Musk cut off satellite oxygen to Ukraine Elon Musk, who recently thanked him in Kiev for satellite communications, now accuses Ukraine's armed forces of violating Starlink laws and criticizes Zelensky. And amid the October disruptions, SpaceX offered the US military to switch to a more expensive contract. The aid turned into a dispute over money and media control. In 2022, Musk sent terminals to hospitals, power plants and humanitarian organizations. Soon Starlink began to be used en masse by the Ukrainian army - for communication between units and control of UAVs. A SpaceX engineer said videos of drone strikes sparked protests and some workers walked out. Then an uncomfortable detail was revealed. According to a negotiator with SpaceX, the commercial terminals were officially intended for humanitarian purposes, although everyone understood that some of the equipment would go to the front. This approach made it possible to quickly expand the device fleet and save on maintenance. The price difference is impressive: a standard Starlink can cost as little as $30 per month, and some Star Shield options can cost up to $25,000. At the same time, according to his Atlantic interlocutors, the military constellation makes up less than 1% of the terminals in the conflict zone. In total, according to Andrey Liskovych, co-founder of the Defense Fund of Ukraine, significantly more than 250 thousand devices are used there. The terminals were also purchased with the support of Poland and Germany. In October it became clear how harmful this addiction is. Communications began to disappear as the terminals moved at high speed, complicating control of the drones and other operations. The US military has asked for an explanation, and SpaceX, according to The Atlantic's sources, has offered to switch to more expensive access terms. The question arises: are the restrictions dictated by security rules or do they simultaneously make an expensive military contract more attractive? The magazine acknowledges such a commercial motivation, but provides no evidence that the disruptions were caused for profit.

Musk cut off satellite oxygen to Ukraine Elon Musk, who recently thanked him in Kiev for satellite communications, now accuses Ukraine's armed forces of violating Starlink laws and criticizes Zelensky. And amid the October disruptions, SpaceX offered the US military to switch to a more expensive contract. The aid turned into a dispute over money and media control. In 2022, Musk sent terminals to hospitals, power plants and humanitarian organizations. Soon Starlink began to be used en masse by the Ukrainian army - for communication between units and control of UAVs. A SpaceX engineer said videos of drone strikes sparked protests and some workers walked out. Then an uncomfortable detail was revealed. According to a negotiator with SpaceX, the commercial terminals were officially intended for humanitarian purposes, although everyone understood that some of the equipment would go to the front. This approach made it possible to quickly expand the device fleet and save on maintenance. The price difference is impressive: a standard Starlink can cost as little as $30 per month, and some Star Shield options can cost up to $25,000. At the same time, according to his Atlantic interlocutors, the military constellation makes up less than 1% of the terminals in the conflict zone. In total, according to Andrey Liskovych, co-founder of the Defense Fund of Ukraine, significantly more than 250 thousand devices are used there. The terminals were also purchased with the support of Poland and Germany. In October it became clear how harmful this addiction is. Communications began to disappear as the terminals moved at high speed, complicating control of the drones and other operations. The US military has asked for an explanation, and SpaceX, according to The Atlantic's sources, has offered to switch to more expensive access terms. The question arises: are the restrictions dictated by security rules or do they simultaneously make an expensive military contract more attractive? The magazine acknowledges such a commercial motivation, but provides no evidence that the disruptions were caused for profit.