That said, depending on a single piece of tech is not a good idea (as evidenced by the Russians when they lost starlink access). Russians have resorted to long-range mesh radios, Ukrainians should probably integrate that as well (though it does increase BOM costs).
The other dependency is Chinese suppliers, who supply both sides but may prefer to favor Russia. It is a huge liability for Ukraine as it supplies 80% of the parts that perform 70% of battlefield duties, and could stop anytime (besides known design leaks to the adversary, etc). Russia is even relocating whole production lines to evade sanctions.
Ukraine has been fighting with one arm behind its back, this is the latest development in the series of seemingly-arbitrary limitations imposed on it.
Yes and putting a CEO of a tech company in command of strategic infrastructure is not a good idea either.
It's like me saying I'm on the Pope's Super Secret Christmas List because some random on Reddit said so.
It's just amateur propaganda.
What point is there in trying to get sources to leak things when decisions are made at the top on a whim, versus policy options being analyzed video position papers and reports.
It's the same as the current White House: there's no point in trying to cultivate sources as decisions come from one place, with no consensus seeking, often in the middle of the night, and can be changed a few hours later.
You can't nationalize another country's business, especially when their assets are floating in space disconnectes entirely from your country.
If they want to regulate it, they need to build it first. Ukraine has no ability to regulate Starlink. It's not theirs to regulate.
But the United States has that level of control and Musk is either using it to benefit putin or he's using it to benefit trump. Both of these could be fixed and could be fixed in relatively short order if there was the will to do so.
The rest of your comment is just restating the obvious so I won't respond to that.
the EU is a HUGE market that Musk will not want to piss off and loose ...
And it's not uncommon, many public utilities may be operated by companies but they are bound by laws and regulations.
Starshield is litteraly a US gov project which this is about. Not the public network at all. The title is clickbait honestly.
What's so radical about this anyway?
That's a very friendly term. I would use aiding and abetting a common enemy instead. And make no mistake: russia never stopped being an enemy of the USA, they just switched their tactics. Trump is probably the best ROI of any investment ever.
Both sides have used drone-mounted signal repeaters for FPV drones. FPVs use cheap radios, and signal extending drones can be reusable and carry a more expensive and jamming-resistant radio.
Since it is rarely a single drone attacking, but more often an entire swarm (to saturate air defences), having a mesh radio between drones can be useful, reduce the requirement that every drone must be equipped for long range communication, and enhance the connectivity back home.
Of course, both sides are mostly supplied by the same Chinese factories when it comes to radios, so China also gets to develop their drone warfare know-how. I assume that Ukraine also uses mesh radios, but probably to a lower extent than Russia does, as they can rely on Starlink.
To address your last point, I would also assume that it is possible to air drop signal repeaters from the swarm, especially for one-way trips, they do not need to last more than a few hours. Range will be degraded on the ground though.
Obviously, I would assume that most strike drones are fully autonomous, but having a connection back home means it is easier to adjust plans (air defense location, for instance) and provide intelligence (if target was hit, etc).
I am also wondering if the recently discovered SDR APIs in Wi-Fi chipsets will be leveraged for warfare. If I had to bet, I'd say: yes, pretty soon. These are a good fit for mesh radio, jam-resistant frequency hopping and wideband transmissions.
I would also guess it is not that hard to setup a base station? With Operation Spiderweb they were able to start the drones from enemy territory...
More like Zelensky, in stating the Trump-Russia diesel deal was a 'weak decision by strong partners', has pissed-off the Orange One with his famously thin skin.
America, your president is a liability to the free world.
Same fascism, same colors (blue, red, white). Only the logo is a little different, but not much.
Normally I'd say "assume ignorance before incompetence before malice" but with the current US political climate it's usually all 3 at the same time.
Slightly disturbing that the way to determine if attacks on Russia are properly on the mark for pain is to watch US backlash.
From an Ironman inspiration to an actual real life villain.
Meanwhile, here is another article about pelicans and one on something that already existed that I rewrite in a new fashionable language.
We don't need to cover the globe like SpaceX, just Ukraine and from there North-Westward into Russia.
Imagine Britain in the fucking Blitz where Roosevelt starts to buy oil from Nazi Germany and JP Morgan cuts off the Telegraph somehow.
Crazy times.
It’s Trump’s financial interests plain and simple.
Trump is just vey susceptible to influence, depending on who he’s speaking to and feels positive towards at a given time. Traditional Republicans (i.e. not MAGA) are typically anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine, so if some reason they have his ear, he moves away from Putin and Russia. On the other hand he seems to be very influenced by Putin directly (fear? envy? Putin being a very good manipulator?) and so swings back towards Russia every time they speak.
If Putin had kompromat, it’s unlikely that Trump would ever have done anything to inconvenience Russia (he has, on occasion) and it’s unlikely that Musk would have kept Starlink open for Ukraine’s use for so many years.
Everyone pretends there are easy answers here and I don’t think there are, nor do I think a lack of nuance and honest discussion does anyone any good. What more pressure can the US put on Russia that it hasn’t already? Call on the phone and yell at Putin more strongly? I’m interested in hearing ideas but I’m not sure what more we can do that will “end the war”.
How about not weakening Ukrainian capabilities so they can continue to beat Russia? How about the US not buying Russian diesel/energy, which Trump himself criticized Europe doing in his September 22, 2026, UN speech.
Which capabilities are being weakened exactly? Can you point to specific capabilities?
"Europeans buying oil and gas from russia" -> that is mostly one or two hold-outs that are in russias camp, pretty much like Orban/Hungary.
"Maybe global energy markets are more important than Ukraine and Russia’s war is?" -> yes, they are, but they have nothing to do with each other. Conveniently though, this is the link that Trump wants you to make and Trump is pretty much a mouthpiece for the Kremlin.
> Which capabilities are being weakened exactly? Can you point to specific capabilities?
GP never responded and I don't blame them, but taking the risk that you really do not know and are not 'just asking questions':
Ukraine needs both defensive weapons to stave off russian attacks on their citizenry and offensive weapons to make sure russias capacity to wage war is diminished. Both of these rely to a large (but ever decreasing) extent on foreign countries. Lots of that stuff comes from the United States and even though the United States has not made good on the promises it has made it now also effectively puts its thumb on the scale to favor the Kremlin, for instance by diminishing Ukraine's capability to control its drones and by withholding armaments that were promised by the United States, and paid for by the EU.
If you are even remotely interested in what is going on there this should not be news to you, if it is then you should review your sources.
The first flawed assumption is that an argument, discussion, or point that disagrees with you must fundamentally be a Russian talking point. That I can tell you is just untrue.
The second flawed assumption is you are assuming that something which appears to be “pro-Russian” must also be judged solely as Donald Trump serving as a Kremlin talking point.
> Ukraine needs both defensive weapons to stave off russian attacks on their citizenry and offensive weapons to make sure russias capacity to wage war is diminished.
There is an assertion “if only Ukraine had more weapons” that would somehow “end the war” yet when asked to provide specific examples, there is a failure to do so. At best the provision of additional defensive missiles, which of course are sorely needed, simply protracts the stalemate. Ukraine does not posses the manpower (please feel free to cite specific, reputable sources if you disagree) to retake territory stolen from it by Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Even in the case of “the US is withholding admissions” is framed incorrectly. We need those munitions too. We have to make tough choices. We cannot just give or even sell to Ukraine all of our weaponry when we need it versus Iran and maybe China.
> If you are even remotely interested in what is going on there this should not be news to you, if it is then you should review your sources.
This comment applies to you, not me. You mistake, continually, a disagreement with “someone is on a different side than me” and that undermines your position, causes disagreement about the overall goal (get Russia out of Ukraine or at least bring peace and stability), and plays directly into Russia’s desire to sow division. You act like you know more than others about the war, but the United States has a lot of fish to fry, so to speak, around the world. Ukraine is just one of those fish. Iran and stopping them is in my opinion far more important. We face trade-offs and challenges. When someone mentions those and you try to then accuse them of “pro-Russian talking points” you only undermine your own position and goals.
Consistency.
> Europeans deploy their military and attack Russia?
Well, given that half our gear was US bought that doesn't even look like an option at this point.
> More sanctions?
The ones in place were broken by Trump.
> If Ukraine destroys more refineries then what effect does that have on the global economy?
Ask a russian. But the rest of us will have to deal with it and whatever Ukraine does has far less effect on the world economy than what trump and putin have done and continue to do.
> Is it more important to destroy the refineries and cause disruptions to fuel supplies across the world or is more important to not let things get too bad?
Where do you get this 'across the world' thing from?
> Everyone pretends there are easy answers here and I don’t think there are, nor do I think a lack of nuance and honest discussion does anyone any good.
You mean: "I've made up my mind and even though the evidence is obvious I'm going to persist in my way of thinking". It is so transparent. All of the points you make above you could have pulled right off the russian set of talking points.
> I’m interested in hearing ideas but I’m not sure what more we can do that will “end the war”.
Give Ukraine the means to defend itself, no strings attached, no stupid games and no witholding arms already bought and paid for. Recognize that russia is the aggressor and ensure that they realize that if they stay on this path it can only go down for them.
That doesn’t make any sense.
> The ones in place were broken by Trump.
No they aren’t.
> Ask a russian. But the rest of us will have to deal with it and whatever Ukraine does has far less effect on the world economy than what trump and putin have done and continue to do.
Russia should stop its war. It won’t until it’s forced (Europe should start using its military immediately to take down Russia). Spain and Italy should immediately deploy forces on the ground in Ukraine. What are they waiting for?
There isn’t anything to “ask a Russian” because if there was an answer to be had they wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.
> Where do you get this 'across the world' thing from?
Energy markets are global?
> You mean: "I've made up my mind
Incorrect. Unless you mean I’ve made up my mind that Europe should immediately go to war with Russia and stop the whole thing. If it is unwilling to do that we have to figure things out in a different way.
> Give Ukraine the means to defend itself, no strings attached, no stupid games and no witholding arms already bought and paid for. Recognize that russia is the aggressor and ensure that they realize that if they stay on this path it can only go down for them.
This doesn’t end the war. You haven’t been following it very closely if you think just giving some weapons to Ukraine somehow “solves the war”.
To you. But it makes sense to me and to many other people besides: If the United States can not be trusted as an ally then that means that weapons systems bought from the United States diminish in value because their operational readiness can not be counted on.
> > The ones in place were broken by Trump.
> No they aren’t.
Well sorry, but yes, they were. To wit:
- Russia is currently under sanctions both by the EU and by the US, who signed their last sanctions package less than a month ago - Within days of signing that sanctions package Trump broke the law by agreeing to buy oil from russia.
You can't really argue with the facts here unless you are doing this wilfully.
> There isn’t anything to “ask a Russian” because if there was an answer to be had they wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.
I would not count on that. Russia is the aggressor here, not Ukraine and only Russia can stop this war. Not the USA, note Europe, definitely not Ukraine. Until you recognize that simple fact the answers to 'why' are to be found in Russia. As for the rest of the effects of recent activity on the global economy: the American/Israeli/Iranian war is a much larger factor there. It is disingenuous to blame Ukraine for what their actions against Russia do to the world economy.
> Energy markets are global?
They are, but they are local markets first and there is this thing called proportionality. You are focusing on something that has 1% or thereabouts of the impact internationally that the US made disaster in the strait of Hormuz has. If you have beef with someone about this you will find them in the Whitehouse or in some brothel in Florida.
> Unless you mean I’ve made up my mind that Europe should immediately go to war with Russia and stop the whole thing.
Oh that's your solution. Yes, sure, that will definitely end well, escalate to deescalate? Where have I heard that before?
> This doesn’t end the war. You haven’t been following it very closely if you think just giving some weapons to Ukraine somehow “solves the war”.
Well, there is a difference between 'some' and 'lots' and there is a difference between promising to do so and actually doing it. Ukraine has done extremely well so far given that in the beginning of this war most people thought they would roll over. So this is not the time to start withdrawing capabilities from them. If you believe it is then you are a useful tool in Putin's pocket.
Not trusting the US means either you are playing in to Putin’s hands, or it means we need to immediately leave NATO and pack up all of our military equipment deployed all over Europe because it’s impossible to have a military stationed in Europe if you don’t trust it.
> Well sorry, but yes, they were. To wit: - Russia is currently under sanctions both by the EU and by the US, who signed their last sanctions package less than a month ago - Within days of signing that sanctions package Trump broke the law by agreeing to buy oil from russia. You can't really argue with the facts here unless you are doing this wilfully.
Sure I can. You can just say as I might, that stability of global energy markets is more important than sanctioning Russian diesel fuel. Maybe by continuing to sanction this fuel we cause other wars to erupt, or something even worse. While tiny, insignificant countries in Europe are focused on Ukraine, the United States has to worry about the entire planet. Trade-offs and choices have to be made. Europe for example still allows Russian tourists.
> I would not count on that. Russia is the aggressor here, not Ukraine and only Russia can stop this war.
And Russia won’t stop the war so if Europe can’t stop the war and neither can Ukraine then there isn’t anything to do or anyone to call.
> They are
Thanks. Conversation was over here. My point was made.
> Oh that's your solution. Yes, sure, that will definitely end well, escalate to deescalate? Where have I heard that before?
So Europe isn’t willing to fight and thinks that sanctions will just magically stop Russia? It might, and I hope it does, but until then I’m not sure what else to tell you. Want to end the war? Join the military or your EU member state or volunteer to fight in Ukraine. Everything else is bullshit. You’re sounding a lot like a Russian right now.
> Well, there is a difference between 'some' and 'lots' and there is a difference between promising to do so and actually doing it. Ukraine has done extremely well so far given that in the beginning of this war most people thought they would roll over. So this is not the time to start withdrawing capabilities from them. If you believe it is then you are a useful tool in Putin's pocket.
You’re explaining things I already know. No need. Ukraine exists today still in no small part bexause of the United States and United Kingdom. A large reason why Ukraine did so well is because American and British militaries were running 24/7 airlift operations to bring weapons to Ukraine while Germany was sending helmets and Spain, France, Portugal, and others were claiming American warmongering. You’re welcome, Europe.
How about instead of accusing anyone who even vaguely disagrees with you, you take a step back and realize you yourself are playing into Putin’s hands by trying to discredit American help? Yea? Stop accusing people of being pro-Russia or whatever.
He started a war with Iran to look big and tough for his cult. That failed spectacularly and now he'll sacrifice anything and anyone to avoid the consequences of his actions.
You cannot outsource technology that is critical to your defense.
You either develop it on your own or you operate it along your allies.
Ukraine is in no military alliance, so Musk or not, it is consistently liable to the unreliability and whims of external providers, either public or private.
Which is why I'm very negative every time I hear European countries are renting from Space X instead of investing in common space technology. The day that somebody in Washington, or Dallas, decides to turn the switch off, you're off.
The fact that they are willing to use this switch in this way is far more damning than if they had done nothing at all. The problem is that one of the so called 'allies' here is behaving in ways that make it very difficult to sustain using that term.
And military alliance or not, there is such a thing as justified defense and it used to be in the decades leading up to 2015 or so that the USA was a reliable defense partner. I realize that 10 years is a long time, but a lot of people have been very slow to realize how far the rot has worked its way in.
Weapons bought and paid for by EU money are being withheld, and that's in light of daily slaughter of Ukrainian civilians (I have no other word for what is happening there).
I agree with you this is the de facto situation, but they thought they were in an alliance because of the Budapest Memorandum.
2. No point of the Budapest Memorandum implied that the signatories had to defend Ukraine.
Paragraph 4 essentially states that signatories have seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine became the victim of aggression or a threat of aggression involving nuclear weapons.
Ukraine isn't victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons, and even if it was, the signatories merely said they would escalate the matter to UN's security council.
Another paragraph had signatories (China, France, US, Russia, UK) to refrain from using force against Ukraine. Russia has violated this point.
All this lawyering-after-the-fact ignores that if what you say is true then Ukraine got screwed over, both by Russia and by the other signatories of that 'note'.
So, the normal response of other parties to such an agreement would be to ensure that all signatories stick to the agreement. Since the only party that conceivably could break it was Russia I'm pretty sure that that was taken into account when the agreement was signed, anything else would be stupendously naive.
The end result of this is that non-proliferation is dead, and that is a net negative for the whole world.
The person who made this decision will have been Trump.