Starlink restriction 'no surprise' after Musk condemned Ukraine strikes on Russian data centres

Lado D'Souza with that. Let's get a wider analysis and bring in David Galbraith, Professor of War and Technology at the Department of Politics, Languages and International Studies at the University of Bath. Thank you very much for being with us. What would severing intelligence and Starlink mean for Ukraine's chances of fending off Russia's continuous attacks? Give us a kind of take on that. Severing intelligence would have a big impact. That's in particular because we know that Ukraine relies very heavily on the intelligence coming in in order to prepare for, whether it's interceptors or whether it's just notifying the public, that actually the incoming missiles or what's called glide bombs coming in. The turning off of Starlink, especially for long-range strikes, means that those combat operations really can't operate without guidance. And so, therefore, they have to be able to be connected to something like a Starlink service in order to be able to be directional and to hit their targets. And so, therefore, we understand that Starlink hasn't really been turned off for those combat operations in Ukraine itself. But the ability to use Starlink for those wider attacks has been restricted. So is there any way that Mr. Trump, Mr. Musk and their entourage will not be aware of how this would affect Ukraine should it happen? I think they understand significantly how it's going to affect Ukraine. We understand that President Trump is facing a very difficult midterm election and therefore is trying to operate within that kind of electoral environment as opposed to Elon Musk, who recently has come out to say that the targeting of data services in Russia itself was a step too far. And we understand that actually the Ukrainians had targeted a Yandex server farm that would have meant that a lot of the internet traffic coming out of Russia would have been hurt. Elon Musk came out specifically to say that that was going too far. And so it's no surprise that actually just a couple of days later that this change has happened. Is there any way that Ukraine can get around this dependence that it clearly has on the intelligence and the satellite system linked to the United States? Because it looks more and more that the United States is not a reliable ally, not just for Ukraine, but perhaps for, well, all those people who once thought that the US was a reliable ally. I think that's really on the mind of many European capitals at the moment in terms of many European militaries rely on either American hardware or political will in order to be able to use that equipment. And so we understand that actually what we see in Ukraine could happen to many other European countries should that happen we always knew that actually allowing a private organization like Starlink for instance to have such a big impact on the combat operations in Ukraine was was going to be challenging because we understand that um really from the an individual like Elon Musk can decide that he doesn't want to uh participate any longer and that that's something that the the Ukrainians really don't have an alternative for and and neither really do the the um to the Europeans especially in the region now now of course that's not to say that France and and Britain and and others have the ability uh and their own uh geopolitical or or um location systems geolocation systems and And so therefore, we would imagine that actually that wouldn't affect those countries so much. But we understand that actually it's a big impact for Ukraine and would be for many European countries. So effectively, what Trump and Musk are doing, if this goes to its nth degree, is basically leaving Ukraine bare and open to the Russian strikes. I'm wondering, from your perspective, sir, does Ukraine have any counter leverage over Trump, given, I'm thinking of Kiev's advances in, say, drone technology? There's been talk of some kind of a technology exchange there. Do you think that could be a card? I use that word because it was the word that Trump used, of course, in that famous White House showdown with Zelensky. Do you think Zelensky could have a card in his hand there that he could play? I think there is something to be said for this, But the real challenge really is making it matter for President Trump, because I think that the U.S. military in particular is really benefiting from the lessons learned from Ukraine. And in fact, it's really rewriting, you know, many of the things that actually the United States imagines how a conflict with China would happen. But I don't know that that's actually having any impact on the way that the president is thinking. And in fact, we see in this administration in the United States that there's a real disconnect between the presidency and the military. And so it would be hard for Zelensky to have a big impact on the way that Trump would imagine this would happen. It would be very difficult to be a world leader right now because I imagine so many of them look at Donald Trump, listen to what is said, and then they bite their tongue. Because clearly, if they are good, normal feeling people, they'd want to tell Trump something that perhaps would insult him and then woe betide where that wrath of Trump will fall next. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we see that it's very difficult to actually to walk this tightrope with President Trump. And on one hand, we see many European leaders trying to tell Trump, actually, that they're dependable allies, while at the same time, it's very difficult to see the United States as a dependable ally at this moment. So that means that really we imagine that we're going to have a situation to where as much as America under President Trump is having an impact on its allies and perhaps in the sense, you know, withdrawing responsibility for European security, of which has been an American national interest for a long time. But the key thing for President Trump and for other American politicians to realize is the more and more they withdraw that responsibility, the less and less they can make demands of Europeans at the same time. And so, therefore, there is a cost to the American foreign policy of recalcitrance and also, you know, withdrawing. Professor Galgrave, thank you very much indeed for your time and for giving us your very frank analysis of the situation. It's much appreciated and it was much needed. David Galgrave, Professor of War and Technology at the Department of Politics, Languages and International Studies at the University of Bath over there in the very beautiful west of England. Thank you, sir, for being with us.