The Starlink terminal can't know based on only its position which side it's being used by. Equipment is often used in enemy territory.

That is a tiny minority of the use. The vast majority of Russian use has been on Russian controlled land.

Sure. But if you geoblock all use on Russian controlled land, you're also blocking Ukrainian use on Russian controlled land. I have no idea if that would cause issues or not, but it's not that far fetched to imagine it might.

I know this is a meme but for those at home the whole point of a war is to cross over the front line into the opponent's territory and capture it. If your comms are disabled when you cross the front you can't really fight. So "just disable Starlink within Russian territory" does not solve anything.

You can have a hybrid approach - deny access in that area by default but have a secure way to whitelist specific terminals for short periods (mission duration)

So Starlink ‘Offence’ could be an upsell on a basic ‘Defence’ plan.

Simple solutions: block all Starlink terminals that aren’t whitelisted upon entering Russian territory or Ukrainian conflict zones.

This will prevent Russians importing Starlink terminals and then deploying them in Ukraine.

Work with Ukrainians to whitelist all their terminals.

Which is exactly what they are doing.

https://unn.ua/en/news/ukraine-launches-starlink-whitelist-i...

It’s missing the part that any non-whitelisted Starlink terminal entering Russian territory should automatically be blocked.

This would deny all Russians the use of Starlink.

The issue isn't Russians using Starlink inside Russia (they have other option, e.g. wired system, etc. there); the issue was their using it for drones and other combat operations inside Ukraine (including Ukrainian territory presently held by Russia).

It's beyond sickening what none of you even bother with the idea what a civilian service should not be used by the military, especially in the zone of the conflict - by any side.

"Civilian service" - lol.

SpaceX is a privately-owned defense services company. Their #1 client is the United States. Their launches out of Vandenberg occur because the United States Space Force allows them to happen.

Are you on their board? Who are you to make the call that the product they are offering is a "civilian" (only?) service?

Why not? Assuming you want one of the sides to win, why would you not want your side to use every (ethical) means available to do that?

War is not ethical.

Starting a war is not ethical. Defending your territory from aggressors is 100% ethical.

Starting a war maybe not (depending on circumstances), but how is getting attacked and fighting a war to prevent invasion not ethical?

This line of thinking would lead to the world being led by bastards. There are ethical uses of war and violence.

Of course it is.

It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation.

This makes it a very, very dirty terminal.

Yes but the problem is that the battle lines are fluid and the drones are obviously aiming for the Ukrainian side.

It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't

That all depends on what the meaning of is is.

I understand this reference

I think what's actually funnier is that the satellite shooting the laser has to know where the terminal is with pin point accuracy too. So it's pretty easy to cut off targeting to a vast chunk of the planet.

The sats don't use lasers to communicate with terminals, just regular radio waves, they only use lasers for inter-satellite communication

Starlink cells are ~15 miles wide BTW.