this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
147 points (97.4% liked)
Ukraine
8067 readers
617 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So let me get this straight; you seem to be suggesting that Elon has been keeping Starlink enabled in Crimea and thus defying US sanctions and risking literal jailtime but only upon hearing about the assault to Sevastopol he then decided to disable it because, what? He's a Russian asset? Is that what you're implying here?
Or could the alternative be that your distaste for Elon makes you prefer the original story better because it suits your narrative and when it turns out to be false your cognitive dissonance tries to come up with reasons for why you don't have to believe it and thus admit that you were wrong?
I couldn't care less about Elon. I was just pointing out that trusting someone in one case while not trusting them in later isn't unreasonable. I was also pointing out that the "correction" was very obviously pushing certain narrative.
In my opinion not enabling the communication is equally as bad as disabling it on purpose. The end result was the same and in both cases it required decision to help russian terrorists.
As for whether Musk is an russian asset or not, I'd say he's cold blooded business man. Sometimes that makes him russian asset sometimes it does not.
Sure, but then the blame is on the US government, not SpaceX or Elon. It's not disabled in Crimea because Musk decided so. The US sanctions for Russia prohibits him from enabling it there even if he wanted to.
I also don't see any reason for the author to do damage control for Elon. They're not exactly buddies and his book is quite critical of him. It's not Musk he's defending by walking back the claims he made - it's his own reputation.
Which is..?
This is what I'm referring to. It does not mention US sanctions.
It was neither correct nor probable. No one starts a war (whatever that means, the war has started already) over a fucking glorified accesspoint. It's just author pushing certain narrative. Not defending his own reputation.
These are Isaacson's words, not Musk's. What he said is: "If I had agreed to the request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation"
In my view that is a perfectly valid reason to deny such request even if it was not against the law to do so. On the other hand if you think it should not have been disabled there in the first place then that would mean Russia could use it for their own drone strikes aswell. Considering how invaluable the Ukrainians claim Starlink to be for them I'm sure Russia would be more than happy to take advantage if it as well, which is what they're now doing with the limited amount of terminals they have managed to obtain.
During an All-In Summit appearance on Sept. 11, 2023, Musk returned to the topic and stated that Starlink could not operate in Russia-occupied Ukraine because U.S. sanctions forbade it without special permission.
That is what Musk said. Which is arguably pretty biased source. It was also said after the book was published, which makes me think Musk either didn't even read his own book and no one in his team did see a problem with what was in the book. Or he didn't even see it as a problem himself which wouldn't be his first catastrophic failure to read the room.
Drone strikes on all the battleships Ukraine has? Or how exactly would they use it in waters where Ukraine only visits with drones and missiles?
Also I don't think it shouldn't have been disabled. I think it does not matter if it was disabled. The only difference it made was that Musk was in position to turn it on rather than to not turn it off. And he chose to help russian terrorists fucking up Ukraine big time as russia got its hands onto the undamaged drones.
Sounds like what russian asset would say. Perhaps not because he's forced or bribed by russia, perhaps it just makes business sense.
That's your opinion. I don't think it's valid reason to help terrorists. Those ships were later used in attempt to block food export risking famine in certain parts of the world and to lob missiles at Ukrainian cities. They were also used for that before. Perfectly valid reason to call Musk an russian asset IMO.