I don't think this is the case. They don't sell hardware/service in countries they don't have approval to operate in, but their global roam service operates in places they don't have an operation license for, which is why south Africa is pissed off [1]
Isn't that's how Ukraine got fucked. Sent their submarine drones towards Crimea but as soon they crossed the "border" they lost signal. They tried to contact Musk and the rest is history...
Yes, morally Ukraine is in the right, although it's understandable why Musk wants his globally operating businesses to at least appear to be neutral. Despite being obviously US-based.
Maybe more interesting is the question why they need Starlink at all? Why are they dealing with a private for profit company when the US military could provide them with satellite communications?
They were using Starlink to get live video from small maritime drones. As in, things that you can only fit a tiny non-directional antenna onto. I can't imagine trying to talk to WGS with one of those would go well.
Meanwhile, US military contracts Starlink for some of its communications. Private contractors are very much the standard for military logistics these days.
To be clear, Starlink is fine with defensive use, including Ukraine's cross-border counteroffensives that the US government sees as having a defensive purpose. They are very much already a military contractor, and Ukraine has gone through the proper avenues to receive the service for military purposes.^1
The problem is that the consequences of accidentally providing service to Russia, a country that is both sanctioned by the US (so Starlink would face headache-inducing legal problems in the US) and is conducting an offensive invasion (which matters because it's against Starlink policy), are considered far too high for the Pentagon to approve it without the use of hexagon geofencing. This hexagon geofencing means it's not as useful for crossing over the Russia-Ukraine front line. It is updated frequently to reflect the situation on the ground, but they can only provide service to a hexagon if all of that land has been taken back from Russia, so it will never quite satisfy how fast Ukrainian soldiers would prefer the geo-fencing to update.
It's likely that Starlink wants to refine this geofencing to be useful for Ukraine's cross-border counteroffensives, or to use some other measures to ensure the captured equipment and signals are not useful for Russia, but as long as the US Government says no, it won't happen.
---
^1: There was some usage of the service before it was properly approved, which was around the time Elon Musk was publicly saying Starlink wouldn't support counteroffensives and blocked off access in Crimea. But this is history now as Starlink is obligated by the Pentagon to support Ukraine, Musk's opinions do not appear to be guiding Starlink's current policies. Unfortunately this series of events has spawned some really confused news articles, angry Ukrainian soldiers on social media, and various partisan nonsense... the publicity and drama of it all pretty much overshadowed what actually ended up happening, which could have been much more interesting to investigate by anyone who is pro- or anti-ukraine, or pro- or anti-Musk -- or just anyone who is interested in how these military contracts work.
given how few starlink units are available and how ubiquitous wifi mesh network technology is this is likely a non issue. One starlink unit will likely be providing backhaul for a large portion of front line from a rear station.
And the ethnic Russian majority on it.
Of course the west and the neocons don't recognize it and their propaganda organs will make sure people think otherwise, after all Crimea is strategic for controlling the Black Sea.
enlighten yourself a bit on recent Crimea history:
You mean Russian speakers like Zelensky? And of course Crimea has less crimean tatars and Ukrainians now after Russian ethnic cleansing. Russians has always engaged in that.
I'm pretty sure the reason there was the free internet access being give to Ukraine was conditional on it being used for defence only and not offence. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
What is the difference between defense and offense when you are fighting against an invading army occupying ~20% of your country? Is it "offense" if you attempt to push them out?
It's offence when you leave your border on go over into another country. But either way, doesn't matter what I think, it's what Elon Musk thinks as he was giving them the starlink access for free.
Consensus doesn’t change the fact the enemy has occupied that territory. Isn’t so hard to grok why you Musk wouldn’t open internet on there, esp without explicit DOD authorization.
The enemy is ALWAYS occupying any territory that they are on. It isnt like they are on vaccation. So with that logic it couldnt be used for any defence purposes that kills the invaders.
HIMARS can be used in Crimea because Crimea is part of Ukraine. US govt recognise Crimea as Ukraine. It is only Elon that denies that Crimea is part of Ukraine.
Offensive operations are integral to achieving military strategy, including defenses. Passively defending has always been used to create conditions favorable to resuming offensive operations because only offensive operations get things done. Militarily, "defensive operations" include attacking the enemy
It used to be called the Department of War. The "Department of Defense" name came about in 1949 for PR reasons. Also, "PR" is an American propaganda term which means "propaganda".
PR expands to public relations, which is a euphemism for propaganda. Propaganda was rebranded in America after WW2 because people associated the term with Nazis.
[1]: https://www.itweb.co.za/article/icasa-takes-note-of-illegal-...