That said, depending on a single piece of tech is not a good idea (as evidenced by the Russians when they lost starlink access). Russians have resorted to long-range mesh radios, Ukrainians should probably integrate that as well (though it does increase BOM costs).
The other dependency is Chinese suppliers, who supply both sides but may prefer to favor Russia. It is a huge liability for Ukraine as it supplies 80% of the parts that perform 70% of battlefield duties, and could stop anytime (besides known design leaks to the adversary, etc). Russia is even relocating whole production lines to evade sanctions.
Ukraine has been fighting with one arm behind its back, this is the latest development in the series of seemingly-arbitrary limitations imposed on it.
Yes and putting a CEO of a tech company in command of strategic infrastructure is not a good idea either.
That's a very friendly term. I would use aiding and abetting a common enemy instead. And make no mistake: russia never stopped being an enemy of the USA, they just switched their tactics. Trump is probably the best ROI of any investment ever.
Both sides have used drone-mounted signal repeaters for FPV drones. FPVs use cheap radios, and signal extending drones can be reusable and carry a more expensive and jamming-resistant radio.
Since it is rarely a single drone attacking, but more often an entire swarm (to saturate air defences), having a mesh radio between drones can be useful, reduce the requirement that every drone must be equipped for long range communication, and enhance the connectivity back home.
Of course, both sides are mostly supplied by the same Chinese factories when it comes to radios, so China also gets to develop their drone warfare know-how. I assume that Ukraine also uses mesh radios, but probably to a lower extent than Russia does, as they can rely on Starlink.
To address your last point, I would also assume that it is possible to air drop signal repeaters from the swarm, especially for one-way trips, they do not need to last more than a few hours.
Obviously, I would assume that most strike drones are fully autonomous, but having a connection back home means it is easier to adjust plans (air defense location, for instance) and provide intelligence (if target was hit, etc).
I am also wondering if the recently discovered SDR APIs in Wi-Fi chipsets will be leveraged for warfare. If I had to bet, I'd say: yes, pretty soon. These are a good fit for mesh radio, jam-resistant frequency hopping and wideband transmissions.
I would also guess it is not that hard to setup a base station? With Operation Spiderweb they were able to start the drones from enemy territory...
More like Zelensky, in stating the Trump-Russia diesel deal was a 'weak decision by strong partners', has pissed-off the Orange One with his famously thin skin.
America, your president is a liability to the free world.
Same fascism, same colors (blue, red, white). Only the logo is a little different, but not much.
Normally I'd say "assume ignorance before incompetence before malice" but with the current US political climate it's usually all 3 at the same time.
Slightly disturbing that the way to determine if attacks on Russia are properly on the mark for pain is to watch US backlash.
From an Ironman inspiration to an actual real life villain.
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.
Meanwhile, here is another article about pelicans and one on something that already existed that I rewrite in a new fashionable language.
It’s Trump’s financial interests plain and simple.
Trump is just vey susceptible to influence, depending on who he’s speaking to and feels positive towards at a given time. Traditional Republicans (i.e. not MAGA) are typically anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine, so if some reason they have his ear, he moves away from Putin and Russia. On the other hand he seems to be very influenced by Putin directly (fear? envy? Putin being a very good manipulator?) and so swings back towards Russia every time they speak.
If Putin had kompromat, it’s unlikely that Trump would ever have done anything to inconvenience Russia (he has, on occasion) and it’s unlikely that Musk would have kept Starlink open for Ukraine’s use for so many years.
He started a war with Iran to look big and tough for his cult. That failed spectacularly and now he'll sacrifice anything and anyone to avoid the consequences of his actions.
You cannot outsource technology that is critical to your defense.
You either develop it on your own or you operate it along your allies.
Ukraine is in no military alliance, so Musk or not, it is consistently liable to the unreliability and whims of external providers, either public or private.
Which is why I'm very negative every time I hear European countries are renting from Space X instead of investing in common space technology. The day that somebody in Washington, or Dallas, decides to turn the switch off, you're off.
The fact that they are willing to use this switch in this way is far more damning than if they had done nothing at all. The problem is that one of the so called 'allies' here is behaving in ways that make it very difficult to sustain using that term.
And military alliance or not, there is such a thing as justified defense and it used to be in the decades leading up to 2015 or so that the USA was a reliable defense partner. I realize that 10 years is a long time, but a lot of people have been very slow to realize how far the rot has worked its way in.
Weapons bought and paid for by EU money are being withheld, and that's in light of daily slaughter of Ukrainian civilians (I have no other word for what is happening there).
I agree with you this is the de facto situation, but they thought they were in an alliance because of the Budapest Memorandum.
The person who made this decision will have been Trump.
2. No point of the Budapest Memorandum implied that the signatories had to defend Ukraine.
Paragraph 4 essentially states that signatories have seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine became the victim of aggression or a threat of aggression involving nuclear weapons.
Ukraine isn't victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons, and even if it was, the signatories merely said they would escalate the matter to UN's security council.
Another paragraph had signatories (China, France, US, Russia, UK) to refrain from using force against Ukraine. Russia has violated this point.
Everyone pretends there are easy answers here and I don’t think there are, nor do I think a lack of nuance and honest discussion does anyone any good. What more pressure can the US put on Russia that it hasn’t already? Call on the phone and yell at Putin more strongly? I’m interested in hearing ideas but I’m not sure what more we can do that will “end the war”.
How about not weakening Ukrainian capabilities so they can continue to beat Russia? How about the US not buying Russian diesel/energy, which Trump himself criticized Europe doing in his September 22, 2026, UN speech.
Consistency.
> Europeans deploy their military and attack Russia?
Well, given that half our gear was US bought that doesn't even look like an option at this point.
> More sanctions?
The ones in place were broken by Trump.
> If Ukraine destroys more refineries then what effect does that have on the global economy?
Ask a russian. But the rest of us will have to deal with it and whatever Ukraine does has far less effect on the world economy than what trump and putin have done and continue to do.
> Is it more important to destroy the refineries and cause disruptions to fuel supplies across the world or is more important to not let things get too bad?
Where do you get this 'across the world' thing from?
> Everyone pretends there are easy answers here and I don’t think there are, nor do I think a lack of nuance and honest discussion does anyone any good.
You mean: "I've made up my mind and even though the evidence is obvious I'm going to persist in my way of thinking". It is so transparent. All of the points you make above you could have pulled right off the russian set of talking points.
> I’m interested in hearing ideas but I’m not sure what more we can do that will “end the war”.
Give Ukraine the means to defend itself, no strings attached, no stupid games and no witholding arms already bought and paid for. Recognize that russia is the aggressor and ensure that they realize that if they stay on this path it can only go down for them.
Nobody in the current administration is “yelling” at Putin, strongly or weakly. Perhaps that would be a place to start.
What point is there in trying to get sources to leak things when decisions are made at the top on a whim, versus policy options being analyzed video position papers and reports.
It's the same as the current White House: there's no point in trying to cultivate sources as decisions come from one place, with no consensus seeking, often in the middle of the night, and can be changed a few hours later.
You can't nationalize another country's business, especially when their assets are floating in space disconnectes entirely from your country.
If they want to regulate it, they need to build it first. Ukraine has no ability to regulate Starlink. It's not theirs to regulate.
But the United States has that level of control and Musk is either using it to benefit putin or he's using it to benefit trump. Both of these could be fixed and could be fixed in relatively short order if there was the will to do so.
The rest of your comment is just restating the obvious so I won't respond to that.
And it's not uncommon, many public utilities may be operated by companies but they are bound by laws and regulations.
Starshield is litteraly a US gov project which this is about. Not the public network at all. The title is clickbait honestly.
What's so radical about this anyway?
the EU is a HUGE market that Musk will not want to piss off and loose ...