Maxym Marusenko via Reuters Connect
Ukraine's access to military-grade Starlink services appears to have been at least partially restored on Thursday, a day after Kyiv was stunned by sudden speed limits that it said hamstrung some drone operations.
Ukrainian defense ministry sources told Business Insider that Starshield services remained functional while in motion as of roughly 11:45 a.m. local time on Thursday, according to reports that they had received from military units.
The sources said the defense ministry is working to understand how and why there was a disruption to the operation of Starshield, SpaceX's dedicated satellite network for military services.
Yehor Cherniev, the deputy chairman of the Ukrainian parliament's national security, defense, and intelligence committee, told Business Insider that Starshield services had been restored to their pre-disruption capacity.
Ukrainian officials and service members were caught off guard on Wednesday by the unexpected Starshield disruption, which they said restricted speeds above 100 miles per hour. Some units experienced a loss of connection at speeds as low as 45 miles per hour.
The full extent of the service limitation remains unclear.
Yuriy, an officer with Ukraine's National Guard, told Business Insider that his units use Starshield to support drone operations and that speeds were back above 100 miles per hour as of Thursday morning. He asked to be identified only by his first name for security purposes.
However, Yuriy said that several operations were disrupted during the earlier restrictions.
Defense ministry sources said the disruption complicated mid-range strikes, air defense intercepts, and front-line logistics. Starlink does not work inside Russia, so the issue was limited to missions in Ukrainian territory or Russian-occupied territory.
Andriy Dubchak/Frontliner/Getty Images
The sudden Starlink disruption caused widespread confusion and raised questions about the source of the decision and whether it was connected to tensions between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over Kyiv's targeting of Russian energy facilities.
Ukrainian forces use Starlink, the commercial satellite internet service run by SpaceX, and Starshield, a secure network for military and government work built by the company but operated by the US government. Some Ukrainian officials initially blamed SpaceX for the disruption.
In an X post on Wednesday responding to Ukraine's former defense minister, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk put the issue on the Trump administration, saying that Starshield was "owned and controlled by the American government." He said "any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS."
A senior US official told Business Insider Thursday afternoon that "no such request was ever made by the President."
The Pentagon has not responded to requests for comment.
The outage and impact on front-line operations have called attention to Ukraine's deep dependence on Starlink, which has become critical for battlefield communications and drone warfare.
As Business Insider recently reported, Starlink's rapid expansion has given Musk and SpaceX an enormous source of influence and soft power, and the world's richest man has not been shy about using that power in Ukraine to influence the course of the war.
Musk said in 2023 that he refused a request from Ukraine's military to activate Starlink to assist a Ukrainian assault on the occupied Crimean peninsula. Earlier this year, SpaceX clamped down on Russian forces' use of Starlink terminals in Ukraine, handing Ukraine a key battlefield advantage.
While support for Ukraine has varied, Musk has consistently been a prominent critic of the Ukrainian president. In an X post late on Wednesday, hours after responding to Ukraine's defense minister, he wrote that it was "time for Zelenskyy to go."
The sudden Starlink disruptions came as Ukraine faces growing pressure from the US, with Trump pushing Kyiv to halt its strikes on Russian energy facilities. The US president said on Tuesday that Washington had not cut intelligence sharing with Ukraine, another concern for the country.
Cherniev, the Ukrainian lawmaker, confirmed on Thursday that the US continues to share intelligence with Kyiv.
Meanwhile, Russia has intensified its ballistic missile attacks against Ukraine, firing dozens overnight. Recent attacks have targeted Kyiv and Ukrainian energy facilities.
“We have fallen into habits that are steadily deskilling the human body,” writes Melanie Challenger. “This is a strange turn of events for an animal whose success comes mostly from the extraordinary ability to learn through experience.” For Aeon, Challenger explores how modern technologies, from GPS to AI, are eroding our body’s physical skills by replacing the embodied experiences through which we learn.
After all, the brain is itself a physical organ, continually shaped by what the body does and encounters. Once we decide that the mind is the real human and the rest of the body only hardware, it becomes easier to disregard the physical work, including the neurocognitive work of a biological brain, through which we move, find our way, put thoughts into words, and recognise our own needs. A machine may do some of that work faster, but each act it takes over is one that the body no longer performs and that the body, including the brain, no longer learns through. The irony is that a project motivated by the desire to overcome bodily fragility is helping to produce more fragile bodies.
Apple has finally entered the foldable market with the launch of the iPhone Duo
© The Independent
By Madeline CARR
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Recent warnings from American AI leaders have created the impression that the world is only beginning to confront the dangers of advanced artificial intelligence.
Dario Amodei, chief executive of tech company Anthropic, has called for governments to intervene to slow the development of increasingly powerful AI models.
His proposal begins with independent evaluators embedded inside AI companies, moves on to regulation and progresses to government-backed coordination among democratic states.
Ultimately, it seeks global agreements with China on testing of AI systems, dangerous applications of the technology and the pace of AI development.
Yet there is a China-shaped hole in this narrative. The Asian superpower is portrayed as the difficult final participant in a governance system that the US and its allies must first create.
In fact, China has already established an extensive system of AI rules, assessment, filing, technical standards and government oversight. Here’s how China’s AI governance system has developed in stages alongside the technology itself.
Beijing’s 2022 rules on algorithmic recommendation services apply to technologies that select, rank, filter or recommend online content to users.
They compel companies that use algorithms to examine how they work, to protect the personal information of users, to give users certain controls, and to introduce safeguards for workers, consumers, children and older people.
China’s deep synthesis provisions, effective from January 2023, extended regulation to synthetic (or AI-generated) text, images, audio and video. AI companies must authenticate users, protect data, keep relevant records, assess their systems and identify synthetic material that could be mistaken for authentic content.
The interim measures for generative artificial intelligence services were introduced in August 2023. These added rules for public-facing generative AI, particularly those that can influence public opinion or persuade uses in other ways.
The measures apply to the legality and quality of training data, users’ personal information, intellectual property and discrimination based on protected characteristics. The rules also cover transparency by AI companies and the accuracy and reliability of products.
Under the rules, companies must address problems found in their services. These services must undergo a security assessment to examine their risks and compliance with Chinese legislation. The companies must also file information about their algorithms with Chinese authorities.
These mechanisms are not identical to the independent evaluators that would be embedded in AI companies, as has been proposed by Amodei. But they perform some of the same functions.
Frontier risks
Beijing’s latest set of measures is called the AI safety governance framework 3.0, published in September 2026. It sets out a broad approach to identifying, grading and responding to risks throughout the lifecycle of AI systems.
Building on earlier versions, the framework covers AI model and data risks, vulnerabilities in open source models (those which can be freely modified by users), AI’s effects on employment and society and increasingly autonomous systems.
It includes a dedicated mechanism for managing risks associated with rapidly developing AI agents (systems that carry out tasks in response to instructions by a user).
The framework addresses some of the same dangers now generating alarm in Silicon Valley, including highly autonomous systems, the misuse of chemical, biological and nuclear technologies, and the possibility of humans losing control of advanced AI. It proposes continual safety evaluations, risk based safeguards, humans being in charge, and emergency intervention mechanisms.
An independent analysis by the US Carnegie Endowment for International Peace thinktank has described the framework as China’s attempt to “to advance frontier safety without the need for heavy handed regulatory interventions”.
Legal consequences
None of this means that Chinese AI rules should be transplanted elsewhere. Its institutions, regulatory traditions and technological priorities are different.
Many functions now presented as urgent aspirations in the US, including evaluation, accountability for AI companies, risk classification for AI systems, regulatory filing, technical standards and government oversight are already embedded in the governance architecture of the world’s other AI superpower.
The US is free to conclude that a market-led system best serves its economic and strategic interests. The Trump administration has favoured a “minimally burdensome” national approach to AI and has sought to limit more demanding state-level regulation.
But a market-led model cannot mean privatising the rewards of AI while exporting its risks. US companies may capture the commercial gains, while governments elsewhere are left to investigate security incidents, protect public systems and absorb the wider costs when those technologies fail. The OpenAI agent that gained unauthorised access to Australia’s state healthcare service shows how AI risks are being exported.
If Washington rejects extensive controls before systems are released, the US needs a credible legal regime for assessing who is liable for damage caused by those AI models. Otherwise, countries dependent on foreign AI systems will face increasingly difficult choices about whose technology to trust, and on what terms.
Silicon Valley’s governing ethos has long been to “move fast and break things”. That was always a questionable principle for technologies woven deeply into public life. It is untenable for companies whose own leaders now warn that their products could cause catastrophic harm.
Beijing has already surrounded its AI sector with public obligations, regulatory oversight and an evolving framework of risk assessment. A global debate that treats such governance as a future aspiration should at least recognise that one country is already ahead of the curve.
Original article: theconversation.com
Login