Because internet is a major resource for the population. Its like water or electricity.

Most of those could be easily targeted and taken out by a large organized group but people are generally good and dont do that. If a country's military attacked though you wouldn't blame the water company for someone cutting the locks and destroying the water pumps. Or blowing up an electric facility.

Its not like this is just some random companies headquarters where they have some vehicles and someone broke the gates to spray paint the trucks.

This is an attack on the people of the country as a whole. The attackers are not vandalizing the internet because they dislike starlink they are attacking its people by destroying infrastructure. there is a major difference between the two.

> "Because internet is a major resource for the population. Its like water or electricity."

Yep, the EU classifies this as "critical infrastructure". Operators of such services (including water, electricity and digital infrastructure) have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes

I agree that the government should step up on against the military adversary on a country/regional level, but even then it is not their job to step in and do the job of Starlink as a provider of critical digital infrastructure.

A player in these markets has an obligation to secure his own facilities, otherwise every new market-entrant can undercut all competitors by not investing in security at all, until it's big enough to become a national risk and the government steps in to secure its business.