Dan Crenshaw, a Republican, is a U.S. representative from Texas.
Support for Ukraine against Russia remains a perplexingly divisive issue, even across Europe. Why perplexing? Because, at this point, helping the Ukrainians achieve victory would cost relatively little, yet the West remains timid.
Early in the war, criticizing the large financial burden it required was understandable. Well over $100 billion was donated by American taxpayers. Some critics also argued, fairly, that aiding Ukraine risked a dangerous escalation with Russia. I disagreed with those assessments back then and still do. The monetary commitment was a tiny fraction of what the United States already spends on defense, and most of it was used to buy American-made equipment.
But the most important return on that investment? Stability.
Stopping Russia at Ukraine’s border meant buying Europe and NATO decades of peace, and it still does. Letting Russia conquer Ukraine would have placed Vladimir Putin on the border of four more NATO countries, guaranteeing perpetual tensions and financial demands for years to come. This was never a hard strategic choice to make.
Still, the debate was worth having. There were reasonable people making reasonable criticisms. But the criticisms are no longer valid. The financing now required to assist Ukraine is minimal. Ukrainians have created the most efficient and lethal homegrown military industrial base in the world, one that can innovate and manufacture at the speed of the battlefield. The major backing Ukraine needs from the U.S. is intelligence and assistance with ballistic missile defense.
And the fear of escalation? Only fools still believe this. Ukrainians have been striking deep inside Russian territory for years. NATO’s support for Ukraine is certainly no secret to the Russians. The consequences? Nothing but strongly worded statements from the weak and reckless leader of the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin.
So, if further support costs the West little and doesn’t cause escalation with a nuclear power, why the hesitation?
Explaining the why would be a mind-numbing journey through the political cowardice and geopolitical ignorance of so many of my colleagues in Congress. Let’s focus instead on what must be done right now.
First, the U.S. must continue sharing vital intelligence that allows Ukraine to defend itself. Second, keep delivering weapons paid for by PURL. That’s the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List, a clever NATO funding program that allows European allies to buy U.S. military equipment for Ukraine: American-made weaponry. U.S. taxpayers aren’t on the hook, and domestic industry prospers.
But most important, the U.S. and allies must stop the Russian ballistic missiles that are relentlessly killing Ukrainian civilians and wrecking energy facilities and critical infrastructure. Putin’s strategic goal is simple and predictable: break the will of the Ukrainian people before winter. Ballistic missiles are the one thing that only Patriot interceptors can stop. Drones can’t defend against them.
There are two ways to solve this problem. The first is not an option right now: Supplying Ukraine with lots of interceptors for Patriot defense systems isn’t possible because supplies are depleted and production takes too long to provide the immediate help Ukraine needs.
The other option: destroy ballistic missile launchers inside Russia. Ukrainian drones can do this, but it is extremely challenging to guide drones to hit these mobile and well-defended targets.
Enter Starlink, the satellite internet service of Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
Starlink is essential for Ukraine’s battlefield communications and drone warfare. Obviously, Starlink should not be throttled in Ukraine, as apparently happened last week, before being partially restored. But Starlink also should be turned on over Russia. The cost of doing so would be negligible, and it could save the lives of countless Ukrainian civilians, as well as protecting Ukraine’s energy facilities and critical infrastructure.
Musk said last week that Starlink can be used only for “defensive activities.” That is a reasonable policy for a commercial company. But wouldn’t targeting Russian ballistic missile sites that are killing Ukrainians qualify as “defensive”?
Musk also pointed to Starshield, the military-grade version of Starlink used by the Pentagon, suggesting it could be used instead. The problem? Military officials in Europe tell me that Starshield’s still-growing coverage is too limited for effective drone navigation right now.
Some continue to point to the fear of escalation as a reason not to allow Ukraine to have Starlink access over Russia, but this fear is easily mitigated. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been clear: He would use Starlink only to target Russian ballistic missile launchers. Nothing else. If Ukraine violated that promise, Starlink access could be shut off immediately. We have all the leverage.
We also have leverage against Putin. But we refuse to use it. The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act was passed recently and signed into law. On Friday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order exempting Russia. He should reconsider, if for no other reason than to punish Putin for purposefully embarrassing him on the world stage. Putin did that by attacking Ukraine’s energy sector soon after the president tried to force an energy infrastructure ceasefire. The president’s effort to broker peace is a noble goal, and one I support. But deals rely on both parties, and Putin has made his answer clear.
President Trump should not accept such blatant disrespect. Enforce the sanctions, destroy the Russian economy, and urge Elon Musk to help the Ukrainians target Russian ballistic missiles inside Russia. This is one of the easiest geopolitical calculations of our lifetime. It is time to act upon it.
The post Elon, let Ukraine use Starlink to hit Russian missile launchers appeared first on Washington Post.
