The article ends with an implication that Musk's behavior is partly about impacting the actual conflict: > As a result, Musk’s control of the signal gives him

The article ends with an implication that Musk's behavior is partly about impacting the actual conflict: > As a result, Musk’s control of the signal gives him significant sway over the battlefield at a time when he has come under heavy criticism for arguing that Ukraine should sue for peace and give up some of its territory. I wonder if really the play is less ambitious: press covering disruptions in the service, and quotes from military personnel about how critical or valuable the service is are bolstering the starlink brand more than providing uninterrupted service would.