I initiated a public and diplomatic protest after confirming credible attempts to undermine the network’s operational neutrality and the research community’s access, which also posed risks to my recognized rights and safety constraints. Prior to this step, I pursued quieter remedies—direct engagement, legal review, and technical hardening—but evidence suggested these channels alone would not secure timely, transparent safeguards. A public, rights-anchored stance paired with diplomatic outreach maximizes accountability while remaining non-escalatory, framing concrete asks: independent oversight, a moratorium on coercive measures, and protections for cross-border scientific collaboration. Risk modeling shows limited short-term backlash compared to the higher systemic risk of allowing a precedent that normalizes interference, and continuity contingencies are in place to prevent service disruption.