A Ban on Self-Defense Imagine buying a Lenovo computer, a Bosch appliance, a Toyota, or simply paying for a Netflix subscription. You pay for it, use it, and stick to the terms of the agreement. Then one day, it suddenly stops working. You call customer support, and they tell you: “There’s nothing wrong with your device. The company owner has simply decided you shouldn’t be allowed to use it today. He has his own views on things.” Sounds absurd? Of course. That’s why we have laws, contracts, consumer rights, and corporate accountability. Even when a company has the right to restrict a service, that right should be clearly stated in the agreement, and there should be a legitimate reason for exercising it. But apparently, Starlink operates under different rules. Elon Musk controls one of the world’s most important satellite communication systems. He has the technical ability to restrict its operation remotely. And right now, people’s lives depend on that connection, including Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. On October 14, 2026, Reuters reported new restrictions on satellite communications for Ukrainian forces. These restrictions disrupted drone operations and forced the cancellation of some combat missions. Put simply, operations to destroy russian missile launchers were disrupted. Those same launchers remained intact, continued firing at Ukrainian cities, and killed more civilians, including women and children. And unfortunately, this has happened before. In 2022, during Ukraine’s counteroffensive in the Kherson region, Starlink connections went down. Reuters later published an investigation reporting that Musk had personally ordered coverage restrictions in areas where Ukrainian forces were advancing. That same year, he refused to activate Starlink coverage near Crimea for a Ukrainian naval drone operation against the russian fleet. In 2023, SpaceX executives openly acknowledged that the company had restricted Ukraine’s ability to use Starlink to control drones. Somehow, we’ve ended up in a world where a country under attack has to keep explaining why it has the right to defend itself. Where strikes against the aggressor’s territory spark more debate about escalation than the daily russian bombardment of Ukrainian cities. And now, a private businessman can influence that country’s ability to defend itself. All of this is happening while the world knows perfectly well who putin is and what his wars have cost. Chechnya. The Second Chechen War began in 1999 and claimed up to 25,000 lives, mostly civilians, according to human rights estimates. The exact number of children killed remains unknown. Georgia. In 2008, according to Georgian authorities, 228 civilians were killed. Children were among the victims. Ukraine. Since 2014, thousands of civilians have been killed. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion alone, the United Nations had confirmed more than 16,000 civilian deaths by mid-2026, including more than 800 children. The real numbers are almost certainly much higher. We could also talk about Syria, where russian military operations have caused thousands of civilian deaths, including children, according to independent monitoring organizations. And after all of this, we’re still discussing whether we should be afraid of making putin angry. Let me remind you that the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for putin over alleged war crimes involving the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. That is why I call putin’s regime a terrorist regime. So, is Musk deliberately helping russia? Some of the Starlink restrictions have had consequences that benefited the russian military. I believe the public has every right to demand an investigation into whether those consequences were intentional. I’m not naive. I understand perfectly well that when you’re drowning, you often have to save yourself. Ukraine has been living with that reality since 2014.