>"Bulgarian Interior Minister Ivan Demerdzhiev told parliament that additional security measures had been introduced at similar facilities, even though responsibility for their protection rested with their owners."
It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors. If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies, I am not sure what is. I understand that railways in some countries have their own police, but it is my understanding that SpaceX has not been granted such powers in any country.
Demerdzhiev, Radev and their entire cabinet in general just avoid blaming Russia for some “unknown” reason as a blanket policy. Yesterday, Russia bombed two Ukrainian ships super close to Bulgaria’s waters in the Black Sea, 11 civilians died, and the PM still says we can’t make any conclusions about the perpetrators when questioned in parliament today.
I’m trying to say that the logical conclusion is to shift the responsibility explicitly to SpaceX, since otherwise you have to admit the attacks are state sponsored and you have to name the perpetrator.
They just move the burden of proof and responsibility as needed. 4 ships carrying Ukraine cargo sunk by drones in Bulgarian waters, one of the ships Ukraine owned and the crew full of Ukrainians? No evidence whatsoever on who could have done it so we don’t blame anyone. Yes yes logic says it must be Russia but we need concrete evidence, so unfortunate.
Ukraine responds to Russian attacks? Why Ukraine doesn’t want peace! Why Ukraine doesn’t just capitulate? The coalition of war(he means countries who support Ukraine militarily) is causing so much suffering.
>"you're responsible for securing your own property, security guards are a thing everywhere."
Maybe Bulgaria differs from most countries, but security guards seem to be mostly theatre. Private actors are generally very limited in what they can do to secure property, and they're usually required to basically call the police and hope the police show up in time to do something, which is often unlikely in either the countryside or industrial areas.
I think the point would be that it's the private company's responsibility to provide a minimum level of security, even if their job is just for deterrence, documentation, and notifying police in a timely manner. Even if it's mostly "theatre" it still serves a purpose.
Even more in this case: The business Starlink is operating is classified as critical infrastructure (in both EU and US)
As providers in the business of critical infrastructure they need to comply to the HIGHEST physical and digital security requirements, which includes taking preventive measures against acts of terrorism.
Not much is known about this case yet though, it's possible that their preventive procedures failed but their resilience procedures worked (was Starlink down?), and they reported the incident in compliance to EU CER and NIS2.
Either way, I'm sure they'll get an audit for EU CER compliance now, which will create a list of mandated immediate actions...
In Bulgaria the security guards used to be just protection rackets. Then EU happened and the country normalized but even the previous prime minister used to be a bodyguard.
When those people aren’t around Bulgaria is incredibly peaceful country.
You install gates, raise walls, limit access, hire personnel, etc.
The more you need to secure whatever it is, the more layers you have.
In general, any respectable warehouse would have an external wall with a single entrance to the parking, and then a second entrance to the building itself.
It really depends on the site being secured and who's acting as a guard. Try to storm a major US airbase and you'll learn very quickly that not all guards are created equal. Do the same as your local strip mall and yeah... that guy is only there to break up fights between kids and call the cops.
This. Police are just the clean-up crew who come 20 minutes after, and fill in the paperwork proving that something bad did indeed happen to you, that you can then use for your lawsuit or insurance claim, nothing more.
Unless you're a politician or the billionaire owner of an island, they're not gonna do much more to actually prevent or solve your problem.
In this case they even might come in and check if you didn't take sufficient actions to prevent this bad event.
An individual will be informed how not having a lock on the door was a failure in individual responsibility to prevent harm against yourself/others.
But an operator of digital infrastructure might get audited for compliance of the critical infrastructure directive/act. In the EU fines for such violations can be as high as €10 million or 2% of global turnover.
The people who started the fire are not going to be FSB employees, they're useful idiots that got paid for some vandalism who won't even know who hired them. Plausible deniability.
If I open something like a stadium, and whenever there's a big game I need a load of security to deal with traffic, drunk fans, and fights - arguably most of the security should be paid for from ticket sales, rather than the taxpayer, although the taxpayer should be there as the final backstop.
Likewise, if I have a bank with a vault full of valuables and I think it needs 3 armed guards present 24/7 - probably that's going to be at my expense, not that of the taxpayer. Although any bank should get a police presence in a reasonably timely manner, once they raise the alarm about a robbery.
I don't know why it should be the governments job to secure private properties of corporations against vandalism/arson. It sounds much more absurd to me.
Starlink providing services to a customer (which made them a target in this case) is not a matter the local government of that site needs to protect them against.
--> Is it a local governments' job to secure the local properties of e.g. Lockheed, or the job of Lockheed as a for-profit supplier to the military?
--
Edit, as I expected this to be much more widely known: If you are operating in the business of critical infrastructure (for which Starlink qualifies, explicitly "digital infrastructure"), you have obligations to protect your facilities against physical and cyber attacks and have resilience and business continuity processes in place.
If you decide to operate in a business segment for critical infrastructure, it is not the governments job to secure your business, YOU have to comply to the requirements of operating in this field, and the government can audit and shut down your business if you're not in compliance.
In the EU, where this incident took place, this is well-defined under the CER-directive, and further extended for IT under NIS2 and CRE.
In the US, it's covered by CISA and CIRCIA (Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act)
It's absolutely the role of the security agencies to protect against foreign attack. Are Oil tankers and Cargo ships supposed to have air defense? What about the World Trade Centers? Otherwise there is no purpose to having a military if you won't defend your sovereignty.
That doesn't absolve the orgs responsibility, but the questions should be directed at both.
Because internet is a major resource for the population. Its like water or electricity.
Most of those could be easily targeted and taken out by a large organized group but people are generally good and dont do that. If a country's military attacked though you wouldn't blame the water company for someone cutting the locks and destroying the water pumps. Or blowing up an electric facility.
Its not like this is just some random companies headquarters where they have some vehicles and someone broke the gates to spray paint the trucks.
This is an attack on the people of the country as a whole. The attackers are not vandalizing the internet because they dislike starlink they are attacking its people by destroying infrastructure. there is a major difference between the two.
> "Because internet is a major resource for the population. Its like water or electricity."
Yep, the EU classifies this as "critical infrastructure". Operators of such services (including water, electricity and digital infrastructure) have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes
I agree that the government should step up on against the military adversary on a country/regional level, but even then it is not their job to step in and do the job of Starlink as a provider of critical digital infrastructure.
A player in these markets has an obligation to secure his own facilities, otherwise every new market-entrant can undercut all competitors by not investing in security at all, until it's big enough to become a national risk and the government steps in to secure its business.
Depends on the infra, and the level of anxiety generally and specifically.
Petty vandalism no, but I’ve worked at a few and know more completely non-military business premises that absolutely have “military barricade” or the like quietly in their contingency plans.
Funny thing is, a bit of arson is kind of normal on their estates. But usually it’s just stolen cars.
The EU already classifies digital services like those provided by Starlink as "critical infrastructure".
Operators of such services have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes. This is the duty of every player in this business.
The government has a job to stand up against a potential adversary of the country (be it other countries or local terrorists), and in case of an attack on critical infrastructure the government will also step in to protect it, I agree on that.
But it doesn't have the job to take over Starlink's (or whoever's) business operations and make it secure. That is the job of the company, long before it even appears on any map of a potential adversary...
Both need to act in compliance with local laws and mandates, it's not the job of the government to fill the gaps.
Corporations have more duties of different scale than individuals.
Starlink is a provider of Digital Infrastructure, and is already classified as "Essential Entity" under the EU CER-directive.
As such, it needs to comply with so-called "Physical-Cyber Convergence Requirements", which entails
1. Perimeter and Access Defense
2. All-Hazards Mitigation: Designing infrastructure to resist natural disasters, severe climate changes, or physical sabotage/terrorism.
3. Vetted Personnel: Utilizing mandatory background checks and security clearances for operators working in sensitive zones
Not much is known about this incident at this stage, and I'm sure the government will conduct own investigations. But regardless of the outcome, it will be the duty of Starlink to secure its facilities.
>I don't know why it should be the governments job to secure private properties of corporations against vandalism/arson.
because this isn't 'vandalism', this is an act of war by a foreign adversary that is now happening on European and NATO soil on a daily basis, and instead of responding accordingly we talk about this as if a drunk kid laid a fire somewhere
> "because this isn't 'vandalism', this is an act of war by a foreign adversary that is now happening on European and NATO soil on a daily basis"
Agree, the government should step in and (finally!!) take actions against those foreign adversaries.
But this doesn't change the fact that it is not the governments role to protect the facilities of a infrastructure provider against sabotage (or even acts of terror), a company providing such services in the EU has to comply to the CER directive and secure its operations.
There is a very basic reason for that: I could undercut every provider on the market by not investing in security and resilience. while everything works well I will beat all my established competitors and gain a significant share of the market.
This creates a risk of critical infrastructure stability for the citizens of that country. So if inevitable issues in resilience arise.....I demand the government to step in and take over my operations...?
It's the government's job to protect both individuals and corporations against foreign attack. It's even the government's job to protect against crime.
This is not how this works, corporations are not people.
As a provider for digital infrastructure, Starlink is required to comply with the EU Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive, which mandates strict physical and digital security as well as business continuity in case of crisis.
The nature of this incident indicates a security issue on the site of Starlink, which is their duty, not the governments.
They may have not been in compliance with this directive, which puts local infrastructure and citizens and risk.
> "It's even the government's job to protect against crime"
It's the government's job to protect against crime, but the duty of an individual to take proactive measures against becoming a victim of crime ("Individual Responsibility").
--> They won't put a policeman in front of my house just because I decided to not have a door on my house.
-
Equally, (and MUCH more explicitly), it's the legal duty of corporations to protect themsselves against crime, especially if they provide critical infrastructure.
--> They won't put police all over my facilities just because I didn't invest in access-control.
--> In this case, I am not in compliance with the law and considered to invite(!) crime
It's both/and, not either/or. Yes, I have individual responsibility to have a door on my house, and to be careful about walking in sketchy places. And the government has a responsibility to combat crime. Both.
A critical infrastructure company has an obligation to keep their facilities secure. And the government has a responsibility to prevent attacks by foreign actors on critical infrastructure.
> "And the government has a responsibility to prevent attacks by foreign actors on critical infrastructure."
I replied explicitly to "crime", not "foreign actors", let's not conflate those just for a straw-man argument.
Preventing attacks by foreign actors is part of National intelligence and military, this is an entirely different matter. Both are entities facing outwards of a country, not inwards.
But more importantly, their job is not to fulfill the required security duties of a critical infrastructure company to prevent physical/digital attacks against the operation and resilience of its infrastructure.
And even IF they protect such a company in case of an imminent external threat, this is not a replacement for the legally required security compliance.
The critical infrastructure act (US) and directive (EU) mandate strategic measures to take explicitly against terrorist attacks, even natural disasters.
The government won't come to your company and do this job FOR you, they will lock you up and, in the EU, charge you up to xx% of your global annual revenue if they find out you're not doing it.
Not that different, perhaps, from Russia making businesses responsible for defending their sites against drones. Even threatening to nationalize the businesses that fail to establish adequate defenses. How a business can get ahold of military-grade anti-air defense systems is left mostly unanswered.
> "It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors"
I think neither private companies nor tax-payers would appreciate if the POLICE would run security for a for-profit corporation, as it means that all corporate access-permissions would de-facto be managed by the government administration (which would be financed by the taxes of citizens and other corporations...)
Also: Would be even more ironic for Starlink to now demand big-BIG-government after their CEO keeps pushing for small-government for years now. But it fits the typical "Privatize profits, socialize costs" view...
>If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies, I am not sure what is.
It's the Balkans mate. You pay next to no taxes, and so you also get next to no services back from the government.
The Police, education, healthcare, courts, etc. that exist, is just a skeleton crew in minimum load bearing role, not to actually solve your problem when you need it. For that you gotta pay private and costs extra.
Why would Balkan tax payers pay to secure foreign corporation? Especially if that corporation is involved in a war they don't care which makes it a legitimate military target.
>Why would Balkan tax payers pay to secure foreign corporation?
Because foreign corporations operating in the Balkans pay taxes in the balkans, own property/real estate on Balkan soil on which their business operates, and employ workers in the balkans.
Bulgaria is not a war party, Starlink is. Whatever taxes they pay, it doesn't cover special military protection or war involvement, just regular protection from theft, trespass and similar, like any other company not involved in war.
>Bulgaria is not a war party, Starlink is [...] it doesn't cover special military protection or war involvement
Huh? So by your logic, if Russian soldiers in fatigues are shooting up a Ukrainian Roshen candy shop in Sofia Bulgaria, it's no the job of the Bulgarian state to intervene and fire back at those Russian soldiers on Bulgarian soil or arrest them, because according to you it's just a war dispute between Russia and Ukraine that doesn't concern Bulgaria and it's government law enforcement?
In the end it'll be up to the courts to decide if the incident on Starlink is an act of war not covered by insurance and law enforcement, or vandalism that falls under the responsibility of the Bulgarian state law enforcement, but you're logic is pure comedic FUBAR.
> if Russian agents assassinated a local industrialist
Funny you mention that - Russia has tried at least once going back as far as 2024[1]. State security services intervened.
> US intelligence discovered earlier this year that the Russian government planned to assassinate the chief executive of a powerful German arms manufacturer that has been producing artillery shells and military vehicles for Ukraine, according to five US and western officials familiar with the episode.
> When the Americans learned of the effort, they informed Germany, whose security services were then able to protect Papperger and foil the plot. A high-level German government official confirmed that Berlin was warned about the plot by the US.
Because that foreign corporation presumedly purchased the local property, pays local taxes on it, and probably employs some local people. Or are you claiming that the property of anyone foreign anywhere is up for grabs because they're foreign?
They should rather seize the property of a company trying to make a country involved in war and endangering its population by operating military actions from that country soil.
And by your own argument, Bulgaria would also be at war with Russia then, since Bulgaria has been supporting Ukraine with weapons and material in this war.
> It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors.
SpaceX is actively meddling in foreign-state wars picking whichever side they choose to support on which day. They made their bed.
> SpaceX is actively meddling in foreign-state wars
Starlink is banned, by the US government, from operating in a military context, and cannot be used for military purposes. Do you have a reference/examples for them meddling/supporting wars, or a hint at what you're referring to for someone out of the loop? This is not allowed by very many laws and policies that have been in place since the company started operating.
I suspect you're making a logical leap that them stopping means they're now supporting some opposition?
"Motives" section being the important bits, for why it had to go to the government StarShield system.
Maybe this is the recent disruption referenced?
> On 14 October 2026, Musk said the Ukrainian military was using the US government owned and controlled Starshield system, not Starlink, and the recent change to restrict operational user terminals to those travelling at less than 100 mph (160 km/h) was a US government decision and not his decision.[87]
In the most corrupt administration of all time, American law doesnt really get considered at these levels. There are many things Musk and his companies should legally not be doing but not much really happening there. Especially after DOGE killed most the groups looking into these things and the AG is run by Trumps personal attorneys.
> If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies,
... it means those properties are own sovereign nations, or at least autonomous zones! woo hoo, time to declare independence of People's Republic of Mars.
Local here. The new prime minister is a spineless russian rag and everyone around him is from the former communist party. You won't find in them anything approaching self-respect or actual will desire to defend against any russian provocation.
So you agree "taxpayers should be on the hook for everything"?
Every place SpaceX decides to operate, regardless of what taxpayers want, the taxpayers should foot the entire security bill for their private facilities?
So where’s the line drawn? How much should taxpayers be primarily responsible for if a private company doesn’t meet established security standards?
The comments in this thread you’ve joined seem to imply a private company should be held to no standards, and that this specific company’s security should primarily be the responsibility of other taxpayers.
It is not absurd at all. You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed. Because if he won't execute there's nothing to arrest him for...
So to prevent a sabotage is to have several layers of security (i.e multiple fences) so you will force the saboteur to commit minor crimes like trespassing first and also slow the saboteur significantly so you can arrest him for these minor crimes.
> It is not absurd at all. You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed. Because if he won't execute there's nothing to arrest him for...
You can very well arrest someone for the intention of sabotaging.
How else would you like to discover a conspiracy if the saboteur is a tourist coming from abroad? Or of a saboteur is a child who got promised 1000eur for it?
> How else would you like to discover a conspiracy if the saboteur is a tourist coming from abroad?
Tips? Mistakes? Customs officers getting a funny feeling about something in their bags? Google searches? Purchases of stuff to make explosives with? Surveillance? The child tells their parents some creepy guy offered them a thousand Euros? Do you think intelligence agencies don't already look for this sort of thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius has a nice example of how this works that doesn't even rely on modern surveillance tech. They accomplished zero sabotage, and six were put to death for it.
> Even before the mission began, it was in danger of being compromised, as George Dasch, commander of the team, left confidential documents on a train, and one of the agents, while drunk, announced to patrons in a Paris tavern that he was a secret agent.
> Immediately upon reaching the beach, at around 30 minutes past midnight the saboteurs were discovered amidst the dunes by unarmed Coast Guard Seaman John C. Cullen, who was accosted by Dasch and offered a bribe of $300. (Cullen had been shortchanged, the money only amounted to $260.) Cullen feigned cooperation but reported the encounter.
> Additional breaches of secrecy occurred; Kerling had boasted to a colleague about their mission, and in Chicago, Herbert Haupt had asked his father to buy him a sports car claiming he needed it while traveling on business for the German government.
Any operation involving humans has opportunities for fuckups.
99% of saboteurs won't do string of such stupid mistakes. So it is a vanishing chance bordering on luck that intelligence will prevent anything and it will be possible to apply conspiracy charges.
> After the war, it was discovered that all the agents Germany sent to Britain had given themselves up or had been captured, with the possible exception of one who committed suicide.
Not a single successful agent in five years of war.
I am getting a bit concerned that Russia is actually planning an attack on Eastern Europe.
It’s just like red storm rising, their refineries have been blown up and their diesel will only last 6 months. They need to move now or they’ll have to accept peace and economic prosperity.
Mobilization turned out to be extremely unpopular, so they can't just do that without some exceptional cause.
That cause would be NATO attacking Russia. So they're engaging heavily in hybrid warfare, doing stuff like that in Europe. They're tying to provoke some small retaliation from NATO countries.
If that happens, they'll declare that the barbarians are at the gate, and they need a huge mobilization of troops.
But they have no interest in actually fighting against NATO. It would end disastrously for Russia, any way you slice it. Kaliningrad would be completely cut off and surrounded, their Arctic and Baltic sea routes would be hostile.
As a bonus, a potential real war with Russia would increase far-right isolationist popularity in Europe.
Personally I think this is all a play to mobilize a ton of soldiers, send them to Ukraine, and expand their occupied areas before a peace deal comes to the table.
No, there won't be an open attack, at least not yet. There will be more of those "hybrid" incursions. Russians will be gradually increasing the intensity of those operations, so that it becomes the new normal. There will never be a clear "well now they are attacking" boundary to point to.
Meanwhile, the EU is still buying fossil fuels from Russia, thus paying for all this. It boggles the mind.
Attacking a NATO country would mean total war for Russia. Currently there are no signs that Russia is ready for total war, or willing to have one. Russia has been fighting a war of attrition in Ukraine for 4 years, without a moving frontline, exactly because it wants to win by slow attrition.
Total war (all money going to the war, millions of mobilized workers, etc.) would result in an economic collapse, which Russia is trying to avoid. Aside from "inconveniences" like Yandex AI not working after a data center hit, Russia's everyday life is largely unaffected by the war (at least compared to Ukraine's) - exactly because it is avoiding total war.
If Russia were desperate enough to finally go all in and have full mobilization (millions of conscripts, all industry working around the clock building nothing but drones and missiles, etc.), why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself? So I think it's very unlikely that anything is going to happen to Europe other than sabotage here and there. Remember that Putin is a KGB agent, and they're more about targeted tactical operations than strategic chess play.
The whole "special military operation" thing was itself just a way to quickly coerce Zelensky into signing an agreement by threatening force, without total war, but it fell apart, so they had to go this war-of-attrition route
> Attacking a NATO country would mean total war for Russia.
Is that so? I wouldn't trust the USA to commit to its NATO responsibilities anymore. The rest of NATO, torn as it is, could just as well find all kinds of reasons why this particular attack isn't a "real" attack, just to avoid the confrontation.
I wouldn't bet on that scenario happening, but as Russia, I wouldn't dismiss it outright either.
How would a direct war with NATO on several fronts help Russia win in Ukraine? Russia isn't ready for it in the slightest. As I said, if they wanted to go all in (full mobilization instead of partial, martial law, converting all industry to military production, etc.), it would be more logical to focus first on that 1 country they want to defeat, rather than immediately triggering Article 5 and fighting 32 countries at once. It just doesn't make any sense, and judging by the Kremlin's decisions over the last 4 years, I don't think they're that stupid.
this goes both ways; they'd be gambling that NATO doesn't launch things into Russia. From the accounts I've seen they did strip down the rest of the border forts to supply Ukraine.
Also, most of NATO's existing resources are currently not doing much but standing around. You can question how useful NATO's 'pre-drone' material is, and how much hasn't already been sent to Ukraine, but it's not nothing.
>they'd be gambling that NATO doesn't launch things into Russia
The official discourse in Russia is that NATO is already helping Ukraine launch things into Russia. So there's no gamble; for them, it's already a fact. Except, currently, it's just a proxy war where Ukraine has to jump through hoops to get military aid and targets approved, and it can only fire from Ukraine's territory. With a direct confrontation, there's no doubt that far more would be launched into Russia.
> why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself?
Because if russian troops appear in EU countries, EU might be more willing to accept Ukraine losing larger territories in peace deals. That's why EU has to - once attacked - hit russia so strongly, that they will retreat on our conditions.
At least one betting market has the odds at around 25% [1] of a direct military conflict with a NATO country by year's end. It will be interesting to see how things change after November's midterm elections. For what it's worth, Metaculus forecasters show a spike of likelihood at the end of September, 2027, with about 20% of forecasters saying that's when a military clash will happen. I'm not sure what's driving that spike in the forecast.
> their refineries have been blown up and their diesel will only last 6 months.
They literally just struck a deal with the US to export diesel, and Trump has been pressuring Ukraine (most recently by disabling Starlink) into not attacking refineries in Russia. Like, situation is the opposite of what you're saying.
EDIT:
To be clearer in case you need it.
As they agreed to export means they definitely have for more than 6 months (and I believe 6 months claim is naive at best.).
And as US is pressuring Ukraine to not attack refineries means they'll be safe.
In the comment you're replying to, "their diesel will only last 6 months" is a reference to Red Storm Rising. I don't think the commentator literally meant diesel. But whatever's happening inside Russia is forcing their hand. Either they act now, or their window shuts.
Far be it from me to suggest that Trump has announced a deal that would be physically impossible to execute just to try to swing the upcoming midterm elections by a couple points, but my guess is the next we hear of the deal is when he's telling us it was ruined by Democrats somehow.
> And as US is pressuring Ukraine to not attack refineries means they'll be safe.
Refineries are not moving targets. TERCOM, INS and commercial GPS are all accurate alternatives to Starlink for attacking those positions if needed.
Fact is, the US lacks the hard power to deter strikes on Russian oil. They have the soft power they can abuse, but punishing Ukraine will push them towards more drastic reprisals. Russian oil infrastructure is built up around Moscow, and it's very vulnerable while air defenses are being moved to the frontlines. America simply doesn't control the escalation ladder.
While the article deals with the topic that is not funny at all, I am amused by people having somewhat ironic names:
> Plamen Tonchev, head of Bulgaria's State Agency for National Security (DANS) said he believed the fire at the Starlink facility was an act of sabotage.
"Plamen" means "Flame", when translated from most Slavic languages (incl. bulgarian) to English.
Who else is very concerned that corporations are becoming valid war targets lately? I get that when a corporation is assisting a war effort it a combatant (corporate personhood etc..) but I work for a corporation and I don't want to be a valid war target.
Are you saying that you think providing people with internet access should be classified as an act of war, or do you mean that you worry that other people might?
Meanwhile today's episode of Slow Horses, a British show, implied that Bulgaria is Russia's friend who will totally accept their plane with a spy and facilitate killing her on "neutral ground"
Sometimes u wonder how does the "West" get consistently so ignorant and/or lazy with their writing about the "East".
I didn't realize that in addition to the 11,127 satellites in our orbit it also takes over 1,500 ground antenna in the US alone to run this network? It seems likely that there is much more ground infrastructure than space infrastructure to make Starlink work
How else do you expect the satellites to connect to AWS or Google? It obviously has to come down at some point otherwise your packets wouldn’t be able to go anywhere…
There was some talk about having the satellites form a laser mesh but I don't think they've gone live with anything like that, so it almost always just comes back down at the nearest site.
Yes, they had these plans from the get-go so launching the necessary hardware is not surprising. The question was whether anything like that went live
Once it does go live, anyone could see the lower ping between two users of this network. If they say it got enabled, that wouldn't be hard to independently verify
"Unlike older geostationary satellite systems that had coverage gaps and high latency over remote oceans, Starlink's low-earth orbit constellation covers the entire globe. Qatar Airways, United Airlines, Alaska Airlines, and airBaltic all offer uninterrupted Starlink on long-haul international routes."
The only source I have ever seen is the US SDA confirming they have seen a demonstration of Starlink’s ISL, in 2024.
Do you have any more detailed or up to date information? I’m not doubting that they built ISL capabilities, since ISL is often used for collision avoidance and small scale satcom - I’m doubting that it is being actively used to route internet traffic.
Well, if they are just glorified repeaters, perhaps european union can hurry the fuck up and build their own network, because at the pace of events we are seeing in about 1 year from now, the USA and Russia will tell us how Ukraine and EU are responsible for starting the war and they need to learn a lesson.
Oh wait, we are already here as if few days ago. Never mind.
I find it somewhat interesting Russia is likely sabotaging these stations while Musk is limiting StarLink capabilities to Ukraine in fighting Russia. Very Spy vs Spy. Pick a lane!
Starshield uses all of Starlink's satellites and a few special ones specific to Starshield. There's been plenty of cases in Ukraine of suicide drones being configured to starlink accounts instead of military ones. In fact, that's exactly how Russia took advantage of starlink for the first 2 years.
While there might be a legal distinction between the two systems, technically speaking, it's mostly a matter of configuration.
This only says that dedicated satellites exist, which is obvious and public knowledge. What it doesn't comment on is whether starlink and starshield use any common ifra, which they almost certainly do. The number of starshield satellites is simply way, way, way too low to meet the claims that people are making about the system. It's a geometry problem.
Can you say with assurance, hopefully with evidence, which entity has degraded service as described?
> Starlink’s Acceptable Use Policy explicitly prohibits
Starlink's AUP is whatever Musk decides it is when he decides. He is petty, and there are robust examples of his pettiness as it relates to X and Starlink (I'm unaware if he's weaponized Tesla vehicle access in this regard, but welcome citations, if they exist).
"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
Yes- if they were using it for drone attacks and the service stopped/slowed, that was not Starlink, because it never would have happened in the first place.
> I'm unaware if he's weaponized Tesla vehicle access in this regard, but welcome citations, if they exist
Before the Model 3 was announced, a curious user poked around his car's network, and found multiple references to it, which he leaked to a news site.
Tesla responded by remotely forcibly downgrading his vehicle's firmware to an older version with no references to the 3 (presumably so he couldn't make any further discoveries), blacklisting his vehicle from getting any firmware upgrades, and to make sure he didn't try to thwart that, disabling the ethernet interface.
Or that one wasn't Musk but Starlink sat2sat turns out to be mostly smoke and mirrors, and the satellites simply could not provide services without the ground station in the immediate vicinity of terminals.
He get's his bags from the DoD either way... in-fact the chaos undoubtedly is actually more profitable, make hay while the sun is up... we live in a busted reality of broligarchs that are actually DoD welfare queens. They are literally on both sides of the trade so profit is inevitable. When america elect's a clown, we get a whole 3 ring circus.
Lots of quotes from Ukrainians about what they are accusing SpaceX of, and even misleading titles "NO WARNING BEFORE STARLINK CUTS", but the actual meat of it is pretty hidden.
Starlink never allowed use for offensive drone attacks, Starshield is what they were using, and it is a product fully controlled by the USG.
Did he though? Tesla sales have been basically flat for the past few years -- not growing, but certainly not "destroyed" either. They still have over 50% US market share for EVs.
And Tesla's stock price (which is what correlates with Musk's wealth) is up 50% since the 2024 election.
It's not only about musk but about continued US influence over European defense. If every European defense company moves away from the Starlink platform the US loses a lot of leverage. If they create "plausible deniabiliy" feel-good propaganda like this one, then they can convince some decision makes to keep building defense projects upon the Starlink platform.
Haha you really just can't win as a builder. Half the people despise him for doing anything for money, and the other half hate him because he cares for politics over money.
He was left wing cause that sweet tax credit for alternate energy... does anyone remember A123 and the amount the Obama administration put into it. Literally, Solar City and Tesla were to hit the sweet sweeet rebates. You can see the effects by companies like Ford canceling the F150 lighting cause the consumer breaks are gone, he was pillaging California and other Federal rebates to build his businesses, then does SpaceX to suck funds from the DoD to launch NRO sattelites. His affiliations go where the money gun blows.
Nah, his daughter coming out as trans drove him over the edge as an egotistical controlling narcissist. He didn't build, the engineers who work(ed) for him did. They deserve the credit, both at Tesla and SpaceX. Those who engineer and build always deserve credit due. But that is not him.
Wow that's a wild world view to have. Not sure how it holds up to reality when all the engineers are completely free to do whatever they want, but his companies are massively more successful than any others. Even with the previous World's Richest Man Bezos trying to poach everyone he has and copying/funding pretty much all the same ideas. Dare I ask which multi-trillion dollar companies you've been able to steal?
“It’ll never work” -> “someone else can do it but not him” -> “if he does do it, it’ll bankrupt him” -> “well he did it late” -> “it wasn’t actually him” (we are here now) -> “fine but i still don’t like him”
The [flagged][dead] who replied to your earlier comment is an example of someone who reached the final, terminal stage.
It must be nice to think there is such a clear and high wall between private corporate actors and the US government in 2026. I want to live in that delusion, too. Unfortunately, I retain a minimum amount of skepticism.
From the Starshield Wiki page:
>While SpaceX president and COO Gwynne Shotwell has indicated that there is little information she is allowed to disclose about Starshield, she has noted "very good collaboration" between the intelligence community and SpaceX on the program.
>The retired four-star general Terrence O'Shaughnessy, who previously ran U.S. Northern Command, is the vice president for SpaceX's Special Programs Group who is thought to be involved with Starshield.[1] The Wall Street Journal reported that Starshield's online job postings required people with top-secret clearances, as well as experience working with the Defense Department and intelligence community — such as representing Starshield to Pentagon combatant commands
>Col. Eric Felt, director of space architecture at the office of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition and integration, said that there are plans to acquire at least 100 Starshield-branded satellites for this purpose by 2029. He said that while the military is an active user of SpaceX's commercial Starlink service, they also want to take advantage of the company's dedicated Starshield product line.
Assuming they have a semi-competent military complex, then they should be able to put together plans ahead of time, measures and counter-measures, just like any other institution. What's so shocking about that idea?
Seems pretty feasible at this point that they might be trying to drag NATO into all-out war.
Why would Ukraine attack infrastructure it uses (today's capabilities downgrade is partial, stationary terminals function just fine for example)? In a friendly country? Believe me, it has much more important things to worry about, like surviving a genocidal invasion and countering indiscriminate bombing campaigns.
>trying to drag NATO into all-out war.
By sabotaging a few antennas? "Dragging NATO into an all-out war" is no easy task, if even possible at this point. Just ask the Russians. They have attacked German airports with drones, and barely elicited an upgrade from moderate to strong concern.
>"Bulgarian Interior Minister Ivan Demerdzhiev told parliament that additional security measures had been introduced at similar facilities, even though responsibility for their protection rested with their owners."
It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors. If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies, I am not sure what is. I understand that railways in some countries have their own police, but it is my understanding that SpaceX has not been granted such powers in any country.
Demerdzhiev, Radev and their entire cabinet in general just avoid blaming Russia for some “unknown” reason as a blanket policy. Yesterday, Russia bombed two Ukrainian ships super close to Bulgaria’s waters in the Black Sea, 11 civilians died, and the PM still says we can’t make any conclusions about the perpetrators when questioned in parliament today.
I’m trying to say that the logical conclusion is to shift the responsibility explicitly to SpaceX, since otherwise you have to admit the attacks are state sponsored and you have to name the perpetrator.
They just move the burden of proof and responsibility as needed. 4 ships carrying Ukraine cargo sunk by drones in Bulgarian waters, one of the ships Ukraine owned and the crew full of Ukrainians? No evidence whatsoever on who could have done it so we don’t blame anyone. Yes yes logic says it must be Russia but we need concrete evidence, so unfortunate.
Ukraine responds to Russian attacks? Why Ukraine doesn’t want peace! Why Ukraine doesn’t just capitulate? The coalition of war(he means countries who support Ukraine militarily) is causing so much suffering.
The pro-Russian folks are insufferable.
most of what police do is after the fact. you're responsible for securing your own property, security guards are a thing everywhere.
>"you're responsible for securing your own property, security guards are a thing everywhere."
Maybe Bulgaria differs from most countries, but security guards seem to be mostly theatre. Private actors are generally very limited in what they can do to secure property, and they're usually required to basically call the police and hope the police show up in time to do something, which is often unlikely in either the countryside or industrial areas.
I think the point would be that it's the private company's responsibility to provide a minimum level of security, even if their job is just for deterrence, documentation, and notifying police in a timely manner. Even if it's mostly "theatre" it still serves a purpose.
Even more in this case: The business Starlink is operating is classified as critical infrastructure (in both EU and US)
As providers in the business of critical infrastructure they need to comply to the HIGHEST physical and digital security requirements, which includes taking preventive measures against acts of terrorism.
Not much is known about this case yet though, it's possible that their preventive procedures failed but their resilience procedures worked (was Starlink down?), and they reported the incident in compliance to EU CER and NIS2.
Either way, I'm sure they'll get an audit for EU CER compliance now, which will create a list of mandated immediate actions...
In Bulgaria the security guards used to be just protection rackets. Then EU happened and the country normalized but even the previous prime minister used to be a bodyguard.
When those people aren’t around Bulgaria is incredibly peaceful country.
Security, physical or software is multi-tiered.
You install gates, raise walls, limit access, hire personnel, etc.
The more you need to secure whatever it is, the more layers you have.
In general, any respectable warehouse would have an external wall with a single entrance to the parking, and then a second entrance to the building itself.
It really depends on the site being secured and who's acting as a guard. Try to storm a major US airbase and you'll learn very quickly that not all guards are created equal. Do the same as your local strip mall and yeah... that guy is only there to break up fights between kids and call the cops.
US airbase guards are not private actors, which is their point.
What is the definition of being responsible for a property's security?
>most of what police do is after the fact.
This. Police are just the clean-up crew who come 20 minutes after, and fill in the paperwork proving that something bad did indeed happen to you, that you can then use for your lawsuit or insurance claim, nothing more.
Unless you're a politician or the billionaire owner of an island, they're not gonna do much more to actually prevent or solve your problem.
In this case they even might come in and check if you didn't take sufficient actions to prevent this bad event.
An individual will be informed how not having a lock on the door was a failure in individual responsibility to prevent harm against yourself/others.
But an operator of digital infrastructure might get audited for compliance of the critical infrastructure directive/act. In the EU fines for such violations can be as high as €10 million or 2% of global turnover.
security guards vs FSB.
uh huh
The people who started the fire are not going to be FSB employees, they're useful idiots that got paid for some vandalism who won't even know who hired them. Plausible deniability.
Why would the FSB care? Tthe recent limitations on SpaceX in the Ukraine are to Russia's benefit, not Ukraine's.
I believe he was suggesting the saboteurs were FSB because shutting down Ukraine’s Internet access is still in Russia’s interest.
I don't know how that particular perspective was overlooked by me, but it absolutely was!
Bit of one, bit of the other.
If I open something like a stadium, and whenever there's a big game I need a load of security to deal with traffic, drunk fans, and fights - arguably most of the security should be paid for from ticket sales, rather than the taxpayer, although the taxpayer should be there as the final backstop.
Likewise, if I have a bank with a vault full of valuables and I think it needs 3 armed guards present 24/7 - probably that's going to be at my expense, not that of the taxpayer. Although any bank should get a police presence in a reasonably timely manner, once they raise the alarm about a robbery.
I don't know why it should be the governments job to secure private properties of corporations against vandalism/arson. It sounds much more absurd to me.
Starlink providing services to a customer (which made them a target in this case) is not a matter the local government of that site needs to protect them against.
--> Is it a local governments' job to secure the local properties of e.g. Lockheed, or the job of Lockheed as a for-profit supplier to the military?
--
Edit, as I expected this to be much more widely known: If you are operating in the business of critical infrastructure (for which Starlink qualifies, explicitly "digital infrastructure"), you have obligations to protect your facilities against physical and cyber attacks and have resilience and business continuity processes in place.
If you decide to operate in a business segment for critical infrastructure, it is not the governments job to secure your business, YOU have to comply to the requirements of operating in this field, and the government can audit and shut down your business if you're not in compliance.
In the EU, where this incident took place, this is well-defined under the CER-directive, and further extended for IT under NIS2 and CRE.
In the US, it's covered by CISA and CIRCIA (Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act)
It's absolutely the role of the security agencies to protect against foreign attack. Are Oil tankers and Cargo ships supposed to have air defense? What about the World Trade Centers? Otherwise there is no purpose to having a military if you won't defend your sovereignty.
That doesn't absolve the orgs responsibility, but the questions should be directed at both.
Because internet is a major resource for the population. Its like water or electricity.
Most of those could be easily targeted and taken out by a large organized group but people are generally good and dont do that. If a country's military attacked though you wouldn't blame the water company for someone cutting the locks and destroying the water pumps. Or blowing up an electric facility.
Its not like this is just some random companies headquarters where they have some vehicles and someone broke the gates to spray paint the trucks.
This is an attack on the people of the country as a whole. The attackers are not vandalizing the internet because they dislike starlink they are attacking its people by destroying infrastructure. there is a major difference between the two.
> "Because internet is a major resource for the population. Its like water or electricity."
Yep, the EU classifies this as "critical infrastructure". Operators of such services (including water, electricity and digital infrastructure) have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes
I agree that the government should step up on against the military adversary on a country/regional level, but even then it is not their job to step in and do the job of Starlink as a provider of critical digital infrastructure.
A player in these markets has an obligation to secure his own facilities, otherwise every new market-entrant can undercut all competitors by not investing in security at all, until it's big enough to become a national risk and the government steps in to secure its business.
Depends on the infra, and the level of anxiety generally and specifically.
Petty vandalism no, but I’ve worked at a few and know more completely non-military business premises that absolutely have “military barricade” or the like quietly in their contingency plans.
Funny thing is, a bit of arson is kind of normal on their estates. But usually it’s just stolen cars.
The EU already classifies digital services like those provided by Starlink as "critical infrastructure".
Operators of such services have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes. This is the duty of every player in this business.
The government has a job to stand up against a potential adversary of the country (be it other countries or local terrorists), and in case of an attack on critical infrastructure the government will also step in to protect it, I agree on that.
But it doesn't have the job to take over Starlink's (or whoever's) business operations and make it secure. That is the job of the company, long before it even appears on any map of a potential adversary...
How is a tax-paying corporation different from a tax-paying person?
It's in the core interest of any government to protect its citizens, including corporate ones.
Both need to act in compliance with local laws and mandates, it's not the job of the government to fill the gaps.
Corporations have more duties of different scale than individuals.
Starlink is a provider of Digital Infrastructure, and is already classified as "Essential Entity" under the EU CER-directive.
As such, it needs to comply with so-called "Physical-Cyber Convergence Requirements", which entails
1. Perimeter and Access Defense
2. All-Hazards Mitigation: Designing infrastructure to resist natural disasters, severe climate changes, or physical sabotage/terrorism.
3. Vetted Personnel: Utilizing mandatory background checks and security clearances for operators working in sensitive zones
Not much is known about this incident at this stage, and I'm sure the government will conduct own investigations. But regardless of the outcome, it will be the duty of Starlink to secure its facilities.
>I don't know why it should be the governments job to secure private properties of corporations against vandalism/arson.
because this isn't 'vandalism', this is an act of war by a foreign adversary that is now happening on European and NATO soil on a daily basis, and instead of responding accordingly we talk about this as if a drunk kid laid a fire somewhere
> "because this isn't 'vandalism', this is an act of war by a foreign adversary that is now happening on European and NATO soil on a daily basis"
Agree, the government should step in and (finally!!) take actions against those foreign adversaries.
But this doesn't change the fact that it is not the governments role to protect the facilities of a infrastructure provider against sabotage (or even acts of terror), a company providing such services in the EU has to comply to the CER directive and secure its operations.
There is a very basic reason for that: I could undercut every provider on the market by not investing in security and resilience. while everything works well I will beat all my established competitors and gain a significant share of the market.
This creates a risk of critical infrastructure stability for the citizens of that country. So if inevitable issues in resilience arise.....I demand the government to step in and take over my operations...?
It's the government's job to protect both individuals and corporations against foreign attack. It's even the government's job to protect against crime.
This is not how this works, corporations are not people.
As a provider for digital infrastructure, Starlink is required to comply with the EU Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive, which mandates strict physical and digital security as well as business continuity in case of crisis.
The nature of this incident indicates a security issue on the site of Starlink, which is their duty, not the governments.
They may have not been in compliance with this directive, which puts local infrastructure and citizens and risk.
> "It's even the government's job to protect against crime"
It's the government's job to protect against crime, but the duty of an individual to take proactive measures against becoming a victim of crime ("Individual Responsibility").
--> They won't put a policeman in front of my house just because I decided to not have a door on my house.
-
Equally, (and MUCH more explicitly), it's the legal duty of corporations to protect themsselves against crime, especially if they provide critical infrastructure.
--> They won't put police all over my facilities just because I didn't invest in access-control.
--> In this case, I am not in compliance with the law and considered to invite(!) crime
It's both/and, not either/or. Yes, I have individual responsibility to have a door on my house, and to be careful about walking in sketchy places. And the government has a responsibility to combat crime. Both.
A critical infrastructure company has an obligation to keep their facilities secure. And the government has a responsibility to prevent attacks by foreign actors on critical infrastructure.
> "And the government has a responsibility to prevent attacks by foreign actors on critical infrastructure."
I replied explicitly to "crime", not "foreign actors", let's not conflate those just for a straw-man argument.
Preventing attacks by foreign actors is part of National intelligence and military, this is an entirely different matter. Both are entities facing outwards of a country, not inwards.
But more importantly, their job is not to fulfill the required security duties of a critical infrastructure company to prevent physical/digital attacks against the operation and resilience of its infrastructure.
And even IF they protect such a company in case of an imminent external threat, this is not a replacement for the legally required security compliance.
The critical infrastructure act (US) and directive (EU) mandate strategic measures to take explicitly against terrorist attacks, even natural disasters.
The government won't come to your company and do this job FOR you, they will lock you up and, in the EU, charge you up to xx% of your global annual revenue if they find out you're not doing it.
Not that different, perhaps, from Russia making businesses responsible for defending their sites against drones. Even threatening to nationalize the businesses that fail to establish adequate defenses. How a business can get ahold of military-grade anti-air defense systems is left mostly unanswered.
> "It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors"
I think neither private companies nor tax-payers would appreciate if the POLICE would run security for a for-profit corporation, as it means that all corporate access-permissions would de-facto be managed by the government administration (which would be financed by the taxes of citizens and other corporations...)
Also: Would be even more ironic for Starlink to now demand big-BIG-government after their CEO keeps pushing for small-government for years now. But it fits the typical "Privatize profits, socialize costs" view...
> federal agencies
It's cute when Americans assume every country's constitution is the same as their own.
Starlink sites are mostly at dwdm regen hut sites, which as a general industry baseline have a remarkably low level of security.
>If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies, I am not sure what is.
It's the Balkans mate. You pay next to no taxes, and so you also get next to no services back from the government.
The Police, education, healthcare, courts, etc. that exist, is just a skeleton crew in minimum load bearing role, not to actually solve your problem when you need it. For that you gotta pay private and costs extra.
As a Balkanian I vouch for this. Even what little you pay as taxes gets embezzled and you are always on your own.
On the upside, there is little that surprises you and you thrive in any environment. Balkans FTW.
Why would Balkan tax payers pay to secure foreign corporation? Especially if that corporation is involved in a war they don't care which makes it a legitimate military target.
>Why would Balkan tax payers pay to secure foreign corporation?
Because foreign corporations operating in the Balkans pay taxes in the balkans, own property/real estate on Balkan soil on which their business operates, and employ workers in the balkans.
Bulgaria is not a war party, Starlink is. Whatever taxes they pay, it doesn't cover special military protection or war involvement, just regular protection from theft, trespass and similar, like any other company not involved in war.
>Bulgaria is not a war party, Starlink is [...] it doesn't cover special military protection or war involvement
Huh? So by your logic, if Russian soldiers in fatigues are shooting up a Ukrainian Roshen candy shop in Sofia Bulgaria, it's no the job of the Bulgarian state to intervene and fire back at those Russian soldiers on Bulgarian soil or arrest them, because according to you it's just a war dispute between Russia and Ukraine that doesn't concern Bulgaria and it's government law enforcement?
In the end it'll be up to the courts to decide if the incident on Starlink is an act of war not covered by insurance and law enforcement, or vandalism that falls under the responsibility of the Bulgarian state law enforcement, but you're logic is pure comedic FUBAR.
A more appropriate comparison would be if Russian agents assassinated a local industrialist.
And, well, would you expect the state to proactively assign military protection details to such people?
No. They would have their own body guards, and maybe a police protection if needed. But not army.
The spy and counterspy agency would probably investigate, but they are not going to post a flak cannon next to each Starlink base station.
> if Russian agents assassinated a local industrialist
Funny you mention that - Russia has tried at least once going back as far as 2024[1]. State security services intervened.
> US intelligence discovered earlier this year that the Russian government planned to assassinate the chief executive of a powerful German arms manufacturer that has been producing artillery shells and military vehicles for Ukraine, according to five US and western officials familiar with the episode.
> When the Americans learned of the effort, they informed Germany, whose security services were then able to protect Papperger and foil the plot. A high-level German government official confirmed that Berlin was warned about the plot by the US.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/us-germany-foiled-ru...
Exactly.
Secret Squirrels will obviously keep track of who wants to blow up Starlink, but they will not interfere unless it makes sense for the country.
Completely different than parking a tank preventively in front of each base station. Or even just a police car.
Because that foreign corporation presumedly purchased the local property, pays local taxes on it, and probably employs some local people. Or are you claiming that the property of anyone foreign anywhere is up for grabs because they're foreign?
In many countries, foreigners are not even allowed to buy property in the first place.
It’s not exactly uncommon or inconceivable that yes, the property of foreigners doesn’t quite get the same protections.
You're seriously asking why the state would enforce property rights?
They should rather seize the property of a company trying to make a country involved in war and endangering its population by operating military actions from that country soil.
You're stretching it beyond sound reason.
And by your own argument, Bulgaria would also be at war with Russia then, since Bulgaria has been supporting Ukraine with weapons and material in this war.
You don't need any special power to hire security at your plant or warehouse.
> It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors.
SpaceX is actively meddling in foreign-state wars picking whichever side they choose to support on which day. They made their bed.
> SpaceX is actively meddling in foreign-state wars
Starlink is banned, by the US government, from operating in a military context, and cannot be used for military purposes. Do you have a reference/examples for them meddling/supporting wars, or a hint at what you're referring to for someone out of the loop? This is not allowed by very many laws and policies that have been in place since the company started operating.
I suspect you're making a logical leap that them stopping means they're now supporting some opposition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainia...
"Motives" section being the important bits, for why it had to go to the government StarShield system.
Maybe this is the recent disruption referenced?
> On 14 October 2026, Musk said the Ukrainian military was using the US government owned and controlled Starshield system, not Starlink, and the recent change to restrict operational user terminals to those travelling at less than 100 mph (160 km/h) was a US government decision and not his decision.[87]
This makes sense if you completely ignore the existence of american law.
Which American law has forced Starlink to introduce the brand new restrictions on Ukraine's use in the last day?
In the most corrupt administration of all time, American law doesnt really get considered at these levels. There are many things Musk and his companies should legally not be doing but not much really happening there. Especially after DOGE killed most the groups looking into these things and the AG is run by Trumps personal attorneys.
> If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies,
... it means those properties are own sovereign nations, or at least autonomous zones! woo hoo, time to declare independence of People's Republic of Mars.
Local here. The new prime minister is a spineless russian rag and everyone around him is from the former communist party. You won't find in them anything approaching self-respect or actual will desire to defend against any russian provocation.
Well, then he's on Elon's side I guess...
When you start acting militarily, secure your own shit militarily.
Most railways aren’t owned by fascist financiers. Probably.
“ Ukraine Loses Starlink Access as Musk Says Zelenskiy Went “Too Far” | SpaceX suddenly throttled access to Starlink with no warning, Ukraine says.”
Fucking disgusting.
It's private property, is it not? I don't see why taxpayers should be on the hook for everything, unless they get a return on their investment.
Nationalize the infrastructure if it's that important to the public.
If you have to defend it yourself why pay taxes? Why not use the money to hire your private army instead?
I pay taxes too. I don’t have a policeman stationed outside my home.
So you agree "taxpayers should be on the hook for everything"?
Every place SpaceX decides to operate, regardless of what taxpayers want, the taxpayers should foot the entire security bill for their private facilities?
Sounds like socialism.
Everything? No, but governments do have the monopoly on violence. As long as that is true, they bare the primary responsibility of security.
So where’s the line drawn? How much should taxpayers be primarily responsible for if a private company doesn’t meet established security standards?
The comments in this thread you’ve joined seem to imply a private company should be held to no standards, and that this specific company’s security should primarily be the responsibility of other taxpayers.
It's probably just politics, he needs someone to point the finger at.
It is not absurd at all. You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed. Because if he won't execute there's nothing to arrest him for...
So to prevent a sabotage is to have several layers of security (i.e multiple fences) so you will force the saboteur to commit minor crimes like trespassing first and also slow the saboteur significantly so you can arrest him for these minor crimes.
> It is not absurd at all. You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed. Because if he won't execute there's nothing to arrest him for...
You can very well arrest someone for the intention of sabotaging.
Should SpaceX conduct the investigation to prove he had the intention of sabotaging? Ffs
It wouldn't be unprecedented.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/spacex-pushed-sniper-t...
Less tongue-in-cheek, I would absolutely expect SpaceX has an entire department responsible for security of assets like these.
> You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed.
Sure you can. We convict people of conspiracy all the time.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/overt_act
Arresting all the people who happen to walk past a strategic object will fill up your prisons very quickly.
Yes, that would be very dumb. Who suggested that?
How else would you like to discover a conspiracy if the saboteur is a tourist coming from abroad? Or of a saboteur is a child who got promised 1000eur for it?
> How else would you like to discover a conspiracy if the saboteur is a tourist coming from abroad?
Tips? Mistakes? Customs officers getting a funny feeling about something in their bags? Google searches? Purchases of stuff to make explosives with? Surveillance? The child tells their parents some creepy guy offered them a thousand Euros? Do you think intelligence agencies don't already look for this sort of thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius has a nice example of how this works that doesn't even rely on modern surveillance tech. They accomplished zero sabotage, and six were put to death for it.
> Even before the mission began, it was in danger of being compromised, as George Dasch, commander of the team, left confidential documents on a train, and one of the agents, while drunk, announced to patrons in a Paris tavern that he was a secret agent.
> Immediately upon reaching the beach, at around 30 minutes past midnight the saboteurs were discovered amidst the dunes by unarmed Coast Guard Seaman John C. Cullen, who was accosted by Dasch and offered a bribe of $300. (Cullen had been shortchanged, the money only amounted to $260.) Cullen feigned cooperation but reported the encounter.
> Additional breaches of secrecy occurred; Kerling had boasted to a colleague about their mission, and in Chicago, Herbert Haupt had asked his father to buy him a sports car claiming he needed it while traveling on business for the German government.
Any operation involving humans has opportunities for fuckups.
99% of saboteurs won't do string of such stupid mistakes. So it is a vanishing chance bordering on luck that intelligence will prevent anything and it will be possible to apply conspiracy charges.
> 99% of saboteurs won't do string of such stupid mistakes.
Why would I presume this to be any more accurate than "can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed" was?
If sabotage is so easy to perform without detection, why aren't motivated actors doing more of it? It's certainly not a lack of motive at play, here.
Humans make mistakes. The saboteur can't afford any. The cops only have to get lucky once. And these are the folks who mix up "SIM card" with the game "The Sims" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/04/26/russia...).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Cross_System
> After the war, it was discovered that all the agents Germany sent to Britain had given themselves up or had been captured, with the possible exception of one who committed suicide.
Not a single successful agent in five years of war.
And yet there is much more successful sabotages than prevented ones. It turns out that one can't see into a mind of other person.
> And yet there is much more successful sabotages than prevented ones.
Do you think they publicly announce every one they catch? Or that none are ever deterred?
> It turns out that one can't see into a mind of other person.
And yet, we manage to catch people planning things, because sabotage requires more than just a thought.
Look at the many examples of it happening for your answer. This isn’t theoretical.
Drones do not care about fences.
I am getting a bit concerned that Russia is actually planning an attack on Eastern Europe.
It’s just like red storm rising, their refineries have been blown up and their diesel will only last 6 months. They need to move now or they’ll have to accept peace and economic prosperity.
Russia needs a huge mobilization.
Mobilization turned out to be extremely unpopular, so they can't just do that without some exceptional cause.
That cause would be NATO attacking Russia. So they're engaging heavily in hybrid warfare, doing stuff like that in Europe. They're tying to provoke some small retaliation from NATO countries.
If that happens, they'll declare that the barbarians are at the gate, and they need a huge mobilization of troops.
But they have no interest in actually fighting against NATO. It would end disastrously for Russia, any way you slice it. Kaliningrad would be completely cut off and surrounded, their Arctic and Baltic sea routes would be hostile.
As a bonus, a potential real war with Russia would increase far-right isolationist popularity in Europe.
Personally I think this is all a play to mobilize a ton of soldiers, send them to Ukraine, and expand their occupied areas before a peace deal comes to the table.
No, there won't be an open attack, at least not yet. There will be more of those "hybrid" incursions. Russians will be gradually increasing the intensity of those operations, so that it becomes the new normal. There will never be a clear "well now they are attacking" boundary to point to.
Meanwhile, the EU is still buying fossil fuels from Russia, thus paying for all this. It boggles the mind.
Long-term contracts. Also logistics is a harsh mistress. If you have no LNG terminals, your options of buying natural gas from the US are limited.
Interestingly enough 4 ships in the past week were sunk in Bulgaria’s territorial waters by drones.
The Bulgarian PM has refused to name Russia responsible.
It does seem like they’re “testing the waters”, so to speak.
They're not planning an attack on Eastern Europe. They are desperate to wrap up their Ukraine fiasco.
Attacking a NATO country would mean total war for Russia. Currently there are no signs that Russia is ready for total war, or willing to have one. Russia has been fighting a war of attrition in Ukraine for 4 years, without a moving frontline, exactly because it wants to win by slow attrition.
Total war (all money going to the war, millions of mobilized workers, etc.) would result in an economic collapse, which Russia is trying to avoid. Aside from "inconveniences" like Yandex AI not working after a data center hit, Russia's everyday life is largely unaffected by the war (at least compared to Ukraine's) - exactly because it is avoiding total war.
If Russia were desperate enough to finally go all in and have full mobilization (millions of conscripts, all industry working around the clock building nothing but drones and missiles, etc.), why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself? So I think it's very unlikely that anything is going to happen to Europe other than sabotage here and there. Remember that Putin is a KGB agent, and they're more about targeted tactical operations than strategic chess play.
The whole "special military operation" thing was itself just a way to quickly coerce Zelensky into signing an agreement by threatening force, without total war, but it fell apart, so they had to go this war-of-attrition route
> Attacking a NATO country would mean total war for Russia.
Is that so? I wouldn't trust the USA to commit to its NATO responsibilities anymore. The rest of NATO, torn as it is, could just as well find all kinds of reasons why this particular attack isn't a "real" attack, just to avoid the confrontation.
I wouldn't bet on that scenario happening, but as Russia, I wouldn't dismiss it outright either.
> why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself?
Because it would force NATO to divert resources away from Ukraine.
How would a direct war with NATO on several fronts help Russia win in Ukraine? Russia isn't ready for it in the slightest. As I said, if they wanted to go all in (full mobilization instead of partial, martial law, converting all industry to military production, etc.), it would be more logical to focus first on that 1 country they want to defeat, rather than immediately triggering Article 5 and fighting 32 countries at once. It just doesn't make any sense, and judging by the Kremlin's decisions over the last 4 years, I don't think they're that stupid.
If you're interested in the logic behind this war, you might be interested in learning from Anders Puck Nielsen, author of The Logic of War.
- https://youtu.be/z61ZuZ08jRA?si=_GChfuUptluluave&t=602
- https://youtu.be/NCEKsF9w8uQ?si=WkguFDu0vSdm1dbR&t=405
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opa3s2VuD0s
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQmxNTloGmw
this goes both ways; they'd be gambling that NATO doesn't launch things into Russia. From the accounts I've seen they did strip down the rest of the border forts to supply Ukraine.
Also, most of NATO's existing resources are currently not doing much but standing around. You can question how useful NATO's 'pre-drone' material is, and how much hasn't already been sent to Ukraine, but it's not nothing.
>they'd be gambling that NATO doesn't launch things into Russia
The official discourse in Russia is that NATO is already helping Ukraine launch things into Russia. So there's no gamble; for them, it's already a fact. Except, currently, it's just a proxy war where Ukraine has to jump through hoops to get military aid and targets approved, and it can only fire from Ukraine's territory. With a direct confrontation, there's no doubt that far more would be launched into Russia.
> why would it start by attacking random EU countries instead of Ukraine itself?
Because if russian troops appear in EU countries, EU might be more willing to accept Ukraine losing larger territories in peace deals. That's why EU has to - once attacked - hit russia so strongly, that they will retreat on our conditions.
Finally a lucid comment.
At least one betting market has the odds at around 25% [1] of a direct military conflict with a NATO country by year's end. It will be interesting to see how things change after November's midterm elections. For what it's worth, Metaculus forecasters show a spike of likelihood at the end of September, 2027, with about 20% of forecasters saying that's when a military clash will happen. I'm not sure what's driving that spike in the forecast.
[1] https://polymarket.com/event/nato-x-russia-military-clash-in... [2] https://www.metaculus.com/questions/41238/when-will-russia-a...
Man do I feel gross knowing that there's people betting on this.
> their refineries have been blown up and their diesel will only last 6 months.
They literally just struck a deal with the US to export diesel, and Trump has been pressuring Ukraine (most recently by disabling Starlink) into not attacking refineries in Russia. Like, situation is the opposite of what you're saying.
EDIT: To be clearer in case you need it.
As they agreed to export means they definitely have for more than 6 months (and I believe 6 months claim is naive at best.).
And as US is pressuring Ukraine to not attack refineries means they'll be safe.
In the comment you're replying to, "their diesel will only last 6 months" is a reference to Red Storm Rising. I don't think the commentator literally meant diesel. But whatever's happening inside Russia is forcing their hand. Either they act now, or their window shuts.
Far be it from me to suggest that Trump has announced a deal that would be physically impossible to execute just to try to swing the upcoming midterm elections by a couple points, but my guess is the next we hear of the deal is when he's telling us it was ruined by Democrats somehow.
> And as US is pressuring Ukraine to not attack refineries means they'll be safe.
Refineries are not moving targets. TERCOM, INS and commercial GPS are all accurate alternatives to Starlink for attacking those positions if needed.
Fact is, the US lacks the hard power to deter strikes on Russian oil. They have the soft power they can abuse, but punishing Ukraine will push them towards more drastic reprisals. Russian oil infrastructure is built up around Moscow, and it's very vulnerable while air defenses are being moved to the frontlines. America simply doesn't control the escalation ladder.
Refineries are not moving targets. TERCOM, INS and commercial GPS are all accurate alternatives to Starlink for attacking those positions if needed.
They need Starlink in order to attack other targets. Threatening Starlink is a way to coerce Ukraine into doing Trump's (and thus Putin's) bidding.
Russia are getting the diesel to sell the Trump from Iran.
There’s tons of photos or Iranian tankers in convoy in Russia.
While the article deals with the topic that is not funny at all, I am amused by people having somewhat ironic names:
> Plamen Tonchev, head of Bulgaria's State Agency for National Security (DANS) said he believed the fire at the Starlink facility was an act of sabotage.
"Plamen" means "Flame", when translated from most Slavic languages (incl. bulgarian) to English.
You might enjoy this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism. Not quite the same thing, more like if Plamen was a firefighter (or arsonist, I guess), but it's what your comment reminded me of.
There is definitely much more sympathy for Russia in Bulgaria than in Poland (I've noticed this esp. with older folks: "our Russian brothers").
Who else is very concerned that corporations are becoming valid war targets lately? I get that when a corporation is assisting a war effort it a combatant (corporate personhood etc..) but I work for a corporation and I don't want to be a valid war target.
Are you saying that you think providing people with internet access should be classified as an act of war, or do you mean that you worry that other people might?
always has been
Meanwhile today's episode of Slow Horses, a British show, implied that Bulgaria is Russia's friend who will totally accept their plane with a spy and facilitate killing her on "neutral ground"
Sometimes u wonder how does the "West" get consistently so ignorant and/or lazy with their writing about the "East".
I didn't realize that in addition to the 11,127 satellites in our orbit it also takes over 1,500 ground antenna in the US alone to run this network? It seems likely that there is much more ground infrastructure than space infrastructure to make Starlink work
How else do you expect the satellites to connect to AWS or Google? It obviously has to come down at some point otherwise your packets wouldn’t be able to go anywhere…
The satellites are glorified repeaters.
There was some talk about having the satellites form a laser mesh but I don't think they've gone live with anything like that, so it almost always just comes back down at the nearest site.
Most of the satellites now have three 200GBps inter-satellite links. The starlink V3 that will be launched on the big rocket reportedly have six ISLs.
Yes, they had these plans from the get-go so launching the necessary hardware is not surprising. The question was whether anything like that went live
Once it does go live, anyone could see the lower ping between two users of this network. If they say it got enabled, that wouldn't be hard to independently verify
Its already live, Starlink works in the Arctic far outside the line of sight of any base station.
What demonstrates ISL use is service availability in the middle of oceans, far from any ground station.
https://www.starlinkflights.com/how-to-check-starlink-flight:
"Unlike older geostationary satellite systems that had coverage gaps and high latency over remote oceans, Starlink's low-earth orbit constellation covers the entire globe. Qatar Airways, United Airlines, Alaska Airlines, and airBaltic all offer uninterrupted Starlink on long-haul international routes."
Do you have a source for this claim?
Since when? Last I heard this was just vaporware.
Since 2021 when they started deploying the v1.5 satellites.
The only source I have ever seen is the US SDA confirming they have seen a demonstration of Starlink’s ISL, in 2024.
Do you have any more detailed or up to date information? I’m not doubting that they built ISL capabilities, since ISL is often used for collision avoidance and small scale satcom - I’m doubting that it is being actively used to route internet traffic.
I used it in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on a Hawaiian Airlines flight two years ago, where have you been
Laser link has been operational since 2021:
https://www.trackstarlink.com/guides/starlink-laser-links-ex...
They’ve had it since at least 2022, here is a more recent document explaining access in the middle of the ocean for Royal Caribbean cruise ships:
https://www.royalcaribbean.com/guides/wifi-cruise-packages
Well, if they are just glorified repeaters, perhaps european union can hurry the fuck up and build their own network, because at the pace of events we are seeing in about 1 year from now, the USA and Russia will tell us how Ukraine and EU are responsible for starting the war and they need to learn a lesson.
Oh wait, we are already here as if few days ago. Never mind.
Wait. They're not doing the orbital mesh?!
I thought that was fundamental to the whole network?
Not another Elon bullshit?
They are doing orbital mesh, still need downlinks though, and having them close to the earthbound endpoint is key for low latency.
[0]https://www.trackstarlink.com/guides/starlink-laser-links-ex... [1]https://starlink.com/technology
Don’t jump on the ignorance bandwagon.
I find it somewhat interesting Russia is likely sabotaging these stations while Musk is limiting StarLink capabilities to Ukraine in fighting Russia. Very Spy vs Spy. Pick a lane!
You're talking about Starshield, which is operated by the US Government via services contracted, not personally regulated by Musk himself.
Starlink, the commercial product, was always off limits for military operations (the type that require connectivity at 100+ MPH).
So, no, this is not one person dictating the usage.
Starlink’s Acceptable Use Policy explicitly prohibits:
- Remotely controlling or piloting any aerial drone or unmanned vehicle (unless otherwise contractually permitted by SpaceX).
- Engaging in any military activity other than approved morale/welfare/recreation programs for service members.
Starshield uses all of Starlink's satellites and a few special ones specific to Starshield. There's been plenty of cases in Ukraine of suicide drones being configured to starlink accounts instead of military ones. In fact, that's exactly how Russia took advantage of starlink for the first 2 years.
While there might be a legal distinction between the two systems, technically speaking, it's mostly a matter of configuration.
> Starlink, the commercial product, was always off limits for military operations (the type that require connectivity at 100+ MPH).
Lots of Ukrainian use of satellite communications is where people are hiding in a makeshift bunker. Those don't usually travel at 100+ MPH.
It's only one set of satellites. Stop pretending that its different.
They actually are separate satellites and it's easily checked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield#Launches
This only says that dedicated satellites exist, which is obvious and public knowledge. What it doesn't comment on is whether starlink and starshield use any common ifra, which they almost certainly do. The number of starshield satellites is simply way, way, way too low to meet the claims that people are making about the system. It's a geometry problem.
Can you say with assurance, hopefully with evidence, which entity has degraded service as described?
> Starlink’s Acceptable Use Policy explicitly prohibits
Starlink's AUP is whatever Musk decides it is when he decides. He is petty, and there are robust examples of his pettiness as it relates to X and Starlink (I'm unaware if he's weaponized Tesla vehicle access in this regard, but welcome citations, if they exist).
"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2026/04/29/musk-more-petty...
(if you do not rely on Musk controlled systems, he cannot weaponize them against you; choose your risk exposure accordingly)
Yes- if they were using it for drone attacks and the service stopped/slowed, that was not Starlink, because it never would have happened in the first place.
> I'm unaware if he's weaponized Tesla vehicle access in this regard, but welcome citations, if they exist
Before the Model 3 was announced, a curious user poked around his car's network, and found multiple references to it, which he leaked to a news site.
Tesla responded by remotely forcibly downgrading his vehicle's firmware to an older version with no references to the 3 (presumably so he couldn't make any further discoveries), blacklisting his vehicle from getting any firmware upgrades, and to make sure he didn't try to thwart that, disabling the ethernet interface.
You're telling me appeasement doesn't work?
Or that one wasn't Musk but Starlink sat2sat turns out to be mostly smoke and mirrors, and the satellites simply could not provide services without the ground station in the immediate vicinity of terminals.
He get's his bags from the DoD either way... in-fact the chaos undoubtedly is actually more profitable, make hay while the sun is up... we live in a busted reality of broligarchs that are actually DoD welfare queens. They are literally on both sides of the trade so profit is inevitable. When america elect's a clown, we get a whole 3 ring circus.
> while Musk is limiting StarLink capabilities to Ukraine in fighting Russia
Can you share a link? AFAIK Musk blocked Starlink for Russians, not Ukrainians.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/ukraine-accus...
Lots of quotes from Ukrainians about what they are accusing SpaceX of, and even misleading titles "NO WARNING BEFORE STARLINK CUTS", but the actual meat of it is pretty hidden.
Starlink never allowed use for offensive drone attacks, Starshield is what they were using, and it is a product fully controlled by the USG.
>Lots of quotes from Ukrainians about what they are accusing SpaceX of, and even misleading titles "NO WARNING BEFORE STARLINK CUTS"
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
https://kyivindependent.com/this-cannot-be-a-coincidence-ukr...
It might just be feel-good propaganda to reduce the PR fallout for starlink/musk.
"See guys please don't cancel your Starlink orders russia also thinks we are the enemy!"
Scarily enough, money isn't his main motivation. He willingly destroyed tesla sales for politics.
Did he though? Tesla sales have been basically flat for the past few years -- not growing, but certainly not "destroyed" either. They still have over 50% US market share for EVs.
And Tesla's stock price (which is what correlates with Musk's wealth) is up 50% since the 2024 election.
It's not only about musk but about continued US influence over European defense. If every European defense company moves away from the Starlink platform the US loses a lot of leverage. If they create "plausible deniabiliy" feel-good propaganda like this one, then they can convince some decision makes to keep building defense projects upon the Starlink platform.
Haha you really just can't win as a builder. Half the people despise him for doing anything for money, and the other half hate him because he cares for politics over money.
You may note that 0/2 halves appreciate his lack of principles and capricious political endeavors.
If it was, say, Tim Cook being dissected, people would also criticize his inconsistent political views and support for self-serving deregulation.
I don't think he really cares about politics.
He was proper left wing before, switched over to right wing.
There were plenty of stories and timelines were he as really lucky regarding his money and his investments.
Im pretty sure he did all of this to lobby for himself.
Why would he try to change or fix USA Politics for the better of humanity if he stated that earth is over and we need mars.
DOGE? His way of fighting burocracy and environmental rules. Giving money to Trump? Subsidies, advertising, reduction of environmental rules etc.
He was left wing cause that sweet tax credit for alternate energy... does anyone remember A123 and the amount the Obama administration put into it. Literally, Solar City and Tesla were to hit the sweet sweeet rebates. You can see the effects by companies like Ford canceling the F150 lighting cause the consumer breaks are gone, he was pillaging California and other Federal rebates to build his businesses, then does SpaceX to suck funds from the DoD to launch NRO sattelites. His affiliations go where the money gun blows.
Nah, his daughter coming out as trans drove him over the edge as an egotistical controlling narcissist. He didn't build, the engineers who work(ed) for him did. They deserve the credit, both at Tesla and SpaceX. Those who engineer and build always deserve credit due. But that is not him.
Wow that's a wild world view to have. Not sure how it holds up to reality when all the engineers are completely free to do whatever they want, but his companies are massively more successful than any others. Even with the previous World's Richest Man Bezos trying to poach everyone he has and copying/funding pretty much all the same ideas. Dare I ask which multi-trillion dollar companies you've been able to steal?
“It’ll never work” -> “someone else can do it but not him” -> “if he does do it, it’ll bankrupt him” -> “well he did it late” -> “it wasn’t actually him” (we are here now) -> “fine but i still don’t like him”
The [flagged][dead] who replied to your earlier comment is an example of someone who reached the final, terminal stage.
>Musk is limiting StarLink capabilities to Ukraine
Incorrect. The US government limited Starshield, the military version of Starlink which it controls. SpaceX has no say.
It must be nice to think there is such a clear and high wall between private corporate actors and the US government in 2026. I want to live in that delusion, too. Unfortunately, I retain a minimum amount of skepticism.
From the Starshield Wiki page:
>While SpaceX president and COO Gwynne Shotwell has indicated that there is little information she is allowed to disclose about Starshield, she has noted "very good collaboration" between the intelligence community and SpaceX on the program.
>The retired four-star general Terrence O'Shaughnessy, who previously ran U.S. Northern Command, is the vice president for SpaceX's Special Programs Group who is thought to be involved with Starshield.[1] The Wall Street Journal reported that Starshield's online job postings required people with top-secret clearances, as well as experience working with the Defense Department and intelligence community — such as representing Starshield to Pentagon combatant commands
>Col. Eric Felt, director of space architecture at the office of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition and integration, said that there are plans to acquire at least 100 Starshield-branded satellites for this purpose by 2029. He said that while the military is an active user of SpaceX's commercial Starlink service, they also want to take advantage of the company's dedicated Starshield product line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2110445577184133456
Some are disabled by Musk, some are disabled by sabotage. No contraddiction.
Europe looks incredibly weak at present and the US incredibly corrupt.
Can you just pinpoint your location for us?
Right after Starlink partially cut the pipe to Ukraine... Right at the time an Ukranian is facing a court of justice for the Nord Stream pipeline...
So you think that Ukraine is able to pull out such operation on foreign soil in matter of hours?
Assuming they have a semi-competent military complex, then they should be able to put together plans ahead of time, measures and counter-measures, just like any other institution. What's so shocking about that idea?
Seems pretty feasible at this point that they might be trying to drag NATO into all-out war.
Why would Ukraine attack infrastructure it uses (today's capabilities downgrade is partial, stationary terminals function just fine for example)? In a friendly country? Believe me, it has much more important things to worry about, like surviving a genocidal invasion and countering indiscriminate bombing campaigns.
>trying to drag NATO into all-out war.
By sabotaging a few antennas? "Dragging NATO into an all-out war" is no easy task, if even possible at this point. Just ask the Russians. They have attacked German airports with drones, and barely elicited an upgrade from moderate to strong concern.
At heart, honestly, I hope you are right, but the signs are there.
I only see signs of concern trolling and perhaps a bit of pro-Russian bias, to be honest.
Of course they are.