SpaceX cuts off Ukraine's 'offensive' Starlink use

While SpaceX continues sending its Starlink terminals to Ukraine - provided the cash keeps coming in - it isn't okay with its satellite internet gear being used directly in war, such as piloting military drones. Speaking at the Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation Conference in Washington DC, …

[Dan 55]

"it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

"Offensive use"? Musk can just fuck off.

What do all these invasions have in common?

2008 Georgia

2012 Kyrgyzstan

2014 Ukraine

2015 Syria

2022 Kazakhstan

2022 Ukraine

That's right, none of these countries were the invaders. Guess who was.

[SundogUK]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

All true. All entirely missing the point.

Providing technology to target anti-aircraft weapons against bombers is defensive.

Providing technology to target artillery attacks on civilian buildings is offensive.

If SpaceX can differentiate, they should.

[Dan 55]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

I'm sorry, which invading force from which country is inside the civilian buildings in which country just so we're clear?

[steelpillow]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

"Providing technology to target artillery attacks on civilian buildings is offensive."

Yes, and Ukraine has been real careful not to target Russian civilian buildings, ever. But Ukrainian civilian buildings occupied by invading Russian troops, only Putin (and you, it seems) have the barefaced cheek to claim /that/ is the same thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

"What do all these invasions have in common?"

None of them happened when Trump was president?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

They didn't need to take anything by force. Trump was a russian lapdog, rolling over for his master.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

Yeah... no. What did Russia take during his presidency? Nothing.

Russian collusion was a hoax.

He warned Germany about being reliant on Russian gas, how well did that work out?

He pointed out how most NATO nations are not keeping up with their own defence and just relying on the US to defend them.

The Potatus sleepy Joe is the lapdog.

You may want to get some treatment for your TDS.

[Martin-73]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

why is it that russian trolls are so easy to spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

Because in the US they vote for Democrats.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

Couldn't have put it better myself!

[jgarbo]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

All Russian responses to previous aggression. Remember, the Ukraine "war" was started in 2014 by the US installed neo-Nazis with the stated aim of "eliminating Russian speakers in Donbas". Do more research. Drop the Guardian if you want sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

Shhh!! We don't talk about that!

What did the US say about the EU in 2014?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "it drew the line at what it considered more offensive use"

Odd I was under the impression that one country was invited into Syria by the Syrian government to support it in its fight against terrorists and invasion by another country.

Thank you for enlightening me.

[Howard Sway]

there were things SpaceX could do to limit use it doesn't agree with

So Musk gets to run Twitter entirely based on his personal whims because he bought it. OK, fair enough, even if it makes him look like an idiot.

Musk gets to dictate what a country can do to defend itself from an invasion because he gave them some mobile phones. Not OK, makes him look like a callous megalomaniac more concerned about his business than millions of people's lives.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: there were things SpaceX could do to limit use it doesn't agree with

How is this any different to what the politicians are doing? i.e. deciding what type of weaponry/munitions they will and won't supply to Ukraine.

So far it seems that, for example, anti-tank weapons are deemed OK but all countries in the EU and the US dithered for a long time about supplying tanks. Similarly the debate has now moved on to whether it is OK to supply fighter planes. Both the latter could be used more offensively. This article and the many of the comments don't seem to be making a fuss about that.

Similarly, for all the fuss about whether SpaceX (a private company) should be paid for supplying a service, no one seems to be making a fuss about whether the suppliers of the arms and munitions are getting paid. I think it is fair to assume that they are getting paid or that the supplies are coming from government/military stock - either way _you_ are paying. So why are you all getting upset at the idea that SpaceX (a private company) might want also to get paid for supplying something too?

So they are supplying something to Ukraine for free, they are attracting hostile Russian attention for some of the uses that it is being put to which could plausibly result in attempts to damage their infrastructure, no one is offering to provide any protection or support - and you are all whining that Elon is being mean by saying they might have to curtail a _small_ part of the use of Starlink services? (which, don't forget, they are supplying for free).

Even though the curtailment they are suggesting is broadly equivalent to what your politicians are also doing with the physical supplies - which, apparently, you are all happy with.

It's almost as if you just all want to "hate on Elon" and will come up with any argument to do so - although that never happens on this site, does it.

But you then won't apply that argument to where it actually matters more: the armaments, supplies and the bills for them both that your governments are deciding - I mean surely you are all contacting your politicians to demand that they supply every type of weaponry that Ukraine has asked for? Or is that different because it is your money that would be spent?

[Mike 137]

Re: there were things SpaceX could do to limit use it doesn't agree with

"How is this any different to what the politicians are doing? i.e. deciding what type of weaponry/munitions they will and won't supply to Ukraine."

At least in principle, there's a big difference. Musk's objection is apparently based on his personal ethical position. The various nations' restrictions on the range of weapons they're willing to supply are based (rightly or wrongly) on their estimates of how such action might contribute to geographical escalation of the war beyond the Ukraine. These estimates are possibly pessimistic, but the potential hazard is real.

[Killing Time]

Re: there were things SpaceX could do to limit use it doesn't agree with

"At least in principle, there's a big difference....."

Frankly your argument is poor. Notwithstanding it's Gwynne Shotwell who has made the SpaceX position statement, it's a complete leap to attribute it to Musk's personal ethical position. If you follow his public musings you must be aware that he is not slow in coming forward and has no problem expressing his feelings and making unpopular decisions on a whole range of topics, this would just be another of many if he felt strongly enough about it.

Along with that, the assertion that the various nations arms restrictions are based solely on potential escalation of threat is equally wihout merit. The democratic process ensures we select representatives, who among other things, best represent the consensus of the national principles and ethics, we tend to elect people we like and we tend to like people who share our ethics and principles. Thankfully we have the failsafe of voting them out when they no longer represent our views, ethics and principles. As this is the case, the idea that democratic representatives are making these decisions without considering 'the optics' or how it 'scans' with the general public and voters is just naive. In my experience this consideration generally outweighs all others as their jobs depend on it.

[BartyFartFast]

Re: there were things SpaceX could do to limit use it doesn't agree with

And you think the Russian forces who illegally invaded Ukraine aren't using Starlink offensively?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: there were things SpaceX could do to limit use it doesn't agree with

Is there a legal way to invade a country? Oh, yeah, of course, if you are the USA and are doing it to install 'democracy' because we in the west are simply the best people and everyone should follow what we do. And while we are at it let us take care of that nasty sticky black oil you've got, we can't have it making a mess of your nice country.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: there were things SpaceX could do to limit use it doesn't agree with

Some very valid points. It's also worth noting that Ukrainian forces are limited in how they can use some of the donated weapons systems. ie strong threats of restricting or stopping supply of missile systems if Ukraine uses them against Russian territory ie actual Russian soil, not the invaded bits of Ukraine. Militarily, "offence" is being defined as attacking Russian sovereign territory. Everything else is classed as defence,when, rightly, attacking and advancing back into the occupied parts of their own country.

I noted there was some bum clenching and careful checking on what weaponry was used on an attack into Russia just beyond the north east of Ukraine but no worries when the attack happened at the Russian military base in Crimea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unimpressive directive, comprehensively offensive

Looks like The Muskrat may be a few gazillion million short for the Twittfest loan repayments this month – there’s only so many Tesla shares he can continue to ditch without further spooking the investors and crashing the price again.

So thanks Putin, baby – nice doing business with ya.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Heat from both ends

From one side there is action Putin can take directly against Space-X assets and then he can also have a word with his friend Winnie who can make things difficult for Tesla from the other end

[martinusher]

Re: Heat from both ends

Such is geopolitics. "The West" is used to having its way for so long, for making (and breaking) the rules as it sees fit, that it can't quite get its head around others having different ideas about how things should work.

[Michael Hoffmann]

State of Russia's space program

Do we have any indication that Vlad would even have the capability to make a serious dent in SpaceX's satellite coverage? Barring just going hell for leather full fledged Kessler syndrome?

Which would be the final step to Goetterdaemmerung, I suppose. Wiping out LEO would be an act of war against just about every country with hardware up there, including his Chinese buddies.

[doublelayer]

Re: State of Russia's space program

He could always get some people to try firing a laser directly at one of the satellites. That's unlikely to go full Kessler syndrome, but if they can actually hit the satellite, probably not too much fun for it. I'm not sure about the feasibility of it, but the point is that you wouldn't need to know it works. Just trying it once would be a warning shot and if you give any physicist* I know a laser and permission to try firing it, they'll try it.

* To be fair to physicists, I would also be a bit consumed by the cool factor. I've restricted it to physicists because I don't get to use any lasers in my work and they know better than I how to try using one as a weapon.

[BackToTheFuture]

Re: State of Russia's space program

Well for many years the British Geological Survey has operated a Satellite Ranging Facility at The Royal Observatory, Herstomonceux in the UK "....(a) tracking telescope for obtaining laser distance measurements day and night to orbiting satellites that carry the necessary retro-reflectors. Single-shot range precision about 3mm at distances of from 300km to 40,000km. The system can also measure brightness of satellites at night and record astrometric positions for low-orbiting satellites."

So one could link that to a giant Galaxian-channelling satellite munching super-duper laser parked next door. Power source could be a few hundred thousand permanently requisitioned Tesla motor vehicles with their batteries connected. Of course, the hacked Teslas can all drive themselves from their owners' driveway to the launch site. Hopefully not crashing into too many parked emergency vehicles or small child cardboard cut outs on the way.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: State of Russia's space program

I did wonder about the relative numbers of Starlink satellites and Russia's ASAT capabilities. Anything ground launched is both heavy and expensive and probably designed more for something like a governmental surveillance satellite present in relatively few numbers, no?

[Jellied Eel]

Re: State of Russia's space program

I did wonder about the relative numbers of Starlink satellites and Russia's ASAT capabilities.

I guess the issue is how many would need to be disabled to disrupt their coverage of Ukraine? So how many have an orbit taking them over Ukrainian (or Russian) territory? I think this is one of those escalotory situations that's best avoided. The Internet and Starlink brings information to the masses. This is useful in places like Ukraine that don't have the best Internet access, or acccess to information in general. That could be because it's infrastructure is steadily being destroyed, or because Ukraine's removed and burned something like 20m Russian and Soviet era books from it's school and libraries. War and Peace are both illegal in Ukraine now.

But using civilian services for direct military purposes makes them a legitimate target. See the trial balloon China floated over the US recently, and the hysteria that followed. In law, sovereign nations have airspace rights from the ground to the stars, yet nations routinely fly objects through other nation's airspace with impunity. If they're state-owned military satellites, there's some protection given twatting them would/could be considered a hostile act. If they're civilian, they've got far less protection under Treaties or laws. This conflict has seen the use of commercial satellite services for communications and intelligence, making those satellites vulnerable.

Nations haven't acted yet, either because they can't, ie they don't have ASAT capability, or they don't want to escalate. But the more we push, the more likelyhood there'll be pushback. The US just demonstrated that overflights aren't permitted, even by 'innocent weather balloons', so why shouldn't China disable or destroy any foreign objects over their own airspace? Then there's retaliation, and we get closer to Kessler. At least with LEO satellites, closing space should be temporary, even if it may take decades for everything to de-orbit.

Then it's just figuring out how to do it. So missiles, or DEW. Russia and China have both have those. DEW would probably be more efficient, if it works, That might be a LASER, or maybe even a MASER or GRASER, but AFAIK the most efficient way to generate gamma rays is from a modest nuclear explosion, which aren't supposed to be done in space. But if they're used, it'll leave holes in Starlink's coverage all along the tracks of satellites that previously overflew Ukraine.

[martinusher]

Re: State of Russia's space program

The impression given by SpaceX is that there's a global mesh network but the reality (looking at the maps showing the location of satellites and their coverage area) is that there tends to be a chain over a particular service area. This chain works with a ground station. The location of the satellites and the ground stations are well known.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: State of Russia's space program

No, Russia doesn't have anything like that kind of capability. But it does have other ways of exerting personal pressure over Elon Musk.

[Winkypop]

Vlad the imploder

Musk the appeaser

A match made in LEO.

[Conundrum1885]

Kessler

Fun fact: Russia once had a "Space Laser" but it failed on launch.

I often wonder if its even possible to make something that can fire a multi-MW beam in orbit,

one of the biggest problems is disposing of the resulting heat as COIL lasers are horribly

inefficient being essentially a rocket motor with a laser cavity.

Even the best solid state laser diodes are only 65% efficient even with clever tricks like

recycling the waste heat using TPV modules.

As with many of these hypothetical devices, its nearly impossible to create a beam that can

do much more than damage a distant CMOS sensor which is trivial to mitigate with filters.

Unless your satellite happens to be directly below and can hit something important like a

support beam then its likely that more damage could be done just by using a projectile.

Did look into unconventional devices like a "gravity beam" but this is even more complex

and also suffers from much the same issues as a laser.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Kessler

" its nearly impossible to create a beam that can do much more than damage a distant CMOS sensor which is trivial to mitigate with filters."

Depends on your value of "distant". Don't forget that filters often absorb rather than reflect unwanted wavelengths, and you might be making the beam *more* effective by adding a filter to a CMOS sensor, However, there are laser weapons under development for anti missile use where the aim is to cut through the metal skin of the missile. Put one of those in space, (You'll need a falcon heavy, or possibly even Starship!) and you remove atmospheric attenuation (scattering) so the effective range goes up. The big unsolved problem for really long range space use is tightly focusing the beam so the spread is minimal over hundreds of miles.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Kessler

Yup, we already have lasers that can cut up quite a thick piece of steel quickly and cleanly. They're found in machine shops around the world. Getting the same effect over distance is just a matter of refinement. The US military is already testing laser weapons mounted to ships and aircraft, and they're meant to shoot fast flying stuff like missiles down. Much like computers in the 1960s took up whole office buildings and did less than a cheap calculator today, laser weapons are progressing to do more damage in smaller and smaller packages, while using less and less power.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Kessler

Your space-laser proposal still has the heat-dissipation problem.

[Potemkine!]

Shotwell said: "We didn't think about it … but we learned pretty quickly."

So does that mean SpaceX is monitoring people's usage of Starlink and is looking at what they do? Doesn't Net neutrality exist in space?

I'm not surprised anyway. Musk and Putin Khuylo have so much in common.

[imanidiot]

"So does that mean SpaceX is monitoring people's usage of Starlink and is looking at what they do? Doesn't Net neutrality exist in space?"

Oh you sweet summer child... Do you really think any ISP isn't looking at their customers data traffic (and probably monetizing the data in some way)? There's no such thing as Net Neutrality.

[ChoHag]

All's fair in love and special military operations.

Don't like it? Fuck off home.

[steelpillow]

Appeasement

Reality check: Putin is a massive bully and liar. But he is also smart. He peddles the Big Lie that he is only defending Russian soil that was usurped by these dastardly Ukrainians when the Soviet Union suffered its identity crisis. He peddles the Big Lie that attacking his gains is aggression against Russia, in breach of NATO Article 5. He peddles the Big Lie that he has the resources to severely punish the "aggressors".

The German government is fearful enough of retribution to accept the lie as a diplomatic truth, and to declare it will never send warplanes to Ukraine. Many of the less politically savvy in the US of A (i.e. 99.99%) are similarly fearful, and it has become a political hot potato in these countries. Musk is just trying to be a politician, US-style - probably because Sing Sing does not appeal as a second home.

Meanwhile of course, some NATO countries, such as Poland, already sent fast jets over right at the start of the conflict, but the nay-sayers seem to have conveniently forgotten that. Moreover the UK Speaker of the House of Commons grows an idiot grin on his face when personally presented with a combat pilot's helmet personally signed by one of their flying aces, and the Prime Minister next to him says that the only way to end this war quickly is for Ukraine to win - preferably this year - and no prizes for guessing what he has in mind there.

Appeasement didn't work in the 1930s or in the 1960s missile crisis, and it's not going to work now. But meanwhile, Musk is hedging his bets.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Appeasement

Meanwhile of course, some NATO countries, such as Poland, already sent fast jets over right at the start of the conflict, but the nay-sayers seem to have conveniently forgotten that.

I think that was more justifiable. Poland inherited a bunch of Mig-29 and Su-25s, Ukaine uses those, Poland got a sweet trade-in deal to get NATO (ie US) replacements. It's not like Poland could get spares for their Russian aircraft any more anyway, thanks to a combination of sanctions and general hostility. Neither can Ukraine, but they're a convenient place to dispose of old inventory. Other countrys have been doing the same thing. Dump old stuff on Ukraine, get the latest NATO equipment in exchange. Eventually. If you make that stuff, then your order books are looking extremely healthy for the next couple of decades. If you're expecting trouble from say, an expansionist neighbor.. well, you're SOL.

Which is a situation we're making worse by having run down inventory and now facing demands for current equipment. Want Challenger 2s? No problem, have a dozen. Those haven't been produced since 2002, and our Challenger 3 programme relies on having Challenger 2's to upgrade. Want artillery? No problem, have some L131s. We have enough to equip 3 Artillery Regiments. Well, we had. The MoD's been quietly pointing out that current events have demonstrated a need for artillery, and our capability is being somewhat reduced. The RAF is probably thinking much the same thing at the prospect of losing it's Typhoons to equip Ukrainian squadrons and help train Russian equipped GBAD units in countering them.

And then there's the demand for submarines. So sure, throw in a couple of Astutes. Who wouldn't want one of those? I know I do. I'd even take a mostly de-Mil'd one. I'd want to keep the sonar though, mainly so I find out what happens if you sneak up on a steel-hulled floating gin palace and see how many celebs drop their drinks when a full power ranging ping bounces off their hull. Or finding out if you can transmit sounds, like heart beats or heavy breathing at unsuspecting superyachts.

But I'm fairly sure other nations are noticing how the West is rapidly de-militarising, and may see this as the perfect opportunity to start their own conflicts, and we won't be able to intervene as effectively. Having disarmed ourselves, it's the ideal time to pick fights with Iran and China after all.

Moreover the UK Speaker of the House of Commons grows an idiot grin on his face when personally presented with a combat pilot's helmet personally signed by one of their flying aces,

It was autographed by the Ghost of Kiev and will probably sell for a lot on Ebay.

[Sandtitz]

Re: Appeasement

"Neither can Ukraine, but they're a convenient place to dispose of old inventory. Other countrys have been doing the same thing. Dump old stuff on Ukraine"

More than anyone, Russia has left thousands of Soviet era vehicles dating back to early 60's in Ukrainian countryside.

"Eventually. If you make that stuff, then your order books are looking extremely healthy for the next couple of decades."

Yes, Russian army suppliers are rolling in roubles.

"Want artillery? No problem, have some L131s. We have enough to equip 3 Artillery Regiments. Well, we had. The MoD's been quietly pointing out that current events have demonstrated a need for artillery, and our capability is being somewhat reduced."

I think the UK is quite happy to stop Russian war machine at Ukrainian soil rather than anywhere near UK borders.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Appeasement

More than anyone, Russia has left thousands of Soviet era vehicles dating back to early 60's in Ukrainian countryside.

Indeed. After independence, Ukraine inherited thousands of Soviet Era vehicles, which were steadily flogged off-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Faina

However, the pirates claim that documents found on board indicate that the arms cargo was destined for Juba, Southern Sudan, instead of Kenya, as originally understood.[3] The claim was confirmed by U.S. Navy and several other intelligence groups, although the Kenyan government denies the allegation.

or have since been scrapped.

I think the UK is quite happy to stop Russian war machine at Ukrainian soil rather than anywhere near UK borders.

And if they can't? After all, we're doing this to preserve EUropean stability and defend the world from Russian expansionism. If Russia really is expansionist, and determined to rebuild the Soviet Union, doesn't our disarmament leave Poland, Latvia, Lituania, Estonia, East Germany etc etc rather vulnerable? Or maybe trouble will flare up in Africa, the Middle East, Asia etc, and our ability to intervene will be rather limited. And then of course there's China '25. That event doesn't leave very long for the West to replenish war stocks, or expand capacity.

[Sandtitz]

Re: Appeasement

"After independence, Ukraine inherited thousands of Soviet Era vehicles, which were steadily flogged off-"

I was talking about the thousands of Russian tanks other armored and auxiliary vehicles and such that have been destroyed or captured there. And you know it.

Sure, thousands of Ukrainian vehicles are in ruins as well.

"After all, we're doing this to preserve EUropean stability and defend the world from Russian expansionism."

I'm glad you're finally seeing the light.

"doesn't our disarmament leave Poland, Latvia, Lituania, Estonia, East Germany etc etc rather vulnerable?"

East Germany...? What decade are you living in?

All those countries are part of NATO where UK is important but certainly not the biggest or most important member. Article 5 has so far deterred Russia from doing anything but cyber attacks on NATO. Russia is already in great trouble with Ukraine and it's not too modern but high morale army. Minor Western armament upgrades have pushed Russia back a lot and caused big losses. Should NATO actually be involved and F35's and other modern gear deployed instead of just a few HIMARS artillery units, Russia wouldn't stand a chance in conventional warfare.

Although the Russian leaders have shown great delusion (taking Kiev in couple of days), they know which side is better equipped and trained.

"Or maybe trouble will flare up in Africa, the Middle East, Asia etc, and our ability to intervene will be rather limited."

There's always trouble flaring up in some parts of Africa, Middle East and Asia. Why do you think UK should prioritise some far away locations over its own sovereignty?

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Appeasement

I'm glad you're finally seeing the light.

I'm sad your sarcasm detector is still broken. So we shot down a balloon over our airspace, and there was much hysteria. Sovereign airspace exists from the ground to the stars. We used to fly U2 spy planes over other country's sovereign airspace, until nations figured out how to shoot those down. Then developed the SR-71 to go louder & faster, so nations developed ways to shoot those down. Now we rely a lot on satellites, and guess what? Those can be shot down as well.

So far, that's mostly been restricted to nations targetting their own satellites, either for testing or just to demonstrate capability. So we know it's possible to protect a nation's airspace from foreign objects overflying it. So far, that hasn't been done, but if there's continued pressure by supplying military (or commercial) intelligence to a hostile nation, it just increases the probability those satellites will be turned into targets and scrap. AFAIK there's nothing really legal to prevent this given airspace sovereignty principles. It's not exactly a neighborly thing to do, but then armed conflicts rarely are. There may be some stuff buried in Treaties like SALT that used to permit inspection overflights, but those are being torn up or ignored. There's also the recent precedent that nation's commercial infrastructure is fair game, eg the mystery around NordStream's destruction. If it's ok for commercial/civil stuff like that to be targetted, why not Starlink dual-use satellites? Maybe Russia will start eliminating GPS, maybe we'll start eliminating GLONASS, maybe Tesla owners will wonder why their 'Full Self Driving' stops working, and why Tesla's don't have glove boxes to stick old fashioned maps and AtoZ's in.

There's always trouble flaring up in some parts of Africa, Middle East and Asia. Why do you think UK should prioritise some far away locations over its own sovereignty?

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, we already are. Plus it's something we've been doing for centuries anyway because we've always had overseas interests. What has changed drastically is our ability to suport or defend those interests. We've shifted away from HUMINT to ELINT, and escalation risks that ELINT capability being rather degraded

[Sandtitz]

Re: Appeasement

"So we shot down a balloon over our airspace [...] We used to fly U2 spy planes"

I earlier thought you tried to pass yourself as an Englishman, and now you're an америка́нскій? Try to get your your story right, bro.

There is no common-western-world 'we' that shot down a balloon or flew U2. It was just USA.

"There's also the recent precedent that nation's commercial infrastructure is fair game, eg the mystery around NordStream's destruction."

How do you know it was not Russian themselves? They already halted gas flow several times for repairs before the destruction and I believe Medvedev and others had already prophecied about "cold winter in Europe" and lack of gas flow anyway.

FWIW, this was illegal action no matter which state was behind it.

"If it's ok for commercial/civil stuff like that to be targetted, why not Starlink dual-use satellites?

Do YOU think it is 'ok for commercial/civil stuff like that to be targetted' or do you just sit on a fence?

"Well, in case you hadn't noticed, we already are. Plus it's something we've been doing for centuries anyway because we've always had overseas interests."

I asked: 'Why do you think UK should prioritise some far away locations over its own sovereignty?'

You answered something else.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Appeasement

There is no common-western-world 'we' that shot down a balloon or flew U2. It was just USA.

Errm.. Yes there is. So in context, 'we' is the current West v Russia match. And I don't need to wear a shirt to remind myself of my nationality. So also in this context, 'we' is both the West, and my own personal opinion, which means nationality is largely irrelevant. Also in current events, 'we' is US and Canada given both were involved in a recent shoot-down of a mystery object. Which is mostly a PR thing given the US and Canda have apparently shot down a UFO for intruding on their airspace. They really are getting tough on illegal aliens.

FWIW, this was illegal action no matter which state was behind it.

It may not have been a state. We have a habit of assuming states must be behind things that a reasonably competent bunch of ecoterrorists could do, either because it suits a narrative, or because most of the media have no understanding of technical diving. Hersh's version may explain what happened, but also highlights the risks, ie getting caught. So a more elaborate scheme than would be needed than if you don't care about being caught or leaving evidence. Which is potentially problematic, if a lone Norwegian aircraft dropped a lone sonar bouy with a coded trigger pulse given the amount of sonar coverage in that region.

Do YOU think it is 'ok for commercial/civil stuff like that to be targetted' or do you just sit on a fence?

I thought I'd made that clear. Civilian or commercial stuff can, will and has been targetted, eg bombing energy infrastructure during the Balkans and Iraq conflicts. Treaties define some rules or principles around that, so it's generally not ok to bomb a school during term time, but is ok if the school is closed and was being used as a barracks, command post or <whatever>. That's also one of the problems around 'human shields'. You aren't supposed to target civilians, if they're not parties to the conflict. If they're being used to support the conflict, they no longer have those protections. We know 'civilian' satellite services have military uses, eg GPS or GLONASS, which has always made those satellites fair game. Other than knowing that if one side starts shooting down the others, retaliation will likely follow. Same applies to Starlink. If it's being used for military purposes, it's a legitimate target. Probably even if that's just for messaging given communications are important, and Baghdad's telephone exchanges were some of the first buildings destroyed during GW2.

You answered something else.

No, I pretty much explained why we have a Navy, Air Force, Royal Marines etc, and why we've had them for a very long time. Sovereignty means we have the right to exercise and protect our national interests, wherever in the world that might be. So we're currently exercising those rights to intervene in Ukraine, because that's apparently in our national interest. We also have regular naval patrols doing things like anti-piracy far away from our shores because we're an island nation that relies heavily on maritime trade. But the flipside to that is making the wrong decisions can also harm our national interests, so if GPS or GLONASS goes off-line, that will affect many things. Your computer or phone will probably tell you the wrong time given that's often set using NTP and GPS clocks. Basic navigation will also have a bad day given the reliance on satnav. If Starlink's satellites are destroyed, that would currently have less impact given there aren't that many installations in the UK AFAIK.

But such is politics. We haven't really been in this situation before, and other than threats of tit-for-tat retaliation, there doesn't really seem to be anything stopping satellites being targetted, either permanently or temporarily. As capabilities have increased, so has the temptation to do it. It's also always been a risk, ie the assumption that military or intelligence satellites could be destroyed. But that would generally indicate a Cold War has suddenly got hot, and there'll probably be bigger problems to worry about. It's also why Spac-X gets so much government pork. If there's an assumption that you will lose satellites, then the ability to replace them quickly, or just increase coverage becomes rather handy. The West seems to have a pretty clear advantage given the number of potential launch companies in our sphere of influence. A bigger problem would be the number of spare GPS satellites we have ready to launch at short notice.

[imanidiot]

Re: Appeasement

"some NATO countries, such as Poland, already sent fast jets over right at the start of the conflict"

Objection, facts not in evidence. If it did, it was a very limited number of Mig-29s shipped in pieces.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Appeasement

Objection, facts not in evidence. If it did, it was a very limited number of Mig-29s shipped in pieces.

I'm pretty sure it's factual. ISTR some debate in the media about how to do it, without escalating the situation. So if Polish pilots flew them to Ukraine, would that mean they were intevening? Or same if Ukrainian pilots flew from Polish airbases. One of those interesting Article 5 challenges around what constitutes military intervention in an armed conflict, and whether Poland (or other nations) could be considered instigators, if Russia retaliated. Which politically I guess is still the issue with any arms supply, whether that's raiding inventory for T-<whatever> tanks or other Warsaw Pact era kit and supplying it, or supplying increasingly modern NATO kit. And then there's the maintenance issue. If Poland's maintaining Ukraine's stuff, at what point could Poland be considered a party to the conflict, and become a legitimate target? That would probably lead quickly to the nuclear option, and arguing justification becoming a moot point.

There's also observational stuff, like if claims of aircraft being destroyed can be relied on. If so, Ukraine's lost far more aircraft than it had in it's pre-conflict inventory. Same is true for claims of Russian losses.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Appeasement

No, they recently admitted to providing entire MiGs "for spare parts". And they did it with straight faces. At the end of the day, what's the difference between providing T-72s, which nearly all the ex-Warsam pact countries have done, howitzers to Leopards, Challengers (both off limits until recently) and MiGs, F16s, Gripens and Raffales?

For convenience, both Russia and NATO have agreed to be officially not at war with each other. For Russia this is an extension of not being at war with anyone, with memories of the last one (Afghanistan) still fresh in some people's memories.

[ChoHag]

Re: Appeasement

Old stock, lax record keeping, and you never could trust a quartermaster.

Planes? What planes?

[Boris the Cockroach]

Re: Appeasement

The difference is because Challengers and Leopard 2s can cut through a division of T-72s like it was'nt there

Check out what happened to an Iraqi republican guard division armed with T-72s and supporting equipment when it ran into a US division armed with Abrams. and that was a western tank a generation behind our currrent main battle tanks....

My view is that the Ukrainian government should be allowed to buy whatever it wants, and if the russians dont like that, best they declare a ceasefire and get their army out of Ukraine

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Appeasement

Check out what happened to an Iraqi republican guard division armed with T-72s and supporting equipment when it ran into a US division armed with Abrams. and that was a western tank a generation behind our currrent main battle tanks....

Check out what happened to Turkish Leopard 2s in Syria. Their skylined, mostly unprotected tanks were shown to be somewhat less than invulnerable. Ukraine's getting Leopard-1s, a 1960's vintage model, and a few Leopard-2s of a more Turkish vintage. They'll be facing upgraded T-27s, plus all the air and land anti-tank systems currently active in Ukraine.

But I'm sure it'll be fine. Ukraine will be in Crimea by xmas, and Germany's order books will be overflowing by nations who want to buy the world's stronkest super-tank.

My view is that the Ukrainian government should be allowed to buy whatever it wants, and if the russians dont like that, best they declare a ceasefire and get their army out of Ukraine.

Agreed, but Ukraine can't afford to buy pretty much anything. So we're paying for it all. Whether that investment pays off is yet to be seen.

[andrewj]

For free? Funny hos Musk has forgotten the billions in corporate welfare lavished on him by the government over the year.

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk, Putin et al.

So Musk rather likes Putin or, at the very least, doesn't want to piss him off too much. There's a suprise right there. Not.

[martinusher]

There may well be a Method in his Madness

Its probably not 'Musk' drawing the line but rather SpaceX's legal department. While these terminals are being used for humanitarian or even defensive purposes then they're effectively shielded from any liability arising from their use. The moment they're used to guide offensive munitions then SpaceX becomes a party to whatever damage is done and could be sued over and death and damage caused. This is a rather fine point, the sort of thing that's easily missed by someone from the UK, but I reckon SpaceX could be exposed enough to where it could cause them significant problems. So, again keeping with the legal theme, there's probably something in the T&Cs that restricts how the terminals are used and gives SpaceX the right to withdraw service to any terminals not used under those T&Cs. I'd guess that SpaceX was initially OK with this because of the "Don't ask, don't tell" concept -- they wouldn't go looking for violations unless some idiot started boasting about them at which point they're forced to act.

The same reasoning could be behind the US (and other countries') reluctance to send Ukraine offensive weapons. (This doesn't mean "weapons that can't be used offensively", though.)

(For those wondering why the same logic doesn't apply to the entire firearms industry in the US -- you'd think that after your weapon was used to off a dozen schoolkids or so that there's be a liability issue. The industry is specifically indemnified by an Act of Congress -- i.e. Law -- so we'll continue to pump the place full of more and more weapons (400 million, give or take, at this time) and just wring our collective hands and act surprised when another dozen or so people get offed by 'a lone gunman' having A Very Bad Day.)

[Charlie Clark]

Re: There may well be a Method in his Madness

US jurisprudence almost always differentiates between US ciitzens (do anything to them and be ready for the wrath of God) and foreigners (fair game for weapons, experiments, etc.). Furthermore, the US refuses to sign any treaty that would make its own citizens liable in other countries.

No, as usual, this is all about money. Presumably Starlink is angling for a exclusive contracts with the DoD.

[Anonymous Coward]

SpaceX not like Twitter, apparently

Seems like Mr. "Free Speech Absolutist" would be putting up his hands like "whoa there, I'm not going to restrict how Ukraine uses my stuff!"

OTOH it's not like he has a strict moral compass. And may not be calling the shots anyway, presumably being more preoccupied with twittering than micromanaging Shotwell.

[DrXym]

good luck with those military contracts

There is nothing countries love more than a billionaire dickhead changing the rules in the middle of a life or death war.

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably welcome the publicity

I see Starlink primarily as a military network developed with public subsidies. Showcasing offensive support capabilities is good for business. Their strongly worded letter to Ukraine is just that. "Please upgrade to the premium plan"