For the past week, President Donald Trump and his aides have traded accusations with Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX, over who restricted Ukraine’s access to a military-grade version of Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite network product that Ukrainian forces depend on to intercept incoming Russian projectiles and target Russian launchers. Musk blamed Trump and the U.S. military for the decision, writing on X, “Any limits onspeed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” Trumpinsisted that his administration did not disrupt Ukraine’s access to the network. Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that decisions about Ukraine’s access to the network werein the hands of SpaceX and Musk and not the White House.
The Wall Street Journal andCBS News reported that the decision had been Musk’s. On Mar. 9, 2025, Musk hadpromised that, whatever his disagreements with U.S. policy toward Ukraine, “Starlink will never turn off its terminals. We would never do such a thing or use it as a bargaining chip.” Critics have raced to blame Musk alone, casting him as the puppeteer behind the throne, the first business titan to achieve what William Randolph Hearst, Marcus Alonzo Hanna, and J.P.
Morgan only aspired to: a latter-day Cornelius Vanderbilt, who isreputed to have scoffed, “Law? What do I care about the law? Hain’t I got the power?” That gets the story backward.
Musk’s businesses are uniquely dependent on the blessings of Washington: a fifth ofSpaceX’s revenue comes directly from federal agencies, its satellites require federal authorization to launch and operate, and thepossible merger of Tesla and SpaceX will live or die by the decisions of federal regulators. Confronted with a White House that appeared determined to squeeze Ukraine, whatever its public denials, Musk faced a familiar choice for anyone dependent on political patronage:capitulate, resist, or retreat into ambiguity. He chose ambiguity, revealing the limits of his power.
The wealthiest man in the world still answers to someone else. The finger-pointing creates a haze of ambiguity, giving both men plausible deniability. The apparent aim is to force Ukraine into a settlement by depriving it of the means to resist: a way to secure a quick, short-termpeace and lower oil prices at the expense of Ukrainian sovereignty and international law.
But that calculation mistakes capitulation for stability. Rewarding President Vladimir Putin of Russia could encourage him to test NATO’s resolve in the Baltic states, Poland, Finland, or Sweden, raising the risk of a direct confrontation with the alliance. It would also signal to other U.S. adversaries that sufficient pressure can fold Washington’s commitments.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
