Musk – or whoever is acting on his behalf – is once again tampering with Starshield on the Ukrainian front

For days now, Starshield, Starlink’s military package, has been malfunctioning again along the Ukrainian front line and in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, said President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was informed of the malfunction – systematic speed limitations affecting Starshield – by the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. “These are not random errors,” Zelensky said, and the consequences are clear and deadly: the slowdown means that interceptors cannot reach the speed required to shoot down Russian jet-powered drones in time, and “this helps the Russians to kill more Ukrainians and inflict more precise strikes on Ukraine”.

The US mid-term elections are over, but the systematic persecution of Ukrainians by the Trump administration and its acolytes (including Elon Musk, owner of Starlink) continues unabated: in the aftermath of the vote on 3 November, Ukrainian sources told us they did not have high expectations of the United States, but that they hoped at least that ‘the worst-case scenario’ would not recur – namely, the malfunctioning of Starshield and, more generally, a reduction in intelligence-sharing, both of which are crucial elements of Ukraine’s defence that depend on the Americans, just like the Patriot interceptors.

These are not random errors, Zelensky specified. The Ukrainian president was thus seeking to pre-empt the denials and silence that accompanied the first restriction on Starshield, which took place in mid-October and lasted for about a week, whilst Musk blamed the Trump administration (the military package is managed by the Pentagon), President Donald Trump claimed to know nothing about it, and others—in particular Senator Marco Rubio, to whom Zelensky had appealed several times asking for the service to be restored—kept saying that these things happen, it is nobody’s fault, and nobody was to blame.

These are not random errors; this is a systemic decision, and whilst in October the reason – so to speak – was known – Trump wanted the Ukrainians to stop striking Russian refineries in order to drive down fuel prices – now it is not: in the midst of talks between Abu Dhabi, Moscow and Dublin (the two envoys are clearly not travelling via Kyiv), the American punishment of the Ukrainians takes on an even more grim tone, if that is possible.

These are not random errors; it is the American system that has ceased to function in the national interest and that of its allies. “It is disturbing that US foreign policy is not being conducted for the good of the United States, its allies and peace, but for private interests,” said the essayist Anne Applebaum, drawing a parallel between the Trump administration and Russia: they behave in the same way, “taking control of the state and using it to enrich themselves personally”. The “transactional” approach is the term we now use to describe Trump’s foreign policy, which consists of business deals, relationships bordering on corruption, personal enrichment, a lack of diplomatic expertise and punishment for those who do not submit to his plans. Before forcing the Ukrainians to halt their attacks on Russian refineries, Trump had twice announced the conclusion of an energy agreement between Ukraine and Russia that existed only in his mind: if I say so, it’s true. Beyond this imaginary omnipotence, all that remained was the maximum sanction against the Ukrainians – playing games with satellites.

The Ukrainians were right not to celebrate the Democratic Party’s victory in the mid-term elections too much: the Trump administration has not changed. But it is also true that a Congress in opposition to the White House, inspired by the traditional system of solidarity with allies, can act as a check. It has not got off to a good start, as demonstrated by the hasty push for the impeachment of Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, which ended in an embarrassing fiasco. Hegseth is probably the worst Pentagon chief ever: true to his nickname ‘Dumb McNamara’, he has purged the ministry of its most competent staff, sacked those who realised that, to avoid decimating the arsenals, it was necessary to adapt to the new form of warfare, that of cheap drones, he covered up the mistakes and, sadly, even the casualty figures in the war against Iran; and two days ago, during a commemoration for American soldiers, he was caught on camera by the guards at the cemetery because he was sniggering and taking selfies with his entourage. Impeachment should not be necessary to remove him from office, but everything suggests that even if his removal were to succeed one day, his replacement would not be the solution – as was the case with the appointment of Stephen Miller as Chief of Staff.

Impeachment proceedings are not wrong, but to restore the American system – at least in its relations with Western allies – the Democrats in Congress need to take effective, swift and well-calculated action. Aid to Kyiv can be resumed; the law prohibiting the sale of Russian resources in the United States can be enforced; and Elon Musk can even be called to give evidence under oath – not so much to confirm the punishment inflicted on the Ukrainians, but to resolve the anomaly of an extremely dangerous dependency that affects the security of the whole of Europe.