Starlink limit hits Ukraine's drones
defence24.comThe timing is interesting, given that it comes days after Musk said Ukraine had gone "too far" striking Yandex data centers. Putting other considerations aside, these strikes could be interpreted as direct retaliation against strikes on Ukrainian data centers days before.
That said, depending on a single piece of tech is not a good idea (as evidenced by the Russians when they lost starlink access). Russians have resorted to long-range mesh radios, Ukrainians should probably integrate that as well (though it does increase BOM costs).
The other dependency is Chinese suppliers, who supply both sides but may prefer to favor Russia. It is a huge liability for Ukraine as it supplies 80% of the parts that perform 70% of battlefield duties, and could stop anytime (besides known design leaks to the adversary, etc). Russia is even relocating whole production lines to evade sanctions.
Ukraine has been fighting with one arm behind its back, this is the latest development in the series of seemingly-arbitrary limitations imposed on it.
> That said, depending on a single piece of tech is not a good idea
Yes and putting a CEO of a tech company in command of strategic infrastructure is not a good idea either.
A tech company CEO that has some ethics issues.
> Yes and putting a CEO of a tech company in command of strategic infrastructure
The U.S. government and the Pentagon own and control Starshield,
The guy who built it should not be running it because it is too important?
Indeed. The ability to build something does not come with an automatic right to continue to operate it during a war. That said, I would assume Musk did not reach this decision in a vacuum. What surprises me is that there has never been a leak from inside SpaceX about the circumstances of these decisions.
> What surprises me is that there has never been a leak from inside SpaceX about the circumstances of these decisions.
What point is there in trying to get sources to leak things when decisions are made at the top on a whim, versus policy options being analyzed video position papers and reports.
It's the same as the current White House: there's no point in trying to cultivate sources as decisions come from one place, with no consensus seeking, often in the middle of the night, and can be changed a few hours later.
How would a county like Ukraine go about regulating a company like Starlink in this manner?
You can't nationalize another country's business, especially when their assets are floating in space disconnectes entirely from your country.
If they want to regulate it, they need to build it first. Ukraine has no ability to regulate Starlink. It's not theirs to regulate.
Ukraine clearly can not regulate a company like Starlink.
But the United States has that level of control and Musk is either using it to benefit putin or he's using it to benefit trump. Both of these could be fixed and could be fixed in relatively short order if there was the will to do so.
The rest of your comment is just restating the obvious so I won't respond to that.
EU could step in here to penalize or forbid Musk-Starlink if they block or restrict Starlink in Ukraine ...
the EU is a HUGE market that Musk will not want to piss off and loose ...
He is unhinged enough at this point and has enough control that he might give up starlink in the EU if pressed on it. I think this would be ultimately be a net positive for the EU and likely the world.
EU should probably stop sending money to Russia if they actually cared about the war...
They don't really have a leg to stand on.
I agree, he should pay for betraying the Ukrainians.
I'm all for it.
Musk has been pretty vocal. Past controversy was literally the government asking him to do something illegal. Starshield is starlink for the US military. I highly doubt this controversy is anything other than SpaceX doing what the US gov tells them.
Musk isn’t a reliable narrator by any stretch of imagination
If Musk says one thing and Trump says the opposite I would have a really hard time figuring out what is true.
Most of the time, reality is more complex than that so it's possible that they still both lie.
*the guy who is CEO of the company that built it - attributing what companies and their engineers and staff did to one person is unfair. People stopped blaming Bill Gates for everything Microsoft did, eventually.
And it's not uncommon, many public utilities may be operated by companies but they are bound by laws and regulations.
As if SpaceX is not?
This is like the CEO of Lockheed Martin deciding what can be bombed...
And where does it say this was SpaceX decision? Seems highly unlikely to me.
Starshield is litteraly a US gov project which this is about. Not the public network at all. The title is clickbait honestly.
Did you see all the protests by Musk how he did this under pressure? Hm. Neither did I.
Is Ukraine using Starshield or the commercial one? I thought it was the latter.
This post is about Starshield clearly.
They use both.
This is about regulating it, not running it. When things need regulation, putting the creators in charge is almost never a good idea.
Is it uncommon for companies that produce dual use tech to have stronger oversight?
How my architects decide who gets to use a bridge they designed?
>The guy who built it should not be running it because it is too important?
What's so radical about this anyway?
Obviously, yes. At some point that becomes infrastructure the rest of society relies upon, not just a personal project for someone as unhinged as musk
The absolute glazing this man receives is incredible. “The guy who built it,” lmao.
Maybe he bought Twitter for access to data to train bots to stroke his own ego.
I don't understand how it's "too far" in any way, provided that Russia has since the start of the war struck against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, including datacenters. The only way I can read this is as an example of heavily pro-Russian bias.
There's some hidden rule that Russia could do anything, Ukraine not. Remember, ca. a year ago it counted a "red line cross" that Ukraine attacks military targets in Russian territory.
Russia can attack anything anywhere, but probably NATO or EU will concern.
> heavily pro-Russian bias.
It's nothing, in Hungary, the situation was even worse, the goverment echoed Russian propaganda, and they spread it across press, Facebook ads and everywhere. For a half year, we have a new goverment and PM - Putin is very sad.
"heavily pro-Russian bias"
That's a very friendly term. I would use aiding and abetting a common enemy instead. And make no mistake: russia never stopped being an enemy of the USA, they just switched their tactics. Trump is probably the best ROI of any investment ever.
Right, because Starlink is provided to Russia and denied to Ukraine.
Russia is the aggressor, isn't it?
What ? No, Starlink is not provided or authorized for use in Russia. Did this change ?
Calling things as they are earns heavy downvotes here. It does make me think not all of the bots were in those Yandex DCs.
IDGAF. Things are what they are. The current US president might as well be a russian asset if he isn't in actual fact and his from-the-heart-saluting side-kick is spending his money all over the world to help get more fascists elected. It's pretty clear.
Again, people like to say that, but the US weapons and humanitarian aid continue to flow to Ukraine.
Unfortunately, they don't. Dynamics: https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmin/_processed_/1/5/csm_mi...
Not sure where this page gets its data. There's $8B between reports in Oct 2025 https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/OAR_Q1Dec2...
and Mar 2026 https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/Special_IG...
And that's just USAID
Isn't this thread about an article that is indicating those things aren't actually flowing to Ukraine?
The Starlink service is clearly "flowing" to Ukraine
Except when they don't. The USAID presence in Ukraine has evaporated, weapons bought and paid for by the EU are sitting in the US waiting to be shipped held up by Trump.
> The timing is interesting, given that it comes days after Musk said Ukraine had gone "too far
More like Zelensky, in stating the Trump-Russia diesel deal was a 'weak decision by strong partners', has pissed-off the Orange One with his famously thin skin.
America, your president is a liability to the free world.
It is likely last weeks/months while orange man has unchecked power before new parliament turns him into a lame duck. So he is hurrying up to trade his final favors with his fascist friends all over the world.
Long range mesh on planes? Otherwise, it's pretty difficult to setup base stations in your enemies territory.
Yes, putting mesh radios on drones. As a sibling commenter said, Russia already does that: they do not really have access to starlink anymore (they still use it on drones sometimes, but there is a registration scheme in Ukraine that really curbed their use).
Both sides have used drone-mounted signal repeaters for FPV drones. FPVs use cheap radios, and signal extending drones can be reusable and carry a more expensive and jamming-resistant radio.
Since it is rarely a single drone attacking, but more often an entire swarm (to saturate air defences), having a mesh radio between drones can be useful, reduce the requirement that every drone must be equipped for long range communication, and enhance the connectivity back home.
Of course, both sides are mostly supplied by the same Chinese factories when it comes to radios, so China also gets to develop their drone warfare know-how. I assume that Ukraine also uses mesh radios, but probably to a lower extent than Russia does, as they can rely on Starlink.
To address your last point, I would also assume that it is possible to air drop signal repeaters from the swarm, especially for one-way trips, they do not need to last more than a few hours. Range will be degraded on the ground though.
Obviously, I would assume that most strike drones are fully autonomous, but having a connection back home means it is easier to adjust plans (air defense location, for instance) and provide intelligence (if target was hit, etc).
I am also wondering if the recently discovered SDR APIs in Wi-Fi chipsets will be leveraged for warfare. If I had to bet, I'd say: yes, pretty soon. These are a good fit for mesh radio, jam-resistant frequency hopping and wideband transmissions.
The drones themselves build a mesh network during an attack. Russia does this as well.
I would also guess it is not that hard to setup a base station? With Operation Spiderweb they were able to start the drones from enemy territory...
They used the regular cellular network for that.
Allegedly Ukraine was using UK and their extensive network of satelites to target russia. So starlink withdrawal is not a real problem.
My recollection is Trump posted Zelensky had gone too far, mostly referring to hitting refineries and then Musk echoed he's gone to far. I don't think it's about data centers especially.
And gone too far in what exactly?
The restraint which Ukraine has shown so far is nothing short of amazing.
The temporal correlation with datacenter hits argued to take out Russian bot farms is striking...
Normally I'd say "assume ignorance before incompetence before malice" but with the current US political climate it's usually all 3 at the same time.
Trump really needs the votes and the bot farms are probably making a difference.
It could also be the refinery hits, but it really makes no difference...
Slightly disturbing that the way to determine if attacks on Russia are properly on the mark for pain is to watch US backlash.
internet comments dont vote, they need to appeal to the latent desires of actual voters
They just need to demoralize prospective opposition voters enough to make them sit it out.
Unacceptable. How far has Musk fallen from when he was our best hope to save this planet.
From an Ironman inspiration to an actual real life villain.
The best hope we have is increased democracy and increased education for the masses. That was always the case.
So you're effectively saying we're fucked. Ok. But it makes sense.
He never was our best hope for anything. What a mad thing to say.
For the beggar in the street, the rich man making a dash from his limo to his bank has always been their best hope.
Would you argue he wasn't a force of good back when he started tesla and got electric vehicules on the road for the first time?
Until now his satellites had been helping out Ukrainians massively as well.
Had he not diverged into the Trump wake and AI scams (amongst other things) he would have been very much net positive for mankind.
I think he intended/intends to do good he just got gradually corrupted by success/money/power. Pinning down how and why a good person becomes bad is important lest we leave no lessons for the next generations and we keep repeating the same mistakes.
> Would you argue he wasn't a force of good back when he started tesla and got electric vehicules on the road for the first time?
Just for the record, electric vehicles were first on the road more than a century ago.
Tesla was founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning. The engineers become CEO and CFO, respectively.
Musk moved in as a Series A funding financier, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page invested in the company during its Series B round, as did many others over the early years.
Lotus Cars (British company famous for sports and race cars) provided the chassis and body design of Tesla's first vehicle, The Roadster.
> Had he not diverged into the Trump wake and AI scams (amongst other things) he would have been very much net positive for mankind.
That still leaves him screaming "pedo" when he tried to insert himself into a cave rescue, etc.
Just a rich person simping for a place where no consequences for rich exist. It's not even surprising which side those people choose.
Post got pushed back to >150 rank
Yes, there are enough MAGA idiots and russia sympathizers with flag powers on HN to do that. Cue someone dropping in to explain that this is all just organic and that there is nothing to see here.
Meanwhile, here is another article about pelicans and one on something that already existed that I rewrite in a new fashionable language.
This drives home the point that depending on US companies for anything means you have to bow and pay tribute to the US regime or else they'll cut you off, even if the company itself doesn't want to. The US is currently an authoritarian regime without law.
When you think about it - wouldn't disabling the Starlink system completely remove or at the very least vastly reduce the threat posed by Iranian drones over the Strait of Hormuz? I bet its all bootstrapped with starlink internet.
The ranges involved in Hormuz drone strikes don't necessitate Starlink; their targets are with UHF LoS of mountain-top sites.
In contrast Ukraine is launching strikes of up to 3000km into Russia.
Except starlink only works over Ukraine (including parts that are occupied). Long range drones into Russia are fully autonomous.
I thought they used Starshield and not Starlink now? Doesn't USAF control that?
the probably that musk acted "on his own intitative" and not with orders / "suggestion" from the us gov is not 100%
It’s so obvious that Putin has something on Trump. It’s either the unsubstantiated pee tape, or they have the video tapes Epstein said he had. And since Musk also (at least) wanted to party on one of the islands wildest nights, there might be even more leverage Putin is using strategically.
I don't think it's that obvious because another thing that's obvious is how much Trump wants to be Putin. He looks at dictators and admires them, envies them, identifies with them. They're the only people he respects, hence his willingess to humble himself and the US to gain Putin's approval. And before that, it was Kim John Un.
I don't think it has to be the kompromat (it could be zo), as well it could be a natural affinity to dictatorship and imperialism. He simply seems sees himself doing what Putin is doing and it would be annoying if those other people didn't bow down to him. The fact that it's his opponent in the grand scheme of things doesn't matter that much.
Imagine you're having beers with the boys and the discussion turns to which girls in the office they all want to bang. The guy who stands up and says "guys this isnt right" - that guy is a real stick in the mud! He might be correct but it wins him no friends at that table. The other will not sit back and commend him for his morals, actually they will get seriously pissed off. Gangsters and lowlives only want to hang with other gangsters and lowlives, someone like Zelensky must be a real boner-killer to Trump and his circle.
The SS used murder and torture as a way to bond, things you can speak about with nobody else.
When I was a kid, I was convinced wearing ties is just doing something obviously stupid and degrading to show obedience, and I'm still not sure I was wrong on that one. I get suits and shirts and other nice things, but I don't get ties. Not that I want to outright equate that with the SS or the Epstein stuff. At the very least I would have to think about it some more.
Unlikely, there’s nothing that can’t be magicked away by saying it’s AI. No one will believe any tape at this point. Certainly not his supporters.
It’s Trump’s financial interests plain and simple.
Maybe for the MAGA crowd. The rest of the world does not believe what they are told to believe. There are millions of documents and dozens of witnesses that could corroborate the videos, if only they were actually be investigated.
The rest of the world doesn’t pick who rules over the US.
And the rest of the world pretty much can’t break away from the US due to financial, economical or even military reasons.
I think it’s simpler than that - no conspiracy theories needed.
Trump is just vey susceptible to influence, depending on who he’s speaking to and feels positive towards at a given time. Traditional Republicans (i.e. not MAGA) are typically anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine, so if some reason they have his ear, he moves away from Putin and Russia. On the other hand he seems to be very influenced by Putin directly (fear? envy? Putin being a very good manipulator?) and so swings back towards Russia every time they speak.
If Putin had kompromat, it’s unlikely that Trump would ever have done anything to inconvenience Russia (he has, on occasion) and it’s unlikely that Musk would have kept Starlink open for Ukraine’s use for so many years.
Elon Musk autisicly begging to be invited to the island turned out to be a meme, not real emails.
What's your source for that? A random tweet on X I bet?
> “What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Musk wrote in an email to Epstein in November 2012. In another in December 2013, he asked, “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?”
Defence media can't really talk politics, so who can try to read between the lines? There must be a lot of money riding on Trump's political career for Musk to do this, as it's bad for his image and his company's image.
What surprises me is that so many people continue to work for this asshole.
Give France $30 billion and launch a few orbits full of LEO.
We don't need to cover the globe like SpaceX, just Ukraine and from there North-Westward into Russia.
Imagine Britain in the fucking Blitz where Roosevelt starts to buy oil from Nazi Germany and JP Morgan cuts off the Telegraph somehow.
Crazy times.
Not surprising considering Trump is Putin's agent and Musk is Trump's agent.
If Musk/Trump truly commit to pulling Starlink for Ukraine this will spell the end of their licensing in most of Europe. Adjust your SPCX positions accordingly.
It might spell the end of their spectrum access as well.
I don't know why you were downvoted that bad when it's literally what's happening now.