Streetwise Professor

The on again, off again battle between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky is back on, and in a big way. The trigger for this most recent outbreak was news that somebody throttled Ukraine’s Starlink/Starshield link, limiting the speed of Ukraine’s fast drone interceptors which are essential to countering Russian jet-powered drones. As documented in the attached brief/strategy memo (prepared by @LibertyLynx) Russia responded by utilizing jet drones more extensively, and delivering more effective strikes on Ukraine. Against civilian targets in Ukraine, I might add.

It’s rather remarkable how rapidly Russia recognized and responded to Ukraine’s degraded capabilities.

As the document also describes in detail, this also has implications for US national security. Most notably, it works to the advantage of Russia in its forever war against Ukraine. But that’s not all. It forces Ukraine to substitute high end interceptors for low end ones, further depleting already nearly barren magazines–which creates a call on stocks from US allies and perhaps the US itself. Given the extravagant expenditure of weapons in the Iran War, our cupboard is increasingly bare, and we have nothing to spare.

Note that I said “somebody throttled” Starlink/Starshield. That phrasing was deliberate. Because we don’t know who did so. There are two possible answers, each deeply disturbing in its own way.

The first answer is that Trump made the call. Elon Musk says it was the USG, meaning Trump. Trump denies it. Rubio denies it.

Why would Trump do this? His animosity towards Zelensky is well known, and he has long been impatient with Zelensky’s resistance to a peace deal. With the midterms approaching, and fuel prices high, Trump is even more desperate for a deal. He may therefore believe that pressuring Zelensky will break the deadlock and allow him to announce peace in our time.

But handicapping Ukraine’s defenses will not achieve this outcome, especially not in Trump’s time frame. It is fantastical to imagine that such a deal could get done in the few days prior to the midterms, and even if a deal were to be done tomorrow its impact on energy prices would be (a) modest, and (b) delayed to well after the election. As much as Trump fulminates to the contrary, energy prices are driven first and foremost by the situation in the Gulf. The loss of Russian refined and crude supplies due to sanctions (which would presumably be lifted as part of a deal) and Ukrainian attacks is at most an aggravating factor.

It is also fantastical to think that Putin is just standing by waiting to do a deal, and that Zelensky is the only obstacle to one. Indeed, measures that weaken Ukraine’s defenses will only embolden Putin to continue to fight, figuring that he can gain more against a weakened Ukraine and perhaps even achieve his goal of conquering additional territory, and perhaps the entire country. Putin will deal only if he thinks defeat is inevitable. Giving him hope of something he can call victory will only prolong the war.

So if the rationale for kneecapping Ukraine is to facilitate an end to the war in days, followed forthwith by a sharp drop in energy prices, all in time to rescue the Republicans from an electoral rout, it is beyond delusional.

And it’s also politically stupid. This–and Trump emissary Witkoff’s obsequious behavior towards Putin, and Trump’s bizarre statements about how Russia isn’t doing anything bad in Ukraine–has generated tremendous political blowback, and has played into the narrative that Trump is Putin’s puppet. So if anything, it is politically counterproductive from the perspective of the midterms in particular.

But maybe the administration’s denials are in fact truthful, and Elon Musk is in fact responsible. Think about that for a minute.

Pete Hegseth (the primary author of the failed strategery in the Gulf) says that SpaceX throttled Starlink/Starshield because Ukraine violated “Terms of Service.” What? They didn’t read the fine print and just clicked “accept”? Or they just decided in early-October to do something different that violated the ToS? Or SpaceX changed the ToS? Or Ukraine refused to cease and desist from violating the ToS and SpaceX lost patience?

What changed in the last few weeks to trigger this intervention? The “ToS” excuse begs every question that matters.

For his part, J. D. Vance said it is totes understandable that Musk decided to intervene:

JD Vance on Starlink:

Elon Musk runs a private corporation, and I think it's completely understandable that he doesn't want to get in the middle of what is a war between two state actors without the United States government effectively directing him on what to do.

I don't think… pic.twitter.com/rm9dS65ElE

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 22, 2026

So much wrong here. For one thing, SpaceX has been “in the middle of a war between two state actors” for several years now. Indeed, SpaceX has been instrumental in staving off Russia’s invasion, both by providing Starlink to Ukraine and denying it to Russia. What would explain a sudden reluctance on its part?

Moreover, the throttling of Starlink/Starshield has impaired Ukraine’s defensive capabilities, not its ability to strike Russian territory. Denying Ukraine truly defensive capability is particularly twisted, and has already cost civilian lives. Musk somehow thinks that Ukraine defending itself is unacceptable? And just decided this last month?

And how is it remotely OK for the United States to grant Musk a veto over the employment of Starlink/Starshield? Since 2023, Starshield has been under contract with the US government to provide Starlink services in Ukraine. The Pentagon was not willing to grant Anthropic the right to withhold services when it disagrees with how the Pentagon was using its AI (excuse me, SI): have they granted comparable rights to Musk? If so, why? If not, how is he getting away with exercising such power without contractual sanction?

Or maybe he’s not, and the administration is lying and it made the call.

Given how deeply embedded in the Pentagon SpaceX is now (at the expense of Anthropic, in particular), these events have disturbing implications that go far beyond Ukraine. Does the USG negotiate “terms of service” with SpaceX that give it the ability to throttle services to the Pentagon (e.g., throttling Grok) at its whim? Or can Musk exploit contract incompleteness to make unilateral decisions that impair US national security? Or is it difficult to enforce contractual terms against him because there is no alternative over a horizon of weeks or months? Under any of these possibilities, a mercurial, deeply untrustworthy, and highly conflicted individual has far too much power over American national security.

In earlier posts/briefs @libertylynx and I analyzed the holdup problems SpaceX/Grok/Musk poses. If it is indeed the case that the administration did not order the throttling, and Musk/SpaceX “understandably” did it on their own, we have been given a taste of how dangerous the holdup potential is.

There is no good alternative here. Either Trump and his administration made a decision based on delusional diplomatic, political, and military logic, or a deeply untrustworthy megalomaniac (other than the president) has the ability to make unilateral decisions that have dire consequences for American national security.