The change, the report says, made some Ukrainian drones less effective.

The drones did not work as well as before.

The report says that limit made Ukrainian offensive drones and defensive interceptors less effective.

The drones and interceptors did not work as well as before.

So a satellite link can help a drone know where it is and share what its camera sees.

This is a connection between a drone and a satellite that can carry information.

Deutsche Welle, summarizing a Wall Street Journal report, said some drones became virtually useless.

The drones became almost unable to do anything useful.

And the services are not interchangeable in the reporting.

The services cannot be used in place of each other.

But even before every detail of this particular order is settled, the system raises a clear policy question: when military operations rely on a private network, what decisions can the company make, and which decisions must belong to the government?

Here, military operations need the private network to work.

The argument over who ordered the restriction remains disputed, while the wider issue is how governments can set clear rules when military operations rely on privately operated technology.

Here, military operations need technology run by a private company.

The dispute matters because responsibility affects who can answer for a decision.

To answer for a decision means to explain or take responsibility for it.

A military may have equipment, but the company can still set conditions on how the service works.

The company can decide rules about how the service is used.

I agree that the reported history makes the trade-off visible.

The sentence points to a choice with both benefits and costs.

And there is a difference between a policy rule and the technical ability to carry it out.

Here, it means putting the policy rule into action.