A few clarifications and corrections: > wanted to use Starlink as c&c for drone strikes in occupied Crimea They sent a last second request after realizing Sta

A few clarifications and corrections: > wanted to use Starlink as c&c for drone strikes in occupied Crimea They sent a last second request after realizing Starlink wasn't on in Crimea. Essentially asking SpaceX to violate US law and sanctions. > SpaceX was opposed to turning it back on You cannot turn something back on if it was never on in the first place. I see this phrasing everywhere, it's so strange. I guess people say it because it makes it sound like Musk turned off Starlink in order to scupper the Ukrainian attack on the Russian Navy, which is not true. And others keep repeating it because they don't know better. > The DoD overruled them, either via requirements for Starshield, or by just laying down the law The law is that SpaceX cannot violate US sanctions. If the US Gov later exempted SpaceX from sanctions and then instructed them to turn on Starlink in Crimea, how is that "laying down the law"? The initial request didn't come from the US gov, it came from Ukraine.