Demerdzhiev, Radev and their entire cabinet in general just avoid blaming Russia for some “unknown” reason as a blanket policy. Yesterday, Russia bombed two Ukrainian ships super close to Bulgaria’s waters in the Black Sea, 11 civilians died, and the PM still says we can’t make any conclusions about the perpetrators when questioned in parliament today.

I’m trying to say that the logical conclusion is to shift the responsibility explicitly to SpaceX, since otherwise you have to admit the attacks are state sponsored and you have to name the perpetrator.

most of what police do is after the fact. you're responsible for securing your own property, security guards are a thing everywhere.

I don't know why it should be the governments job to secure private properties of corporations against vandalism/arson. It sounds much more absurd to me.

Starlink providing services to a customer (which made them a target in this case) is not a matter the local government of that site needs to protect them against.

--> Is it a local governments' job to secure the local properties of e.g. Lockheed, or the job of Lockheed as a for-profit supplier to the military?

--

Edit, as I expected this to be much more widely known: If you are operating in the business of critical infrastructure (for which Starlink qualifies, explicitly "digital infrastructure"), you have obligations to protect your facilities against physical and cyber attacks and have resilience and business continuity processes in place.

If you decide to operate in a business segment for critical infrastructure, it is not the governments job to secure your business, YOU have to comply to the requirements of operating in this field, and the government can audit and shut down your business if you're not in compliance.

In the EU, where this incident took place, this is well-defined under the CER-directive, and further extended for IT under NIS2 and CRE.

In the US, it's covered by CISA and CIRCIA (Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act)

Not that different, perhaps, from Russia making businesses responsible for defending their sites against drones. Even threatening to nationalize the businesses that fail to establish adequate defenses. How a business can get ahold of military-grade anti-air defense systems is left mostly unanswered.

> "It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors"

I think neither private companies nor tax-payers would appreciate if the POLICE would run security for a for-profit corporation, as it means that all corporate access-permissions would de-facto be managed by the government administration (which would be financed by the taxes of citizens and other corporations...)

Also: Would be even more ironic for Starlink to now demand big-BIG-government after their CEO keeps pushing for small-government for years now. But it fits the typical "Privatize profits, socialize costs" view...

You don't need any special power to hire security at your plant or warehouse.

> federal agencies

It's cute when Americans assume every country's constitution is the same as their own.

Starlink sites are mostly at dwdm regen hut sites, which as a general industry baseline have a remarkably low level of security.

>If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies, I am not sure what is.

It's the Balkans mate. You pay next to no taxes, and so you also get next to no services back from the government.

The Police, education, healthcare, courts, etc. that exist, is just a skeleton crew in minimum load bearing role, not to actually solve your problem when you need it. For that you gotta pay private and costs extra.

> It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors.

SpaceX is actively meddling in foreign-state wars picking whichever side they choose to support on which day. They made their bed.

> If this sort of issue is not the responsibility of local police and federal agencies,

... it means those properties are own sovereign nations, or at least autonomous zones! woo hoo, time to declare independence of People's Republic of Mars.

When you start acting militarily, secure your own shit militarily.

Most railways aren’t owned by fascist financiers. Probably.

Local here. The new prime minister is a spineless russian rag and everyone around him is from the former communist party. You won't find in them anything approaching self-respect or actual will desire to defend against any russian provocation.

[dead]

It's private property, is it not? I don't see why taxpayers should be on the hook for everything, unless they get a return on their investment.

Nationalize the infrastructure if it's that important to the public.

It's probably just politics, he needs someone to point the finger at.

It is not absurd at all. You can't arrest somebody for a sabotage without letting him to execute the deed. Because if he won't execute there's nothing to arrest him for...

So to prevent a sabotage is to have several layers of security (i.e multiple fences) so you will force the saboteur to commit minor crimes like trespassing first and also slow the saboteur significantly so you can arrest him for these minor crimes.