https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/order-limit-starshield-...

OP's article of course is about spectrum allocation in the US and potential trade retaliation, which isn't all that related to Musk's control of Starlink.

And the situation here is that Musk's instability is causing Europe to want to not depend on Starlink, and by extension not depend on the US. So now we're using other organs of the state to essentially coerce them into using a system that is de facto controlled by an unstable foreigner, but is part of the US defense apparatus.

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/10/16/musk-appro...

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/10/20/trump-musk-starlink-ukra...

More like - he wants no responsibility of Starlink and pushes White House to actually deliver/enable Starshield to Ukrainian forces (and THUS enable deep strike capability).

Sorry, but the notion that they are trying to damage Ukraine is just braindead.

It seems like you're saying the reporting "Elon Musk approaches White House with proposal to add travel speed limit to Starshield in Ukraine, which severely degrades Ukrainian defense" cannot possibly be because Musk and/or the White House want to damage Ukraine?

Musk didn’t do this, therefore the reporting is wrong.

The reporting is wrong, therefore Musk didn’t do this.

We don’t even need countervailing evidence. The whole perfect circular structure is right there for all to see.

Makes total sense!

Ready to update your priors?

That looks like outdated information. The request to slow Starshield came directly from Musk.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/10/16/musk-appro...

How do you suggest this is implemented, in a way that Musk has no way to control it?

How does the good things he may have done commercially weighed against his help and support to get Trump getting elected a second time? Is "the world generally better off" with Trump in Whitehouse now?

That’s crazy. We didn’t charge him with treason?

It’s not some brilliant “kayfabe,” it’s just retard populism, same as it ever was. Now it’s just come to a country with 1) virtually no controls on private political funding and 2) extreme wealth inequality. It would be utterly shocking if it didn’t result in corrupt retards getting elected.

Not wrong, but also not helpful.

I love this goofy pseudo-intellectual aloofness. "Ah yes, I as an enlightened fellow can sit above the fray and commentate objectively on the degradation of the norms and laws that have kept our society operating for centuries."

Unfortunately in addition to "outplaying" people by just lying to the public, they must also govern. And they can't. So they're going to get smacked in the midterms, functionally crippled until 2028, and then likely many of them will be thrown in prison for their various crimes.

If they were actually 5d chess players, you would expect their governance decisions to be less calamitously stupid, to at least achieve their evil goals if not their stated policy goals. The only thing they actually do well is enrich themselves, and that's just not that hard.

Yes, clearly a demonstrably unstable chief executive is the right man for the job.

Not that the US government is much better. Maybe they should wait 20 years before that, after they go through their looming depression. You always get half decent policy after a depression.

Since then the United States has dismantled their Navy systematically several times.

At the moment they are

- Blockaded.

- Entire leadership dead.

- Major infrastructure bombed to rubble

- Inability to project power beyond a few random pot shots at neighbors that aren't even the US.

- Proxies neutered or entirely destroyed in Syria and Iraq.

- De facto leader still in hiding and afraid for his life even as I type this.

- Unable to field a single ship in their own home port.

Man if this is winning I wanna know what losing is.

The problem is, if you tell everyone that you are a superpower, but then go on to not only not achieve your strategic goals (during a conflict of your choosing), but get to an unconfortable stalemate (that you cannot forcibly break) where you get to the point that you have to throw allies under the bus (not just Ukraine).. that's losing.

The war in Iran has meant that the military resources of many actors are getting used for that conflict and are no longer available. Think patriot missiles to protect against balistic missiles.

It also means that the eyes of the world are distracted.

Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration is now getting anxious about the economical damage that Iran is inflicting, and has been forced to cut a deal with Russia.

But as said, that is just Ukraine.

The US has also been forced to reposition assets in Asia, to make up for the ones lost or expended in the Iran theater. They have shown to their allies in the middle east that having a US base is not a protection, but rather an invitation to be attacked.

Despite extensive military investment, Iran's neighbours are now realizing that the US presence and weapons they bought don't work.

The fact that a "muslim NATO" was recently created is not a coincidence. The world has taken notice.

Iran have been utterly destroyed, but they can still hurt the US. When your're a superpower, not winning when fighting a regional power IS losing.

This is a very funny way of saying “has de facto control of one of the world’s most important shipping lanes”.

Well the comment literally says "you lost a war with Iran". If the US lost a war with Iran, the Iran won a war with the US.

But maybe that was an old war, from a few months ago, that Iran won. And now there's a new war and Iran ain't winning that one?

I agree. History is important. What would you call this?

Calvin Coolidge 1923–1929 51

Herbert Hoover 1929–1933 54

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933–1945 51

Harry S. Truman 1945–1953 60

Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953–1961 62

John F. Kennedy 1961–1963 43

Lyndon B. Johnson 1963–1969 55

Richard Nixon 1969–1974 56

Gerald Ford 1974–1977 61

Jimmy Carter 1977–1981 52

Ronald Reagan 1981–1989 69

George H. W. Bush 1989–1993 64

Bill Clinton 1993–2001 46

George W. Bush 2001–2009 54

Barack Obama 2009–2017 47

Donald Trump 2017–2021 70

Joe Biden 2021–2025 78

Donald Trump 2025–present 78

We need younger blood at the wheel. The geezers can golf.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=T2ZEMRKjTz8

Messing with that is roughly the same as enabling Germany to bomb London more effectively using V2s.

The US (dependably) proves them right, by threatening their supply lines.

https://ioplus.nl/en/posts/these-are-the-six-european-altern...

  Vehicle                       Cost / tonne
  Falcon 9 (booster recovery)   ~$2 million
  Ariane 64                     ~$5 million
  Starship (projected)          <$500,000

Either way, if they did outsource these launches, they would not be paying the cost, but the price (meaning cost + margin). And that is much more expensive then just buying it from SpX.

2) Even if the does, why attack Moscow? Russian civilians have nothing to do with the war and we're not barbarians.

3) Even if we wanted to, Moscow as a target is so big that dead reckoning starting from Portugal is probably enough to hit it. There are also a lot of other means of guidance, including sun/stars, Gee and public FM radio stations.

4) And why dones instead of ballistic missiles?

It’s already funded and scheduled to start launching in 2029 [1]. (Bit nerfed given Europe hasn’t yet gotten serious about launch…)

[1] https://www.grosswald.org/european-commission-spacerise-iris...

On the one hand - financial loses, on the other - more social sanity in the EU…

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/order-limit-starshield-...

It's the same tech but after Musk took flack for making a decision on Ukraine's military use, they split off a portion for the US government to control.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/10/16/musk-appro...

The fact is Starshield is controlled by US Govt and they decide what happens with it. Not Musk.

Starlink is controlled by SpaceX, Musk decides what happens with it. It is not allowed to use Starlink for most military purposes. Nothing changed now.

Until the rule of law has been re-established and participants have been prosecuted, the standard you're holding sources to is unreasonable.

It's probably best not to feed the troll.

This whole thread started with uncharitable assumption saying Musk did it. The fact is Starshield is govt controlled and spacex/musk is not responsible for any change like this.

I object today's abuses and treatment of snowden assange etc too. That doesn't mean I have to have TDS/EDS and uncharitable assumption for people I don't like and charitable for the ones I like.

You're not asking in good faith, so I won't dignify your whataboutism with a discussion.

Devastated companies can’t buy US products.

So go on and hit your exports again

The Manhattan project would have been announced before it went anywhere, undermined during development and produced no real result. Japan would not have been nuked, but also would not have been invaded and the Pacific theatre would have in general developed in a completely different way. Without the American nuclear arsenal, the world may have skipped the cold war and nukes, or perhaps other states would have made them and used them in a heavy mutual bombardment without restraint.

Eventually in Europe, glasnost and perestroika would still have happened, and the USSR would still have fallen; but the geopolitical and economic importance of the USA would be little different to that of Brazil.

Grace was in the US Navy in World War II. Even in our real history where Donald Trump was not President, Grace did not meet their strict requirements for women and so she was only able to get in via a special exemption. Can you imagine in the "Make sure our Warriors look good on TV" world of Pete Hegseth that they'd ever accept Grace? No, the Navy is for big strong men.

> Andrew Puzder’s warning comes after the European Commission this year proposed reserving part of its spectrum band that allows smartphones to connect directly to satellites for European players. That would limit the frequencies for Chinese and US companies such as SpaceX, which operates the Starlink satellite network.

> Asked whether European companies should fear retaliation, Puzder told the FT that they “should be wary that it could happen and it would be very devastating for those companies”, given the size of the American market.

Eh, this seems like a fairly even tit-for-tat, for once.

Would this even be "devastating"? Would any of them been able to sell in the US anyway, given the position Starlink is in? I see occasional headlines that Starlink is forcing out other US providers, from the US, but even without that kind of thing going on, this doesn't even feel like much of a threat.

And the big winner of this is China. I heard China is building its own starlink and I would not be surprised they will offer verifiable guarantees to the EU on "spying" should the EU want to use China's version.

China should be sending Trump all kinds of Thank You notes. Trump already gave China the lead in Medical Research, Trump is helping China to take over Chip Development and he just started handing China the lead in AI.

You get what you vote for. At least the US will be the leader in Bible Research.

Please do.

The more the US shows that it is an enemy to Europe the better.

I hope the leaders on this side of the pond grow cojones and start to treat the US and its companies as a threat to EU and the countries within.

Seriously? When will this shit show finally end?