by ABW may be important. Investigators reported that a separate individual received preliminary assignments from an unidentified commissioner before being instructed to examine the station's security arrangements. Communications identifying that commissioner, revealing how the collected information was transmitted, or demonstrating coordination with the alleged arsonists could clarify whether the preparatory activity formed part of a wider operation (ABW, 16 October 2026).

The law does not require every element of state involvement to be demonstrated through a written order. International courts may assess witness testimony, documentary material, circumstantial evidence, and factual inferences. Nevertheless, the probative value of indirect evidence depends on the relationship between the facts established and the conclusion drawn from them.

In Corfu Channel (1949), the International Court of Justice recognized the significance of circumstantial evidence where relevant information may be difficult to obtain because another state exercises exclusive territorial control. The Court inferred Albania's knowledge of mines in its territorial waters, but it did not find that Albania had laid the mines or directed their placement. Its reasoning illustrates the permissible use of connected factual inferences, not a relaxation of the substantive requirements for attributing private conduct to a state (ICJ, 1949, Merits Judgment).

The analogy has limits in the Starlink investigation, where the alleged operation crossed several jurisdictions and may have involved private criminal intermediaries. Evidence of contacts with Russia, the alleged location of a criminal leader, or a shared interest in weakening support for Ukraine cannot independently establish the requirements of Article 8. Equally, the absence of direct communication between Russian officials and the alleged arsonists would not defeat attribution if an instruction chain through intermediaries were established.

Poland's official assessment may rest on material unavailable to independent observers. Criminal proceedings could disclose further evidence concerning communications, financial arrangements, or the identity of those commissioning the operation. On the publicly available record as of October 17, 2026, the alleged Russian chain of command has not been established in a manner permitting an independent legal determination. That limitation does not demonstrate that Russian intelligence was uninvolved; it defines what can presently be concluded from disclosed evidence.

5. Would a Russian-Directed Attack Violate International Law?

If Russian intelligence organized the destruction of communications infrastructure on Polish territory without Poland's consent, the operation would raise a serious issue under the customary international law of territorial sovereignty. States possess authority over activities conducted within their territory, and unauthorized foreign operations involving physical destruction provide a particularly strong basis for alleging infringement. In Corfu Channel, the International Court of Justice treated unauthorized British minesweeping in Albanian territorial waters as a violation of Albania's sovereignty (ICJ, 1949, Merits Judgment).

The principle of non-intervention raises a separate question. In Nicaragua, the Court explained that prohibited intervention involves coercive interference in matters a state is entitled to determine freely. Poland's decisions concerning its foreign relations and assistance to Ukraine fall within that sphere of sovereign choice. An operation intended to compel Poland to alter those policies could engage the prohibition, provided that the required coercive character were established (ICJ, 1986, paras. 202–205).

Destructive activity does not automatically establish prohibited intervention. The purpose and circumstances of the operation remain relevant. Although Polish officials have attributed the incident to Russian intelligence, the publicly disclosed evidence does not establish the precise objectives of the alleged commissioners. Sovereignty and non-intervention must consequently be assessed as distinct legal grounds.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations. Deliberate physical sabotage attributable to another state may fall within that prohibition. The difficulty lies partly in determining how international law treats relatively limited forcible incidents, especially where the physical damage is localized and the operational consequences remain uncertain.

A contested question concerns whether Article 2(4) contains a minimum-gravity threshold. Some interpretations exclude incidents considered too minor to constitute a prohibited use of force. Tom Ruys has challenged that approach, arguing that small-scale forcible acts should not be excluded merely because of their limited intensity (Ruys, 2014, American Journal of International Law, 108(2), pp. 159–210). The absence of casualties or extensive disruption cannot, by itself, conclusively resolve the classification of the Polish incident.

A separate and more demanding threshold concerns an armed attack under Article 51, which governs the right of individual and collective self-defense. In Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice distinguished the gravest forms of force from less grave conduct (ICJ, 1986, para. 191). An internationally unlawful use of force does not automatically qualify as an armed attack permitting military self-defense.

NATO's collective-defense provisions involve a related distinction. Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty permits consultations whenever an ally considers its territorial integrity, political independence, or security threatened. Article 5 concerns collective assistance following an armed attack. NATO's Washington Summit Declaration of July 10, 2024, recognizes that sufficiently serious hybrid operations may reach the level of an armed attack, but such a determination depends on the circumstances (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, Arts. 4–5; NATO, 2024, para. 13).

Poland's assistance to Ukraine does not automatically make it a party to the Russia–Ukraine armed conflict. The International Committee of the Red Cross has clarified that supplying weapons or military equipment to a state engaged in an international armed conflict does not, by itself, make the supplying state a party to that conflict (ICRC, 3 June 2024, Arms Transfers to Parties to Armed Conflict: What the Law Says).

Nor does the military relevance of Starlink services authorize destructive operations on Polish territory. Any such operation remains subject to the applicable rules governing sovereignty, intervention, and force. The political description of an incident as hybrid warfare does not independently determine whether those rules have been violated.

6. Criminal Prosecution and International Consequences

Poland's criminal investigation concerns the alleged responsibility of identified individuals for offenses under Polish law. The European Arrest Warrants issued against the two Turkish suspects enabled their arrest in Germany, where judicial proceedings concerning their surrender were continuing when ABW published its October 16 statement. The distinction between arrest, provisional detention, surrender, and eventual criminal adjudication must be preserved.

The European Arrest Warrant operates under Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, which establishes a system of judicial surrender between EU member states. A warrant permits the competent authorities of one member state to seek a person's surrender from another for prosecution or execution of a sentence. It does not establish the requested person's guilt, and provisional detention in the executing state is not equivalent to a final surrender decision (Council of the European Union, 2002).

Criminal liability and state responsibility serve different legal purposes. Poland may prosecute individuals accused of offenses committed on its territory without first establishing Russian state involvement. Evidence obtained during those proceedings might also become relevant to an interstate responsibility claim, but a criminal conviction would not automatically determine attribution under Article 8. The applicable legal questions, parties, and evidentiary requirements are distinct.

The investigation also illustrates the distinction between territorial criminal jurisdiction and the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction in international law. Poland may investigate offenses committed within its territory, but coercive law-enforcement measures in Germany ordinarily require the cooperation of German authorities or another valid legal basis. European judicial cooperation provides mechanisms for obtaining evidence and securing the surrender of suspects without disregarding those territorial limits.

If Russia's responsibility for an internationally wrongful act were established, the consequences would depend on the violation concerned. Article 30 of the ILC Articles requires cessation where wrongful conduct is continuing, together with appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition when circumstances justify them. Article 31 requires full reparation for injury caused by the internationally wrongful act. Depending on the circumstances, reparation may involve restitution, compensation, or satisfaction (ILC, 2001, Arts. 30–31, 34).

Poland could also consider lawful diplomatic measures or countermeasures. Countermeasures are subject to specific conditions under Articles 49–52, including their purpose of inducing compliance, proportionality, and applicable procedural requirements. They cannot justify the use of force and must be distinguished from retorsion, which concerns otherwise lawful but unfriendly measures. A state adopting countermeasures on an incorrect assessment of another state's responsibility may itself incur international responsibility (ILC, 2001, Arts. 49–52).

Any attempt to pursue an interstate judicial claim would additionally require a valid basis for the relevant court's jurisdiction. International responsibility is not automatically adjudicated whenever a state accuses another of violating international law. The proceedings against the suspected arsonists, Poland's diplomatic assessment, and any eventual interstate claim may concern the same events while producing different legal findings.

Conclusion

Poland has publicly accused Russian intelligence services of being behind the September 23, 2026 Starlink sabotage, and investigators have established that the facility was deliberately set on fire. Two Turkish nationals face criminal allegations, while investigative reporting concerning the Daltons raises the possibility that an organized criminal network helped arrange the operation. The disclosed evidence has not yet established the alleged Russian chain of command.

International law permits responsibility for sabotage carried out through foreign criminal intermediaries when the applicable requirements are satisfied. Article 8 allows private conduct to be attributed to a state where relevant instructions, direction, or control are established. The conduct of intelligence officers acting as state organs may separately engage responsibility under Article 4, provided that it breaches an international obligation.

The decisive question is whether the evidence establishes a legally sufficient connection between Russian state authorities and the particular attack. Poland's official attribution is consequential, but the public record does not yet permit a definitive independent finding of Russian responsibility. Criminal nationality, organizational intermediaries, and the clandestine character of an operation do not place such conduct beyond international law. Responsibility depends on what the evidence establishes about the state's involvement and the obligations breached.

References

Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego (ABW) (2026) ‘Podpalenie stacji Starlink. Od ustaleń ABW i Policji do zatrzymań w Niemczech’ [online]. 16 October. Available at: https://www.abw.gov.pl/pl/aktualnosci/2846,Podpalenie-stacji-Starlink-Od-ustalen-ABW-i-Policji-do-zatrzyman-w-Niemczech.html (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

Charter of the United Nations (1945) Signed at San Francisco on 26 June 1945; entered into force on 24 October 1945. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=1&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=I-1&src=IND (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

Council of the European Union (2002) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 190, 18 July, pp. 1–20. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002F0584 (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

Crown Prosecution Service (2025) ‘Updated with sentence: How the CPS used new National Security Act legislation to prosecute the plot to sabotage Ukrainian aid warehouses on UK soil’ [online]. 24 October. Available at: https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-how-cps-used-new-national-security-act-legislation-prosecute-plot (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

Donath, D., Menges, V. and Pohl, M. (2026) ‘“Daltons” in Deutschland: Jung und gewaltbereit – “Gen Z” der türkischen Mafia’, Tagesschau/Kontraste [online]. 16 March. Available at: https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/kontraste/organisierte-kriminalitaet-berlin-tuerkei-russland-100.html (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

Götschenberg, M. and Schwenn, P. (2026) ‘Starlink-Anschlag in Polen: Hat Russland die türkische Mafia beauftragt?’, Tagesschau/ARD-Hauptstadtstudio and STRG_F [online]. 16 October. Available at: https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/starlink-polen-tuerkei-mafia-100.html (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2024) ‘Arms transfers to parties to armed conflict: What the law says’ [online]. 3 June. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/arms-transfers-parties-armed-conflict-what-law-says (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (ICJ) (1949) Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), Merits, Judgment of 9 April 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103099 (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (ICJ) (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103143 (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (ICJ) (2007) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103164 (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1999) Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment of 15 July 1999. Available at: https://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acjug/en/tad-aj990715e.pdf (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

International Law Commission (ILC) (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, UN Doc. A/56/10, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

North Atlantic Treaty (1949) Signed at Washington, D.C., on 4 April 1949; entered into force on 24 August 1949. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (2024) Washington Summit Declaration. Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council, Washington, D.C., 10 July 2024. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2024/07/10/washington-summit-declaration (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

Polish Ministry of the Interior and Administration (2026) ‘Zatrzymanie sprawców podpalenia stacji Starlink na Mazowszu. Skuteczna akcja MSWiA, Policji i ABW’ [online]. 12 October. Available at: https://www.gov.pl/web/mswia/zatrzymanie-sprawcow-podpalenia-stacji-starlink-na-mazowszu-skuteczna-akcja-mswia-policji-i-abw (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

Reuters (2026) ‘Germany detains fourth person over Starlink fire in Poland, RMF FM reports’ [online]. 13 October. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/germany-detains-third-person-over-starlink-fire-poland-rmf-fm-reports-2026-10-13/ (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

Ruys, T. (2014) ‘The meaning of “force” and the boundaries of the jus ad bellum: Are “minimal” uses of force excluded from UN Charter Article 2(4)?’, American Journal of International Law, 108(2), pp. 159–210. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.108.2.0159 (Accessed: 17 October 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (2001) Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Resolution 56/83, UN Doc. A/RES/56/83, adopted 12 December 2001. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/454412/files/A_RES_56_83-EN.pdf (Accessed: 17 October 2026).