The Shame of the West: Putin Praises Musk, Washington Refuses to Investigate, and Europe's Leaders Stay Silent

A drone flies straight ahead. Responsibility for whatever it hits travels in circles, from desk to desk, and never arrives anywhere.

On October 28, 2026, Vladimir Putin sits down with African leaders in Moscow. His digital development minister, Maksut Shadayev, reports on a Russian satellite network modeled after Starlink, saying 30 Russian satellites have already been launched. Musk's network has nearly 10,000. Putin interrupts his minister. "Elon Musk is a genius, truly a genius." Russia is just getting started, he says, and is proud to be taking its first steps on its own. Then comes the statement that goes well beyond courtesy: Russia is in close contact with its American partners, including Musk. They should avoid interfering with each other in space, and maintaining a certain order matters to both sides. A president whose drones strike Ukrainian cities on the ground wants order in space.

"Elon Musk is a genius, truly a genius. We are just taking our first steps, but we are proud that we started doing this and began doing it on our own. We are in close contact with our American partners, including Mr. Musk, because it is very important not to interfere with each other in orbit and to maintain certain discipline and order. Both we and our American partners value this."

That same day, news breaks in Washington that the Pentagon's inspector general has refused to conduct an independent investigation. His letter is dated October 27. The investigation was supposed to determine who throttled Ukraine's satellite connections when the country needed them to defend itself against Russian attack drones. The Air Force would be better suited to answer those questions, the letter says.

Praise in Moscow, a shrug in Washington. Between them lies a country fighting for its cities.

Starlink and Starshield belong to the American aerospace company SpaceX. For Ukraine's armed forces, these connections are essential to their defense. In October, Ukrainian officials reported that transmission speeds had been throttled. That had made it harder to intercept fast-moving Russian attack drones. Behind the technical language lies a simple calculation. A drone doesn't wait for its position to be transmitted. Every second of delay makes a warning less useful, and there are human beings at the target.

Elon Musk himself acknowledged last weekend that SpaceX had slowed down Starlink in Ukraine. Ukrainian forces had violated the terms of service, he said to justify the restriction, by using Starlink for offensive drone strikes intended to kill people. That had never been permitted, he said, and his company had therefore closed that loophole. Ukrainian officials disputed his account. Musk went further. Starlink was the only system that could neither be jammed nor destroyed, he claimed. Shut it down completely, and the Ukrainian front would collapse immediately. That wasn't a threat, he insisted, just a statement of fact.

A private individual publicly describes how he could end an invaded country's ability to defend itself with the flip of a switch, then declares the statement harmless. A statement that contemplates the collapse of an entire front no longer needs the word threat.

As for Starshield, the service built specifically for military purposes, Musk denied responsibility. Changes to that system were controlled by the U.S. government, he said. Donald Trump stated that he had ordered no restrictions. His vice president, JD Vance, meanwhile hinted at coordination between the White House and Musk. As early as October 16, U.S. government officials reported that the order to throttle Starshield had come from the White House. Nobody named the person who gave it.

The president denies it, the vice president drops hints. Their own officials point to the White House. Who decided how fast those connections could operate? And why did Ukrainian defenders feel the consequences before those responsible could agree on a common explanation?

Those questions drove nine senators to take joint action, four Republicans and five Democrats. They wanted the inspector general to determine whether officials at the Defense Department or other government agencies had ordered or approved changes to Starlink and Starshield. He was also supposed to examine whether intelligence sharing and warning capabilities had been altered. Whether anyone had advance knowledge was part of the requested investigation as well. The inquiry would therefore have examined precisely the role of government decision-makers. The office created to provide independent oversight passed the question along to the Air Force. Suspicions involving the government were handed back to the government to answer.

Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the refusal concerning. The inspector general was unwilling to investigate disruptions to satellite communications that Ukraine depended on to protect its civilian population. The Trump administration and SpaceX had given conflicting accounts, she said, and an independent investigation was needed to establish responsibility and help prevent a recurrence. Mollie Halpern, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, said the request had been carefully considered. The matter was better handled by the Defense Department, and the decision could be reconsidered if new information came to light. The Pentagon referred inquiries back to the inspector general. The Air Force initially offered no response.

The inspector general points to the department, the department points back to the inspector general. The Air Force stays silent. That's what a circle looks like when responsibility keeps going around until nobody asks about it anymore.

A congressional aide familiar with the matter said lawmakers had been concerned about Musk's control over Starlink for years. That concern was among the reasons Starshield was developed in the first place. If the accounts from the government's own officials are accurate, a service was built to escape the whims of a businessman, only to end up at the mercy of the White House's whims. Now there are two questions: whether government officials were involved in the latest restrictions and whether Musk may have exploited a loophole in the rules. Neither has been established so far. An independent investigation could settle the matter. Refusing one mainly protects the lack of knowledge, and ignorance becomes a decision once those in power choose not to eliminate it.

None of this is new. Back in 2022, Musk had Starlink shut down in Ukrainian regions such as Kherson and Donetsk, fearing a Russian escalation, as he explained at the time. That happened during the first months of Russia's full-scale invasion. Back then, one businessman decided on his own where along the front communications would still work. Since then, SpaceX has won billions of dollars in U.S. government contracts. Musk's power in space is tied to public money and government defense interests. Four years later, the limits of his personal authority still haven't been settled. The mere fact that the question has to be asked again is an indictment of those who should have answered it long ago.

Putin's remarks do not establish Russian involvement in the throttling. The contacts he describes may concern the use of shared orbital space. What is established is that the Russian president himself describes a close relationship with the man whose company slowed down a communications service vital to Ukraine. Reports of conversations between the two go back to at least 2021. When Musk and Trump fell out last year, Moscow even offered the businessman asylum. The aggressor praises the man who controls the invaded country's communications. That coincidence is troubling without anyone having to prove a conspiracy.

And Europe? Europe's governments call Ukraine's defense a matter of their own security. When that defense was damaged by American interference, their response was quiet. There is no public evidence of what concrete steps their leaders took with Washington. What is documented are promises and talk of alternatives.

At the EU summit on October 16, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pledged support and additional funding for Ukraine. There is no documented direct condemnation from him of the throttling or those responsible in Washington. Emmanuel Macron expressed solidarity. No criticism from him of Trump or Musk over the restrictions can be found. There is no reliable public statement from Keir Starmer about the throttling, nor from Giorgia Meloni. Ursula von der Leyen spoke about support and European alternatives, but did not explicitly condemn Washington. European Council President António Costa assured Ukraine of his support. He made no public demand for an independent investigation.

The most outspoken was the EU's foreign policy chief. On October 16, Kaja Kallas confirmed that Europe could not replace Starlink in the short term. She described cooperation with the United States on Ukraine as very difficult. And that was as far as the diagnosis went. There is no documented joint public demand from European heads of government for an independent investigation into American responsibility. Europe's powerful leaders promised what they always promise. They did not demand what only they could have demanded. Solidarity that stops short of asking who is responsible amounts to a payment without a receipt. Europe is financing a defense whose nervous system is controlled by an American company and the White House, yet doesn't dare ask who flipped the switch. Europe spent years arranging its own helplessness. Now it wears that helplessness with diplomatic dignity.

For now, then, help for Ukraine is coming from a company in Finland. Following the latest restrictions, satellite provider ICEYE announced a partnership with Nokia and Ukraine's Defense Ministry. Together, they intend to explore how Ukraine can build its own satellite communications system. The project is still in development, and until then, Starlink remains indispensable. A country whose survival can depend on seconds has to be able to trust its communications. Musk himself has demonstrated just how fragile that trust is. Europe's most tangible response to the throttling has therefore come from the research and development departments of two companies.

Putin praises, Musk admits. Trump denies, and Vance lets slip hints of coordination. None of these circumstances proves collusion with Russia. Taken together, they reveal a distribution of power whose costs are borne by Ukraine alone. Washington refuses to investigate. Europe declines to demand an investigation.

The Russian drones keep flying. They fly faster than the West can find its responsibility.