In the Starlink case Trump reacted to pressure, not flattery

It has been a wild few weeks for the US-Ukraine relationship as Trump, more and more, has been able to be what he always wanted to be: a friend and supporter of Vladimir Putin. It started openly with the diesel deal, which drove a coach and horses through the sanctions regime leveled on Russia, a move which was then confirmed when the Trump administration neutered the supposed new sanctions to be put on Russia through the Graham-Blumenthal Act.

These were both of real, material aid to Russia and are powerful signals to the rest of the world that they can start doing business with Putin, knowing that the US has no interest in stopping them.

Militarily, there were a number of moves that saw the USA help Russia. It was reported that the US government was keeping European states from delivering Patriot missiles that they had purchased for Ukraine. President Zelensky confirmed that in the previous 90 days, Ukraine had only received 24 Patriot missiles in total. This is less than the number that the US used on individual nights fighting the Iranians.

However, arguably the most important move to help Russia made by the USA was the restrictions placed on the Ukrainians two weeks ago in their use of Starlink/Starshield (I will just call it Starlink from now on) satellite communications to control some of their most important military systems. As laid out last weekend, this was a really powerful move by the USA to aid the Russians on the battlefield. It meant that Ukrainian air defense was less efficient against Russian attacks and, maybe even worse, it significantly degraded Ukraine’s mid-range strike campaign against Russian logistics. That was discussed in last weekend’s update.

Now, however, it has finally been confirmed by the Ukrainians that (for now at least) Starlink speeds have been restored for Ukraine. The story behind this move will be the big story for the week, because it reveals a great deal about how the US government is operating, how amazingly easy it is for the US press to be manipulated and, finally, what Trump and his administration actually react to. In this case it is not flattery and obsequiousness, but raw pressure and political and even financial pressure.

Because this story is so intricate and reveals so much, it will be the focus of this weekend update – which will be broken down into a number of different sections so that you can see just how screwed up things are.

The original decision: no one takes credit

The Ukrainians have now confirmed that the speed restrictions on Starlink have been lifted—with President Zelensky making the announcement official.

It was the end of a remarkable two weeks of claims, counterclaims, bluff, seriously warped reporting shaped by the White House and, eventually, Trump and Elon Musk backing down (at least temporarily). This is going to be a longish section because I think this story reveals so much about how we have arrived at this position in the war, and why the administration has been able to get away with so much for so long.

The original speed limitations on Starlink started, at the latest, on October 13, as Ukraine publicly released that information on the morning of October 14. This could not have happened by accident and was a clear violation of agreements that had been put in place by the Biden Administration and also seemed to contravene an agreement with European states which were paying for Ukrainian access.

However, the biggest sign that this was a deliberate move by the Trump administration and Elon Musk together was that both, immediately, tried to deny responsibility and pass it on to the other. Musk was first off the blocks, saying that Starshield (interesting that he tried to put the focus on this end of the system) was a Pentagon responsibility and therefore strongly implying that any limitations came from that source.

The White House followed a few hours later, leaking to one of its favored outlets, Axios, that the presidential office had nothing to do with the decision. Note, the White House only mentioned Starlink while Musk had only mentioned Starshield.

So a hugely important decision that was going to impact fighting in a number of ways was clearly made, but absolutely no one who could have made that decision wanted to take responsibility.

The truth, from what I am hearing, was that it involved both. The idea might or might not have emerged from Musk, but there is no way that this happens without Trump giving his full approval. Moreover, both men actually would have wanted this decision. Musk has regularly made his pro-Russian sympathies known and as for Trump and Puti ….

The first ridiculous time waster: Don’t criticize Trump!

This decision happened not long after the diesel decision and immediately became part of a dialogue about how the Ukrainians needed to interact with Trump. Certainly from the moment of the diesel decision, the Ukrainians used relatively blunt language, with Zelensky calling that choice “weak.” The night after the first Starlink shutdown, things got more intense, when Zelensky did an interview with Piers Morgan. His most pointed comment then about Trump was entirely accurate: “It’s painful when President Trump chooses one side, not our side.”

Then for a few days, Trump supporters decided to make an issue of Zelensky’s tone, as if that were the important thing here, and implying that only if Zelensky were nicer to Trump the USA would be more supportive. This came most openly from Secretary of the Treasury Bessent on Meet The Press when he scolded Zelensky while implying it was not true that Starlink had been limited: “President Zelenskyy should be very careful about making statements like this that aren’t true.”

This line was also regularly aped by Trump backers who have misleadingly also tried to pretend that they back Ukraine.

And then for a few days, the story in the US press was about the Zelensky-Trump feud, which, nonsensically, was now being put forward as the thing that was going to cause the US to stop further aid for Ukraine.

This coddling of Trump by the US press is remarkable. They give him an out by saying that Zelensky’s frustration is somehow the cause of these problems (even though the diesel decision was made before the Ukrainians fired back) while somehow excusing Trump’s longstanding ties to Moscow as the key driver.

The second White House diversion—It was all Musk!

Then, on October 20, the White House started getting worried about the fallout from the story (much more on that below) and tried to openly shift the blame directly to Musk. They first did that in a story to the Wall Street Journal, which, based entirely on anonymous sources, saw the White House throw Musk under the bus. It started like this.

Of course, the story, near the bottom, actually pivoted a little and admitted that Trump might have had a role in the situation.

However, that proviso seemed to be overlooked in the stampede of the press to now say that it was Musk who had done this, seemingly on his own. Indeed, the story spread like wildfire to major networks and news sources such as CBS, CNBC, and many others.

These stories were then supercharged by reports on October 22 that Trump had supposedly called Elon Musk directly, to ask Musk to turn Starlink back on. Again, this was based on anonymous sources, but it seems to have been a deliberate attempt by the White House to protect its reputation – and it was reported with little pushback.

Of course, the waters became muddied only two days later when Trump himself came out and denied that he had called Musk to ask him to turn Starlink back on while at the same time trying to paint Musk as the one responsible: “I don’t want to comment on it, whether I called or whether ⁠somebody else called, doesn’t make any difference, I guess. The bottom line – he put it back,”

It was all part of dragging this out with blue smoke and mirrors. Much of last week was one in which the US press engaged in rounds of pointless “who was to blame” stories (instigated by what seems to be only anonymous White House sources) instead of focusing on the real story – the fact that the USA was making a major effort to help Russia. It was focusing on misleading ephemera (whodunnit!) when the truth was that both Trump and Musk were involved and the really important thing was that the USA was acting as a military ally of Russia and riding to the aid of the Russian military.

The reality: the White House was involved and reacted to pretty immense pressure

What actually happened was that Trump and Musk had badly miscalculated about the political and potentially economic reaction to this move and were caught like rats in a trap of their own making. The reaction was actually pretty intense and threatened not just their reputations, but most importantly their political power and their money. And that was what really forced them (at least temporarily) to take the limitations off of Starlink for Ukraine.

The pressure came in a number of ways.

US public opinion

Here’s part of what makes the decision so indicative of Trump’s and Musk’s mindset in the first place. The American people, even Republicans, are consistently more pro-Ukraine than pro-Russia. In the case of Democrats and Independents that gulf is massive.

Now it may have been that both Trump and Musk convinced themselves that foreign policy is ultimately not that important and that they could make this move even with the midterms looming and it would not move the needle much.As it was, they were instantly hit by a tsunami of bad polling figures—and the numbers were getting worse. Coming out at this incredibly dangerous time as avowedly pro-Russia was shown to be really dangerous.

It is worth noting that Trump had played a very effective con on much Republican thought until now. Amazingly, in a poll conducted just as this story was taking off, more Republicans actually thought Trump was more supportive of Ukraine than Russia (which really boggles the mind). In other words, Trump had successfully conned GOP supporters, then exposed the con just before the election – which was madness.

The Republican backlash

This was, finally, intense enough to get a reaction from the administration.

Look, I have been very critical (to put it mildly) about how Republicans who claim to support Ukraine have, time and again, bent to Trump’s will on the issue and not taken steps that they could or should have done. This time, or so I am being told, the reaction was different and the White House feared that it would suffer material damage from pro-Ukraine Republicans if it did not relent. The damage was both political and even potentially financial.

The political damage was obvious. Republicans in swing districts (which is a helluvalot of the country) immediately tried to distance themselves from this decision and criticized it with more directness than they had used to criticize Trump before.

Maybe Susan Collins, who is running in Maine and could very well be the difference between a Democrat- and a Republican-controlled Senate, is the best example of this. She joined with a group of Republicans and Democrats to call for a full investigation of the Starlink limitations. Believe me—the White House does not want an investigation of this.

Beyond this one specific case, the White House was immediately worried about two things – getting people confirmed and possible cuts to the defense budget.

The defense budget threats came out a week ago. This is an issue in which sitting members of Congress have real leverage. It is the last chance for Trump to get additional defense money before a new Congress – and, considering the amount of Pentagon money that seems to end up in Trump family coffers, it is not hard to imagine the incentives involved.

When it came to blocking nominees, the New York Times wrote the first story about how this process was happening. Here we have Ukrainian supporters in the GOP joining with Democrats in threatening to hold up new Trump appointees. Here is a gift link to that article and here is how it starts.

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have told top White House officials they will block President Trump’s nominees pending on Capitol Hill until the administration ensures the restoration of critical satellite communications capabilities used by Ukraine’s military, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

The move, described on the condition of anonymity because it has yet to be publicly announced, would escalate a bipartisan confrontation over the White House’s increasingly conciliatory approach toward Russia. It would play out in the lame-duck congressional session scheduled for after the midterm elections, when Republicans are expected to seek the confirmation of dozens of Mr. Trump’s nominees before the current Congress ends.

Destroying US reliability

Finally, it soon became clear that in limiting Ukrainian Starlink speeds unilaterally, the USA had done catastrophic damage to its reputation as a reliable supplier of defense tech. Indeed, there could have hardly been a more self-destructive move than this.

It was demonstrating that the US could neuter the military efforts of those who thought they could rely on it – but who clearly cannot, even if those states are in the midst of an existential war as Ukraine is now.

From Canada to many European states, the Starlink decision was publicly greeted not by surprise but by clear statements that called for more strategic autonomy from the USA. I can only give a few examples here – but the similarity of language about the need to lessen reliance on US tech is notable.

Canada is “highly, highly reliant on certain systems in certain countries.” – Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada

“We need to fill these gaps as soon as possible.” – Kaja Kallas, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs

“Recent days have also shown the urgent need for a European alternative to Starlink.” – Valérie Hayer, French MEP and President of the Renew Europe group

How it ended

The pressure eventually told. Though Trump and Musk did string this out for two weeks and did great damage to Ukraine while helping Putin a great deal, they had to relent in the end. It proves so much about what is wrong in the US discussion of the war, how easy it is for the White House to dominate the narrative, and in the end what Ukraine and other states need to do.

Note: These Starlink restrictions could easily come back after the mid-term elections, so do not think this is automatically over.

The way the White House used the press to chase meaningless stories and miss the big picture was remarkable. The clear story of the last two weeks was Trump coming out as a clear Putin ally and it involves far more than Starlink, It is amazing how little people are now discussing the diesel deal, even though Russian-filled tankers are close to arriving in US ports and, indeed, how Graham-Blumenthal seems to be almost entirely forgotten.

For almost two years the idea that Graham Blumenthal was important and would make a difference was rife in the reporting – and now it just disappears like the wet fart it always was.

Instead of covering the real story, we had almost two weeks of a meaningless series of stories of who might have made the decision, Musk or Trump, when both were clearly involved. And the White House expertly manipulated the press at times to get its desired version of the story out.

And such manipulation is still ongoing. It is worth noting that Musk is now trying to justify the move, saying that the Ukrainians were misusing Starlink. In other words, the distinction he made in his first denial about Starshield was carefully parsed and premeditated. Musk is also saying that the Starshield decision was the Pentagon and he was right to do the Starlink one.

In the end of course the country that has been most damaged is Ukraine (though the USA will suffer in the long run for this charade too). However, there’s one lesson we may hope will be learned. Trump only reacts to pressure. He is a bully and a coward. Stop telling the Ukrainians to suck up to him – that is counterproductive and a waste of time. Standing up to Trump is always the better idea.

Phillips O’Brien is a professor of strategy at the University of Edinburgh. This article, first published on his Substack Phillips’s Newsletter, is republished with permission.