Two nights of Russian strikes and Starlink: what the American press is reporting

Українською читайте тут.

The massive bombardment of Ukrainian cities over the past two nights has become a major focus of the world's leading media outlets, which view it not only as a humanitarian tragedy but also as a serious political challenge for Washington.

On October 13, The New York Times published an article titled “Ukraine Says It Received No Intelligence About Strikes 2 Nights in a Row”.

The publication reported that Ukrainian officials said they had received no advance warnings from Western partners before a Russian missile attack on Kyiv on Tuesday evening. Earlier that same day, Kyiv had reported a lack of intelligence about the strikes the previous night.

At the same time, the newspaper quoted Donald Trump's response: “We are helping them, and we are sharing intel.”

The NYT documented concerns in Ukraine that the Trump administration might have followed through on its earlier threats to stop sharing intelligence. However, American and Ukrainian officials maintained that the exchange was continuing.

The article highlights the difference between two claims: Ukraine did not receive a warning about specific attacks, and the United States stopped providing it with intelligence. The first does not automatically prove the second. At the same time, the very fact that this question has emerged publicly amid strained relations between Kyiv and Washington shows how important the predictability of American support has become for Ukraine.

On October 13, The Washington Post reported on Volodymyr Zelenskyy's statement that Ukraine had received no advance warning from its partners about five Russian ballistic missiles that struck civilian infrastructure in Kyiv.

The publication examined this statement in the context of escalating tensions between Zelenskyy and Trump.

The newspaper drew attention not only to the incident itself but also to the political backdrop: the issue of intelligence support for Ukraine ceases to be purely technical when it arises amid a conflict between presidents. However, the temporal proximity of the events alone does not establish a causal relationship.

On October 13, the Associated Press also reported the absence of advance intelligence warnings. The agency relayed Zelenskyy's statement about five Russian ballistic missiles that struck civilian infrastructure in Kyiv. The article also discussed Trump's assertion that intelligence sharing was continuing and the escalating tensions between the two presidents.

“Zelenskyy's remarks,” the publication writes, “come days after Trump unleashed biting criticism of him, including comments that it was time for a new president in Ukraine and that Zelenskyy has not done enough to end the war. The criticism marks perhaps the lowest point in their relationship since their disastrous Oval Office meeting in February 2025.”

The article cited a Ukrainian official's suggestion that the absence of intelligence was not a deliberate decision: “Asked whether Ukraine received an explanation for the lack of intelligence ahead of the overnight missile strikes, a senior Ukrainian official said it was described as a “failure,” suggesting it was the result of circumstances such as weather conditions rather than a deliberate decision. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give an official statement on the matter.”

Intelligence information is obviously not necessarily a ready-made forecast of where each missile will strike. But a warning about the threat of a ballistic missile attack can give people time to reach shelter and the military time to prepare air defenses. Therefore, the issue is not simply a diplomatic dispute over whether “the United States shares intelligence.” What matters is whether Ukraine receives information that allows it to act in time.

On October 14, Politico described the consequences of the following night's Russian attacks. According to information from Ukrainian officials cited by the publication, missiles and drones struck a residential building and energy infrastructure in Kyiv. There were reports of deaths and injuries, widespread power outages, and damage to energy and oil and gas facilities.

In this article, two stories — Russian strikes and problems with Starlink — appeared in the same news context. This does not prove that they were part of a single plan. But their coincidence creates a very practical problem for Ukraine: at a time when Russian attacks are placing greater strain on the defense system and energy infrastructure, any disruption to military communications becomes an additional risk.

On October 13, the conservative New York Post also reported on Zelenskyy's statement regarding the lack of warning about Russian strikes on Kyiv. The article also mentioned the victims of a Russian strike on Kharkiv.

This publication adds to the overall picture: this was not one isolated incident but several attacks that Ukrainian officials considered against a backdrop of uncertainty about warnings from their partners.

Thus, American media outlets covered the Russian strikes and Kyiv's statements quite extensively. At the same time, they did not establish that Washington had deliberately withheld information about the attacks.

The Politico article discussed a statement by Serhii Beskrestnov, an adviser to the president of Ukraine on defense technologies. According to him, SpaceX had introduced restrictions for mobile terminals using the military version of its Starlink satellite communications system, Starshield, setting a speed limit of approximately 100 miles per hour, or 160 km/h.

According to the publication, the Ukrainian military had not been warned about the change. The restriction could affect logistics and the operation of attack drones.

Politico quoted an anonymous Ukrainian official:

“There was a speed limit of 160 kilometers per hour. This will primarily affect logistics and medium-range strikes.”

This is not simply a matter of the internet becoming slower on the front line. If satellite communications are interrupted while a drone is moving, its operator may lose the ability to control it properly. Disruptions also complicate coordination between units and supply operations.

At the same time, it is worth emphasizing that the reports concern certain restrictions and specific types of use, not a complete shutdown of Starlink in Ukraine.

On October 14, Business Insider reported that sources in Ukraine's defense establishment and a presidential adviser had confirmed problems with Starlink access that were complicating military operations.

The publication quoted Beskrestnov: “It is clear this action is not coincidental.”

This is an important quote, but its status must be correctly identified: it is the assessment of a Ukrainian official, not a motive for SpaceX's decision established by journalists.

Business Insider also noted that Elon Musk had not commented on the reports about the restrictions. The publication mentioned his earlier criticism of Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries.

On October 14, CNBC also reported restrictions affecting terminals in motion and a threshold of approximately 100 miles per hour.

“Ukraine has accused Elon Musk’s SpaceX of imposing new restrictions on its military-grade Starlink internet service without warning, disrupting Ukrainian military operations.

It comes as Russia intensifies attacks on the country’s energy infrastructure despite President Donald Trump’s proposed “energy ceasefire,” the publication writes.

On October 14, Reuters reported that Ukrainian military personnel had confirmed disruptions and that some missions had to be canceled. According to information cited by Reuters, the connection could be interrupted for 10–20 seconds even at speeds of 110–120 km/h, below the stated threshold of 160 km/h.

If reports of disruptions are confirmed by military sources, the problem cannot be reduced to the political rhetoric of the presidents and their entourages: the technical causes, exact scale, and motives behind the company's actions require separate investigation.

Here, it is worth distinguishing between three levels of assessment: criticism of American policy, doubts about SpaceX's decisions, and the position of those who do not consider the deliberate use of these tools to pressure Ukraine to have been proven.

Politico directly linked concerns about intelligence sharing to reports of Starlink restrictions: “Concerns about intelligence sharing with the U.S. have been heightened by the apparent curtailment of Starlink capabilities.”

This wording is telling: the publication speaks of heightened concerns rather than asserting that the United States orchestrated a simultaneous restriction of intelligence and satellite communications.

In the Business Insider article, Musk's earlier statements criticizing Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries provided additional context.

The criticism is justified not as a response to established facts but at the level of risks. Ukraine depends on American technologies and intelligence support, and decisions made without warning can affect its defensive capabilities. But it does not follow that all these decisions are coordinated with one another or share a common political objective. At least for now, there is no evidence of coordination.

The articles about the strikes and the energy truce raised another question: is Ukraine being put under pressure by Washington while Moscow is being given the opportunity to continue military operations?

The following headline appeared in The Washington Post's opinion section:

“The president threatens Ukraine with the loss of American weapons while rewarding Russia with sanctions relief.”

This is the newspaper's editorial board's point of view. It highlights the disgraceful nature of this position and adds: “Applying U.S. pressure to the country on the receiving end of such barbarism is bad enough, but Trump’s gambit isn’t even likely to yield the results he wants. Though Ukrainians have their differences with their wartime leader, there was little constituency for capitulation before the bombs started blowing up buses and shopping centers. Now, with death raining down on the nation’s cities, spines have stiffened. Indiscriminate bombardment tends to rally citizens around a leader looking to punch back, not send them searching for appeasers.”

This is an editorial assessment, not a news report. It reflects a critical view of the asymmetry of pressure: Ukraine is being asked to limit certain actions, while Russia receives sanctions relief.

The New York Times quoted Trump as saying that the United States was helping Ukraine and sharing intelligence. The publication also reported that Ukrainian officials had confirmed that the exchange was continuing.

The article mentioned an explanation from Ukraine's foreign minister: the lack of a warning about one of the strikes could have been related to the specific type of Russian weaponry involved.

This is a significant caveat. The absence of a warning may be explained not only by a political decision but also by technical intelligence limitations, the nature of the attack, or the fact that partners did not have enough time to identify the threat.

But there is also a flip side: even if intelligence sharing formally continues, that does not mean Ukraine receives all the information it needs in time.

The articles cited above contain no public explanation from SpaceX that would make it possible to definitively establish the motive for introducing the restrictions.

Therefore, the claim that the company did so at Trump's request to force Kyiv to stop striking Russian oil infrastructure remains a theory, not a proven fact.

There is also a technical question: restrictions on terminals moving at high speeds do not, in themselves, prove that the company intended to halt Ukrainian strikes. Such a conclusion requires additional comments on SpaceX's decision, its causes, and its consequences.

According to reports by international media outlets, Trump called for a pause in strikes on energy infrastructure, announced an energy truce, and eased certain sanctions restrictions on Russian fuel. Ukraine, for its part, reported that Russian strikes were continuing.

In this situation, a question arises: could access to American technologies and intelligence become a tool for influencing Ukrainian decisions?

This is precisely what makes the Starlink story politically significant. It is not just about the quality of satellite internet but about the dependence of military operations on the infrastructure of a private American company.

At the same time, it cannot currently be claimed that the Starlink restrictions were part of a coordinated policy by Washington. Evidence is needed to establish that, not merely a coincidence in timing.

Criticism of American policy provides grounds for a discussion about Ukraine's dependence on external support and the risks of political pressure. However, the claim that a coordinated operation against Ukraine took place is not currently supported by the publications cited here.

The main conclusion is that the American press describes a situation in which Ukraine is simultaneously facing Russian strikes and uncertainty about the reliability of certain elements of American support. This is a serious problem regardless of whether the specific decisions are connected.

To reach definitive conclusions, it is necessary to establish why warnings about the missiles were not received, who introduced the Starlink restrictions and for what reasons, and whether there is a documented link between these events.