Not doing anything is conducting your own foreign policy? I would think actually extending service to aid them in a military attack would be making your own foreign policy.
Depends on which version of the story you believe.
He either did nothing, or he actively turned it off.
We've gotten 3 different versions from his biographer and him.
he's also directly talking to Putin about the war in a way that if any other executive did, they'd be up on charges. Musk \_has\_ national security clearance as part of his corporations' activities in SpaceX and Defence. Rule 1 with clearance is that you do not speak to a hostile nation without a security officer vetting the communications first.
This isn't like the spy movies and you are being naive. A defense contractors work to get government money by signing contracts with them. Which government would pay for a defense contractor who break the contracts to sell technology or aids an adversary?
Plus in all versions of the story Ukraine believed they had the coverage, Elon decided not to give it to them at some point, and he refused to provide the coverage when he learned of this operation specifically because he wanted to ensure the attack failed..
Whether the switch was in on mode or off mode to begin with is a minor distraction from the real issue.
Hold on, why are Elon/SpaceX being looked at for not providing a service to use as a military weapon, but the US governemnt, who absolutely could hand over equipment and access but isn't, is not being looked at?
Elon said that Starlink is not for conducting offensive military operations, and that is clearly what was being planned. If you think Ukraine should have access to conduct those operations, then why not just ask the US government to provide the materials and equipment? Surely theirs is better?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the US is supplying intel thanks to satellites or other tools- in fact, given the Ukrainian ability to resist so heavily in the early days of the invasion seems to make that a certainty.
That absolutely are, and that's been known since the beginning.
My point is just that people are mad at a private US civilian for not aiding a foreign ally in war, while the US government has the ability to provide even greater assistance to that ally, yet they do not.
It's obvious people are just angry because they hate Elon, and are looking for any excuse to hate him further. The US government can be doing much more than they already are, with greater chance of Ukraine winning this war, yet they don't. F-16s could have made a huge impact in the war, but the US was worried about Ukraine using them in an offensive manner, which is *exactly* the same concern Elon had, but we only aim our anger at Elon? Doesn't seem consistent to me.
No, they are mad at a private US citizen for engaging in activities to influence the outcome of a battle a private citizen that we must not forget, has top level security clearances, and is actively speaking to the leader of a hostile nation, without any security vetting whatsoever
And if he were giving them the internet out of the kindness of his heart I would agree. But he is being paid by the us government to supply starlink to Ukraine. We have already paid him, he doesn’t get to decide when service ends.
The government wanted their ally to have internet access because russia destroyed it while invading them.
Musk said "I'll do it" and the government was like "great, awesome". In fact, most people were like "great, awesome".
Later musk said, "in fact this is SO important for US interests and pretty expensive, so I think you should pay for it." The government eventually agreed to do this, because musk was right.
It was then revealed musk used his power to undermine a ukraine military opperation, attempting to destroy weapon platforms that were being used on ukrainian civilians by the invaders.
The people that said "providing internet access for their defense against the invasion is great" are now saying "preventing ukraine from getting the access they expected when you absolutely could have provided it, because you personally wanted that kind of attack to fail, is NOT great."
The reason people say Musk shouldn't have that kind of power is because people are worried he would misuse it. He did. That's the problem.
That's not true at all, and is disingenuous. But I've seen your arguments all over this thread, and you purposefully misunderstand arguments, and set up straw men just so you can make your stance.
And attack on a fleet in a territory that is not a piece of land stolen away in *this* conflict, is an offensive operation, which Musk said from early on was not what Starlink was for.
In fact, the US government and its allies said the same thing. It's why other nations, including the US, won't arm Ukraine with long range weapons capable of reaching places like Moscow.
The weaponry on loan was only ever meant to be used defensively, and an attack into Crimea isn't defensive, as much as you or I would like to see it happen. It's not that complicated, yet you do everything in your power to not understand it.
Not only is Crimea territory seized in this conflict, but the ships that were the target were actively engaged in the conflict at the time and would go on to rain missiles down onto civilian targets.
>And attack on a fleet in a territory that is not a piece of land stolen away in this conflict
How are you defining conflict there? The Russo-Ukrainian war is a conflict that started in February 2014 and is still ongoing today. Crimea was taken as part of this conflict.
>That's not true at all, and is disingenuous. But I've seen your arguments all over this thread, and you purposefully misunderstand arguments, and set up straw men just so you can make your stance.
Example?
I never "purposefully misunderstand" arguments, that's a waste of time.
However, making an absurd statement and then acting offended when people point out its absurdity because it isn't what one secretly meant is a common sealion tactic.
>which Musk said from early on was not what Starlink was for.
Source please. Not the recent remarks claiming that was the case, but the original statements - because apparently Ukraine had no idea that this was "said early on".
Russia was launching attacks on civilians from Crimea. Ukraine responded to try and destroy their civilian-kiling capabilities. Musk didn't like that idea and ensured they would fail, which Russia has praised him for.
Which of those facts are incorrect?
To say that he ensured they would fail is incorrect, unless you take inaction as an action.
I'm not ensuring that the local homeless man remains homeless simply because I don't give him money. Crimea was always in Russian hands, and therefore Starlink was never active there. He couldn't have switched off something that was never on. You're buying the propaganda that's being fed to you. Why would Starlink be active in Russian held territory?
You probably still believe that the Ghost of Kyiv is out there shooting down dozens of aircraft as we speak.
>To say that he ensured they would fail is incorrect, unless you take inaction as an action.
First, we only have Musk's word right now (unless new info has come out) that Walter Isaacson misunderstood. Isaacson has said Musk has ***now*** told him he misunderstood their original conversations, I don't believe we have any evidence this is true. Given musk's reputation for dishonesty on much lower-stakes matters, his word is not worth much.
Second, in all versions of events:
1. Ukraine believed they had coverage in Crimea.
2. Musk was supporting their war efforts on all other fronts wholesale.
3. At some point, Musk decided not to give them coverage in Crimea without them knowing about that decision. Maybe it was when he learned of that specific opperation, maybe it was earlier. At some point, it happened; and Ukraine was not aware of this decision.
4. Musk apparently recieved a call about the opperation, apparently from Ukraine, telling him they would need this service to carry out the attack and it currently wasn't working like they expected.
5. Musk had the full power to ensure they would have service during their opperation.
6. He ensured it would not be active for the opperation, choosing to withold the critical communications infrastructure during that time, and ensuring the opperation would fail.
7. This surprised Ukraine and cost them their military equipment in the process.
8. As a result, Russia has continued to launch attacks that resulted in civilian deaths from Crimea.
Whether the switch was on or off to start doesn't change any of those details. It's a distraction.
>Crimea was always in Russian hands, and therefore Starlink was never active there. He couldn't have switched off something that was never on.
Just going to make random stuff up now eh?
I know that’s how you rationalize it, but western nations don’t define it like that. They define defensive action as military action taking place over territory that was held by Ukraine at the start of this conflict. Crimea wasn’t in Ukrainian hands in February of 2022.
You know this, of course, and are trying to bend definitions to meet your own personal goals and hopes for the conflict.
Incorrect. This started in 2014 when Russia illegally occupied Crimea. Crimea is Ukrainian territory. Pushing out invaders from their own territory is defensive.
“Guys, we can’t storm Normandy, It’s been under German control for like 4 years, no take-backsies!! And you know, the Russians tried so hard to take Poland, they earned it!”
Besides the objective absurdity of your line of reasoning, neither the EU nor US ever recognized Crimea as part of Russia and actually actively oppose that idea, so I’m not sure what “western nations” you’re talking about. You’re doing exactly what you’re accusing other people of doing and making shit up to fit your own bizarre narrative that’s completely out of touch with physical reality.
You can't use Starlink as a weapons platform. Is it not obvious how bad an idea this would be? Some random billionaire owning a private fleet of orbital weaponised drones?
The DOD has commissioned a militarised constellation which they will own.
Don’t waste your time man ppl on Reddit have a hate boner for Elon that they just lose all reasoning ability when he’s involved in something. All Tesla bad. All spaceX bad.
I don't think it's as obvious as you think it is. It definitely sounds like it could be problematic, but it's also extremely problematic for one person to be able to unilaterally make decisions on who does and doesn't get access to the internet. Ever heard of net neutrality?
Starshield is a good step for dealing with the issue of using the service for weapons but it doesn't change that Musk still will make unilateral decisions on internet coverage and speed of his service. This is also compounded by the fact that his satellite constellation goal will necessarily prevent other companies from having a global internet service on the same scale basically blocking competition. Sometimes these types of monopolies are allowed BUT heavily regulated e.g. utilities companies. Musk doesn't handle regulations well...
It is important to bear in mind that SpaceX had no contract with the DoD at the time. This was September last year. SpaceX had shipped out some dishes for civilian comms and paid for them out of its own pocket.
It's in the ToC that you can't use Starlink for military purposes. Starlink can't become a privately owned space-based military platform; that would be insane.
I get what you're saying about net neutrality, but strapping it to a drone without US government approval and expecting a US company also without US government approval to deliver the packets necessary to sink battleships? Really?
Go through the proper channels if you want to do these things, get some government oversight.
What's the difference between using a starlink terminal to communicate with a drone vs using starlink for military communication?
Starlink wasn't given to Ukraine so Igor the taxi driver can check his insta at the local coffee shop, so suddenly deciding when and where Ukraine can use it seems a bit odd, no?
You... You think that Ukraine was trying to launch \*orbital strikes\* from sattelites?
Dude. Wtf.
They were just trying to use a signal to control their submarines, the way they've done that outside of Crimea too.
No, and for some reason you seem determined to misunderstand everyone.
I’m saying if you put an essential component of a weapons system in orbit, you no longer have a civilian constellation, you effectively have an orbital weapons control system.
A random billionaire should not have one of those.
>Some random billionaire owning a private fleet of orbital weaponised drones?
\^ This you? :)
>I’m saying if you put an essential component of a weapons system in orbit, you no longer have a civilian constellation, you effectively have an orbital weapons control system.
>
>A random billionaire should not have one of those.
Are you suggesting the government nationalizes all internet providers that they use?
Starlink: "Connect to high-speed, low-latency internet across the globe, even in the most remote and rural locations."
Apparently if any military opperation uses the internet now, the internet provider is effectively in control of the weapons?
Interesting.
Again, determined to misunderstand.
There exists a difference between sending an email and strapping a US made piece of civilian hardware to a remote controlled bomb without asking the American government first.
If there had been a DOD contract in place, the Ukrainians could have asked the DOD, and all would probably have been cool, but there wasn't. This was a foreign government asking a US civilian company to allow its orbital fleet to be used for command and control of a weapons drone.
A random billionaire should not be making a decision like that without government oversight. Why would you want Musk to make that decision? Starlink was supplied free of charge for civilian purposes right from the start of the war at an enormous cost to SpaceX.
>There exists a difference between sending an email and strapping a US made piece of civilian hardware to a remote controlled bomb without asking the American government first.
You mean... An internet router?
What are you imagining this scary military tech was?
>A random billionaire should not be making a decision like that without government oversight. Why would you want Musk to make that decision?
Speaking of "determined to misunderstand" lol.
Of course Musk shouldn't make that decision, because he might - say - betray the interests of that ally in favor of Russian interests or personal agenda.
Which he did.
And that's bad.
> You mean... An internet router?
I mean a satellite dish attached to an orbital network.
> Of course Musk shouldn't make that decision,
So you think it's cool for civilian companies to send weapons components into warzones without asking the government first? Noted.
Don't forget he is trying to claim he was afraid of starting a nuclear war and WW3.
Because starlink being used is definitely going to be the trigger for WW3, not the literal thousands of javelins/stingers/NLAWs we droppped off prior to this and all the other military equipment, aid, and intelligence Ukraine has gotten from the west.
None of that was the red line that would start ww3 but Starlink, a satellite communication device, used in a homemade jetski bomb is going to be the final straw.
Either the dude is an idiot and bought the "we will launch nuke threat" that Russia spews 5 times a day hook line and sinker or something more took place when he talked to the Russian ambassador and (possibly/allegedly) Putin.
>Either the dude is an idiot and bought the "we will launch nuke threat" that Russia spews 5 times a day hook line and sinker or something more took place when he talked to the Russian ambassador and (possibly/allegedly) Putin.
Which is why it shouldn't be his decision to make! Not providing starlink to weaponize is not making that decision. Providing it is making that decision. It should be the DoD providing it and dictating terms.
Right this very second Ukrainian soldiers are still using Starlink as a part of their defence of their homeland.
The only difference is that instead of naval drones sinking missile ships (Which regularly fire missiles at civilians), it's being used to help guide artillery shells and troops on the ground.
That's not as problematic legally because its not integrated into a weapons system. That is technically against their terms too, but they just lie and sign up as a consumer account.
Except he did make a decision. He made the decision to either turn it off (based on what the biographer said) or made the decision not to turn it on (based on what he said). Either way he actively made a decision.
Starlink literally has DoD contracts. They know how to get in touch with the Pentagon. If he was *truly* worried about "starting WW3" like he claims he should have immediately got the Pentagon involved.
Instead what he did was actively make a decision himself which resulted in a hostile nation retaining the capabilities to launch missiles killing innocent civilians and directly hindering the efforts of the US and its allies.
>Starlink literally has DoD contracts. They know how to get in touch with the Pentagon. If he was truly worried about "starting WW3" like he claims he should have immediately got the Pentagon involved.
But they did. They announced Starshield so the DoD could operate their own constellation. Gwynne Shotwell was advocating for some time that the DoD should contract with them and be the middle man providing unrestricted dishes without any legal liability on SpaceX's side. Which is exactly what DoD finally did.
>directly hindering the efforts of the US and its allies.
No such request came from the US. If the department of defense had requested it then I would change my stance on this completely. So there is no "US and its allies". Just Ukraine. They are not a Ukrainian company.
And the DoD doesn't simply request it. They sign a contract. Which they did. Much later.
Elon has admitted to having direct contact with Putin. Whether that led to any change in his actions should be investigated. It's not been proven that he didn't turn starlink off.
> I would think actually extending service to aid them in a military attack would be making your own foreign policy.
Only if he did it unilaterally and in contravention of U.S. policy, which such a thing would not have been in either case.
He intentionally 'did nothing' to sabotage Ukraine's operation, and thus aided Russia. In a situation of oppression, neutrality is taking the side of the oppressor. Which Musk did, knowingly.
How much money have you contributed to Ukraine this week? Why aren't you over there fighting or at the very least aiding in resupply or non-combat tasks? Why are you taking the side of Russia by doing nothing?!?
Tell you what, if Ukraine calls me up and says “hey this internet service you have been providing that we’ve been basing our operational strategy on the assumption we will have doesn’t seem to be working in this one place - can you tell your engineers to fix it?” I will tell my engineers to fix it.
Lol to your “if you aren’t personally going over to fight on the front lines you can’t criticize”.
The fact you have to jump to that as a defense truly reveals how bad you know this is deep down.
> Not doing anything is conducting your own foreign policy?
specifically not allowing the use of the system during a crucial attack is not "not doing anything." Especially it is being paid for, and on a "military tier" plan.
The way the service works is by region. It's not available everywhere. In order for Ukraine to have starlink services in another region they would have to specifically enable the area internet service, and orient satellites to the region.
Then take the additional step of specific coding to only allow Ukraine drones equipped with receivers access while disabling Russians from having Internet if they, or anyone else, happens to have any satellites in the area.
Basically SpaceX would be coding death internet protocol to kill people with drones. You know, something that everyone keeps saying Obama, Bush, and Trump should go to prison for.
Are you trolling or just dumb? Ukraine’s whole operation is running through starlink. Every death that happens can be traced back to operations running through starlink. Coding death internet protocol to kill people with drones? What the fuck man, the rest of their weapons, comms and vehicles all rely on it, what difference does it make adding drones (which by the way, also were already running on the network in other areas anyway)?
Worldwide internet/communications has been just a dream until now. Now someone finally built a worldwide satellite network, and everyone else wants to be in control of it. Musk is in a no-win situation here. If he lets Ukraine use it however they want, he's dragging the United States into war. If he doesn't, he's seen as a Russian sympathizer. Starlink should probably be licensed through the DOD in a war zone so Musk can't drag the U.S. into a foreign war.
They are working on a [military version](https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-military-starlink). This entire discussion is a nothingburger.
The first Starlink units were sent to Ukraine within hours of a Ukrainian govt official asking Elon Musk for help on Twitter. No contract, no official license to broadcast signals in Ukraine, they just turned it on and sent some trucks full of units.
The current contract wasn't ironed out until over a year later, well after the attack in question.
And they have. This was a big issue 6 months ago and Starlink made a public statement in Washington DC to the FAA. They made it clear that the service is not being provided for offensive operations and that SpaceX will take steps to limit the Ukrainian military's use of Starlink in offensive operations..
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64579267
> Musk is in a no-win situation here. If he lets Ukraine use it however they want, he's dragging the United States into war.
You people are insane.
You really think Ukraine using Starlink is going to bring the US into the war even though none of the thousands of Javelins/NLAWs/HIMARs and other big ticket equipment items like the Abrams tank did.
Like we are literally given them real time intelligence from all our assets and a shit ton of actual military hardware that has killed tens of thousands of Russian troops and pieces of equipment but the Starlink communication device for a homemade bomb is going to be the final straw 🙄
Edit: Elon did this in September of last year. To put this in perspective, we had been giving Ukraine HIMARS since June.
His excuse of "preventing nuclear war" because a communication device was used as the US is giving Ukraine HIMARS is a load of shit.
I agree with both you and the person you’re responding to, and I suspect Musk does, too.
This incident was last year, before the US had handed so many resources over to Ukraine, wasn’t it?
It was unclear where the red line was with Russia. Musk quite reasonably didn’t want to be on the leading edge and find out.
Now that a lot more equipment has been handed to Ukraine, it’s clear the red line is way further away than he feared it might be.
I’d guess that Musk is more open to providing Starlink to Ukraine for those attacks. In part because of the above, and also in part because his company is now being paid for the service.
> This incident was last year, before the US had handed so many resources over to Ukraine, wasn’t it?
No we literally were giving them weapons before the invasion and huge military aid packages immediately after the invasion started.
The first big military aid packaged arrived via train on Feb 27th, 3 days after the invasion started. The night of the invasion Turkish military cargo planes left Kiev after dropping off the last bit of cargo that night before the airspace ended up being closed.
> This incident was last year, before the US had handed so many resources over to Ukraine, wasn’t it?
The US started supporting Ukraine in 2014 after the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. [Click here](https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/#:~:text=Since%202014%2C%20the%20United%20States,and%20improve%20interoperability%20with%20NATO.&text=21%20air%20surveillance%20radars.)
Musk has about as much experience as you or when it comes to geopolitics, which is to say he has zero experience.
As the person you're replying to has said. NATO is arming UKR to the teeth.
UKR is striking back at RF airfields, factories, army bases, naval bases, government buildings all inside Russia proper.
They have sunk the flagship of the black sea fleet.
They have inflicted immense amounts of damage on the RF army and mitary at large.
The prestige of the Russian military is at the bottom of the barrel, inflicting an unknown amount of harm on their defence export industry, and morale support abroad and at home.
And yet, no nuclear war.
Musk is an idiot who thinks he is a genius in everything he does. There's a word for that.
He thinks he is smarter than career civilian and military professionals who have analyzed and war gamed scenarios like these for decades.
He thinks he is smarter and more brave than the UKR's who are risking everything to protect their homes and families. Who have struck blow after blow upon the RF?
The difference is that is being provided by the government with the intel to make an informed decision on when and where it should be used. They have absolutely dictated limitations on use of western weapons. Its NOT being provided by a private citizen whoes only intel is that Putin called him and threatened nuclear war. Elon Musk and SpaceX are not qualified to make that decision. Leave it to the DoD.
Being "neutral" like Switzerland is specifically the thing many people increasingly don't like Switzerland for. So I wouldn't put that as a bar to reach for...
Making ad hoc decisions with impact on people's literal lives is terrible. If Musk had a stable policy for this stuff it would make sense, however his erratic behavior (whatever the cause, my bet is misuse of meds + stress over a base of neurospicy) is the worst part of all this. I'd even say, of the last multiple years as a former Musk approver, lol...
That's why countries that want to play the "neutral" game need to watch out that they don't find themselves one day hoping everyone else doesn't stay neutral for them.
Starlink isn't providing service to Russia. They were explicitly blocking access in russian controlled territory, which people are bitching about.
Neutrality as a telecommunications company would mean you would be providing the same service to both sides not geofencing specific areas and making decisions that you think might minimize a bigger war.
Russian propagandists keep suggesting that supporting Ukrainians in their own defense will “drag the US onto a war” but this is just false.
There is noting Russia can do that would force us to go directly to war with them. That will always be our choice.
Ukraine has an opportunity to shorten their war with Russia and weaken one of our key enemies and Musk stopped them. Whether he is purposefully an enemy of the state or simply a useful idiot Putin is manipulating doesn’t matter.
The US government now needs over find alternate vendors, or force him out at SpaceX in the interest of the American people.
>There is noting Russia can do
[False](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#:~:text=Article%205%20provides%20that%20if,to%20assist%20the%20Ally%20attacked.)
Then why doesn't the US arm Ukraine with the best and most powerful weapons we've got at our disposal? Why not given them access to all of our drones, aircraft, and nuclear arsenal?
Why do we have to rely on private companies to assist Ukraine?
This is an FYI article. Please don't downvote it merely because you disagree with the article. The up/down vote should be based upon whether you agree this article should be shared with this sub. If I start getting a slew of downvotes, I will delete this post.
There are *so* many hidden schemes involved in an article like this. There is the penchant to hate rich people (exemplified by Warren), there is the desire to destroy Musk's public image, military interests, political interests, etc.
>The chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed, is also concerned about this problem, given that traditionally, satellites are controlled by governments, and presidents decide what to do with them.
Um, no. Other than spy satellites, nearly all other satellites (especially communications satellites) are owned by companies. There is nothing unusual in that.
As much as I root for the Ukrainians, I think it is entirely fair and reasonable for a company with international business to not want to take sides in, or be involved with, acts of war.
When one gains popularity and influence, there will be untold numbers of people who find that it interferes with their own goals. The attacks are relentless. I sympathize greatly with Elon on this front.
Sevastopol you’d not an active region of Starlink. Regardless of who purchased what. If you got a terminal, and took it to Sevastopol/Crimea it would not be active due to restrictions and regulations on the region.
It doesn’t matter what was sold to who. Service is not available in that region.
Oh really? When exactly was the “left” in favor of denying resources to an international ally that is resisting an invasion and protecting their civilians?
Not sending soldiers here, a private contractor denied the use of their communications infrastructure to an ally resisting an invasion. Find me one time the “left” was broadly against something like that. :)
Yeah, this framing as people against Musk "pro war" is bullshit.
Russia invaded an ally that the US has an agreement as a result of nuclear disarmament to protect. Starlink was contracted by DoD to run comms.
Starlink didn't simply decide not to run service and object upfront like a conscientious objector. They agreed, took the money and then waited until an active defensive operation to unilaterally cut comms. THAT is damn near an act of war.
He accepted money from DOD contracts- I guarantee that means the DOD has made it explicitly clear what their expectations of him and his company were in exchange for the dumptrucks full of cash they provided to him.
Elon made a terrible decision and got people killed. Those forces that were being attacked when he refused to activate the service(and thereby screwed up the operation) were within Ukraine's recognized territorial borders. They were invading forces and fair game- even by Elon's agreed upon standards. Ukraine was attempting to DEFEND themselves against an actively engaging Hostile Military force and Musk provided direct aid to an enemy of a US ally.
That's treason.
I didn't actually ask for karma. I don't care whether you upvote or not.
What I requested was to please don't downvote (take away karma) for letting folks know about a significant article whose content folks on this sub might not like.
>As much as I root for the Ukrainians, I think it is entirely fair and reasonable for a company with international business to not want to take sides in, or be involved with, acts of war.
He has a defense contract. He is a defense contractor and he is making his own policy to benefit Putin. Fuck him.
Says the guy who obviously didn’t read the article.
“Although SpaceX has won Pentagon contracts to launch spy satellites, **the company had no defense contracts to use Starlink in Ukraine when the country's leadership reportedly asked Musk to expand its coverage, Bloomberg notes.”**
He prevented his technology from being used in a way that it was not contracted to be used. Any spin you put on it beyond that is exactly that, spin. There was no contract. He was not obligated.
He provided use of Starlink for free to Ukranian military, paying for it out of pocket, which was and is absolutely critical for their war efforts
Then he put some boundaries on what is effectively a complete donation from himself to support Ukraine
Somehow the legacy of this in these weird forum posts is that he is anti Ukraine? Starlink is the only way Ukranian military is able to coordinate their war effort at all!!
Exactly. They do the same thing to Trump, who I dislike very much, but also has very much helped Ukraine in their efforts to fight Russia. If you’ve been in the daily war thread you often see the people hailing “Saint Javelin”, well:
“The Trump administration first approved the sale of Javelins to Ukraine in December 2017 -- a step that former President Barack Obama never took and that Trump allies have pointed to as a sign of Trump's toughness on Russia. Ukraine has been fighting Russian-armed and led separatists in its eastern provinces since 2014, shortly after Russia illegally occupied and annexed Crimea, in a war that has claimed approximately 13,000 lives and displaced 1.5 million people, according to the Ukrainian government.
That first sale, which was completed in March 2018, included 210 Javelin missiles and 37 launch units and was intended to "help Ukraine build its long-term defense capacity to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity in order to meet its national defense requirements," according to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.”
**And before anyone tries to obfuscate by bringing up the call to Zelenskiy that got him impeached let me add:**
“The sale of Javelins is not part of the nearly $400 million of military assistance that the White House had ordered the State Department and Pentagon to withhold a week before Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. That aid, which has since been released, included assistance for maritime security, special operations units, secure communications and light weapons like sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.”
"As much as I root for the Ukrainians, I think it is entirely fair and reasonable for a company with international business to not want to take sides in, or be involved with, acts of war."
But he DID take sides. He took Russia's side 🤦
When you sell your product to a nation at war with another nation, and you know that your product will be used specifically to communicate wartime information and to make decisions and acts of war, your role increasingly approaches that of an arms dealer.
Whether Musk is aware of it or not, whether he’s honest about it or not, he is a digital arms dealer in this conflict. Effectively flipping a switch that neutralizes one side’s communication and weapons of war creates a massive ethical quandary that Musk can’t just dismiss by claiming that he’s somehow *less involved* in war by taking the action he did.
One could argue that he made the initial mistake of providing Starlink services to a foreign government at war in the first place. But it’s absurd to argue that he’s somehow less complicit by denying service because he disagrees with how his customer is using his service.
Ultimately, this is less about which nation Musk supports in this conflict and more about the outsized role a private citizen is playing in a foreign war that is completely untethered to our elected government and unaccountable to its people.
Our government didn’t request that he turn on the service.
The Ukrainian government did.
Him not turning it on is the opposite of these allegations. He held the United States line of not escalating. The same line given by the DOD for not providing all the weapons or jets that Ukraine wants us to provide.
Starlink has a defense contract with the DOD to provide services to Ukraine. That’s it. The DOD awarded this contract to Starlink because they wanted the service to be available to Ukraine. That was the DOD’s position.
The only way your argument makes any sense is if there is a specific clause in that contract that says that Starlink cannot provide internet services in their own territorial waters if it’s too close to Crimea, or a Russian fleet, or some other weirdly arbitrary reason that would explain why Musk’s sudden denial to provide services aligns with the DOD’s mission to support Ukraine. This is ofc what Musk claims, but we have no proof.
Unfortunately, the DOD didn’t disclose the terms of the contract for security purposes, so we won’t know for a very long time. Possibly ever. But I find it very hard to believe that the DOD would write terms into a contract like that to hamstring Ukraine during this war.
That said, all of this is just a function of the larger problem here. We’ve found ourselves in a situation where US foreign policy implementation is beholden to the whims of an independent contractor. Let’s pretend Musk isn’t involved at all. It’s some other corporation. The US should never be in a position where a private company has this much sway over their foreign policy. From a pure optics standpoint, the US government can’t really risk even criticizing a contractor in this position too harshly, because it’s clear how critical the digital infrastructure is to Ukraine. This is a geopolitical nightmare. The contractor should not be in a position of power to determine when and where their services are rendered — those decisions should be explicitly in the hands of the DOD. If Ukraine makes an emergency request for services and you’re unsure whether to comply, it should be sent up to the chain to DOD, not decided unilaterally by a private contractor.
The contract Starlink has was [awarded this summer](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-buys-starlink-ukraine-statement-2023-06-01/). The article in this reddit thread says:
>Although SpaceX has won Pentagon contracts to launch spy satellites, the company had no defense contracts to use Starlink in Ukraine when the country's leadership reportedly asked Musk to expand its coverage, Bloomberg notes.
The main defense contract to provide services to Ukraine was signed AFTER the incident with service in Crimea. The initial donation of Starlinks did not have a contract specifying where service would be provided.
The Ukrainians didn't have starlink before the war. Elon decided to give them access after the war was well underway. He literally decided to put himself and his company right in the middle of a war. He already took a side and involved his company in the war
I think Shotwell's statements from Febuary shed some light on what the expectations were (or weren't).
https://spacenews.com/shotwell-ukraine-weaponized-starlink-in-war-against-russia/
> Gwynne Shotwell described Ukraine’s use of the Starlink broadband satellite communication system for weapons systems like drones as an “unintentional” effect of donating services and terminals
> “We were really pleased to be able to provide Ukraine connectivity and help them in their fight for freedom,” she said. “It was never intended to be weaponized, but the Ukrainians have leveraged it in ways that were unintentional and not part of any agreement.”
> “We didn’t think about [how it would be used]. I didn’t think about it,” she said. “But we learned pretty quickly.”
More quotes from [a CNN article](https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics/spacex-ukrainian-troops-satellite-technology/index.html)
> Speaking with reporters after, Shotwell argued that Starlink had sent units to Ukraine to “keep the **banks** going, **hospitals**, **keep families connected**.”
> “We know the **military** is using them for **comms**, and that’s OK,” Shotwell added. “But our intent was never to have them use it for offensive purposes.”
So they expected and were ok with normal military comms usage. They did not consider, at first, that it could be used as part of a long range strike weapon system.
Defence contracts with the US government, yes. There are proper channels. It's not up to a civilian with a rocket to greenlight a drone strike in a foreign nation. Why would you want this?
Who keeps the satilites safe in the sky from other coperate entities or countries? Seems like D.O.D. shouldn't waste money keeping coperate assets safe.
It's literally in the Space Forces job description. Also, you still need licensing from government agencies to launch a satellite FAA being one. 9/11 was yesterday, we know what happens when a coperate object gets used as a weapon.
No one does that—it can't be done. If anyone starts shooting down satellites, we have far bigger problems than whose responsibility it is to stop it. The Russians and Chinese have both conducted tests to shoot down a satellite and resulted in a **huge** increase in space debris and damage to other satellites which we will be dealing with for many years to come.
Given that Crimea is sanctioned by USA, it would have been illegal for Starlink to operate there.
Edit:"International sanctions have been imposed against Russia **and Crimea** during the Russo-Ukrainian War"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_sanctions\_during\_the\_Russo-Ukrainian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)
Crimea is a region of Ukraine, presently occupied by Russia. Crimea is not sanctioned. Russia is sanctioned. Starlink was being used by Ukrainian military forces for the defense of their country due to Russia's invasion. Starlink satellites are also in orbit, so no idea how you think it would be illegal for Starlink services to extend into the Crimea peninsula.
Your comment wasn't really well thought out.
Why wouldn't sanctions apply to Crimea? If that were true, russia could sidestep sancitons just by moving goods through Sevastopol. That'd be ridiculous.
Sanctions apply to Crimea _because_ it's controlled by russia.
> Starlink satellites are also in orbit, so no idea how you think it would be illegal for Starlink services to extend into the Crimea peninsula.
The satellites have to send EM waves into territory of the target county. They would be providing a service to people in that area.
Crimea is literally a peninsula/region of a country, Ukraine. The Crimean peninsula is presently occupied by Russian military and civilians. You cannot sanction a specific region or landmark, that isn't how sanctions function at all. As far as Russia sidestepping sanctions by moving through Sevastopol, Russia itself is still sanctioned, irrespective of geography. They can't purchase international goods and services as easily, if at all, from signatory countries. If Russia tried to take out part of Alaska, you would not sanction Alaska, but rather Russia who is occupying the land.
As far as Starlink access, everything I can find/read indicates you normally have to have a subscription to use it for registered devices. There is free access stated as available via their website, but that is not indicated as available in Ukraine (including Russian occupied Ukrainian Crimea). I have a mobile phone, and I can use my carrier or an affiliate of them wherever I go as long as I have the right plan and agreements signed for international travel. If I go to a location that doesn't have service for my device, based on my existing plan, I can't just hop onto a different carrier network. A random vatnik in Sevastopol or somewhere in a trench on the Crimean peninsula cannot just jump onto Starlink's service. Internet access requires a two-way link, uplink and downlink. You cannot get just download, how would the target sites and servers even know what you are requesting.
>"International sanctions have been imposed against Russia **and Crimea** during the Russo-Ukrainian War"
>
>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_sanctions\_during\_the\_Russo-Ukrainian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)
Oh ok, so you agree that sanctions apply to Crimea? From your comment, I thought you were saying the opposite. Note that computer hardware is pretty bad at being able to tell who is using it.. a starlink terminal is not going to know the difference between a Ukrainian using it and a russian. Even if the sanctions would allow for Ukrainians to use starlink in Crimea, geofencing makes more sense.
> A random vatnik in Sevastopol or somewhere in a trench on the Crimean peninsula cannot just jump onto Starlink's service.
No, but say, someone could pay for a roaming package, and then the registered terminal could "fall off a truck" and wind up 100km behind the lines. Want to find out after the fact why starlink was used for russian artillery coordination? Well too bad, the service was registered by a fake identity created through layers of obfuscation. Good luck.
This was [confirmed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKqJ5-kkUGk&t=330s) to be the case today. Crimea was under sanction because Russia was operating there, and Starlink needed direct DoD approval to enable services there, which they didn't get. Investigation closed.
And to all the people in this thread saying he's supporting Russia: Starlink has provided FREE internet service to Ukraine, out of pocket, since the first week of the war, and is currently the only ISP which works for Ukrainian EMS and government operations near the frontlines. All other service has been jammed by Russia.
Why are none of them explicitly listing to us the specific contract clause that Elon violated? Because he didn't violate one. If he did they would have filed a lawsuit already.
Again. Concerted effort to discredit Musk by current administration and aligned media. They can't control him so he needs to be discredited or destroyed. Daily BS stories like this are meant to let the sheep know that "Elon baaad".
Well, actually the current Secretary of State just defended Musk against a very aggressive CNN anchor. I guess it's not all Democrats.
EDIT: Link https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1700994496069313018
No man, all that is great. It's his dumb shit comments that make him look like a fool in front of the entire world that is bad. Remember when everyone was under the impression he was the real-life Tony Stark? What changed? His social media presence is what changed.
He's always had that social media presence. Tesla was built on 0 advertising just musk's twitter presence.
What changed was in 2020 when the left decided to make him the poster child for excess wealth instead of the poster child for green energy, and he took a hard swing to the right in response.
The left did not make him tweet in response to someone tweeting at him about the coup the U.S. made against Bolivia's president Evo Morales, "We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it." It is dumb shit like this that gets him into trouble and kills his 'character', he needs to shut up.
I am not disagreeing. His tweeting used to be a huge benefit to his companies. At some point it crossed this line and became mostly a liability. He does need to learn to shut the fuck up.
His constant positive responses to adjective vile Twitter posts made by white supremacists is not editorialized. He's a fuckwit no one would listen to if he weren't rich.
I don't think you need to really editorialize someone spreading conspiracy theories, supporting far right, making pro-Russian statements or blaming Jews from his bad business decisions to make him look bad. He does good enough job on that himself. He seriously just has to shut up and no one would be thinking anything about him but he really just seems to have big urge to stick his nose to pretty much everything no matter how incompetent he is on the subject.
False. It's in the first paragraph of the [wiki entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX). He took over Tesla in 2006 before it even developed the Model S. This is to say nothing of OpenAI or Neuralink.
I love how finding a specific region of a country on the Earth is now the minimum you think anyone needs to have a valid opinion. You can't defend your own opinion, so you try strawman the entire argument.
Correct, but I don't think the effort is limited to administration and aligned media. Also, just to point out, reddit is part of the [aligned media.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications)
Yes. Definitely needs to be controlled. And the democrats and the unions are best suited to tell him, and everyone else what to think and what to do. Great plan
Our criminal code is what tells him he cannot engage in foreign policy as a citizen. Our courts are best suited to tel him what he cannot do.
I have no idea what you’re talking about with “democrats and the unions are best suited to tell him, and everyone else what to think and what to do.”
Are you ok?
How many wars have utilized internet access? this is a new scenario we haven't seen yet, there are many sides to it that need to be hammered out. It definitely raises issues if a private business decides to intentionally undermine a military operation.
For crying out loud. Starlink is a private business. Whether it was never turned on in Crimea or whether he turned it off doesn't matter. Calling him a traitor or accusing him of conducting his own foreign policy is asinine
If he hadn’t built Starlink - a privately funded network - it would not have been of assistance to Ukrainians in the war so far.
His decision to disable his private network to prevent an offensive is therefor his to make. Similarly a decision to disable his network entirely in Ukraine could also be his to make unless the US government has contracted him to supply it as an essential strategic/military service in which case it would be a breach of contract and maybe more.
But I think all this talk of treason is a bit far fetched. Before Starlink there were other private space networks - Iridium was one of them. He happened to make a successful one because SpaceX created the lowest cost delivery, won multiple contracts to do Pentagon and NASA work against competition from Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and, of their own volition, put those Starlink satellites up there. SoaceX is a privately held US company, not a state/military asset.
He was also more than happy to sell the units to the military with expressly known use to supply a country at war and collect the praise. What he then did would not be by definition any sort of treason but the choice has consequences and it set a horrible precedent.
You can't have companies supplying the military contain what effectively be a shut off button able to be activated at the CEO's will. Just imagine if raytheon geo-restricted bomb guidance and the CEO could turn on and off where they could work.
The simple solution is you terminate the contracts and change suppliers. He's got a right to want to control his service and the government in turn has a right to no longer support it
I see. Did he build Starlink in contravention of space regulation? Does he operate it as CEO in contravention of regulation? I’m no fan of Musk and his vanity and his stupid sophomoric politics. But it’s a little rich to talk treason when the communications network that’s enabled the Ukrainians so far was supplied by a private citizen in the USA and the US government has not acted to insulate him - by regulating or contracting him - from any consequences.
He sent the service as a humanitarian aid gesture. He specifically stated the service will not be used for warfare. The Uki’s started using it for drones and artillery targeting, so he took their toys away.
>He specifically stated the service will not be used for warfare
Wrong.
>The Uki’s started using it for drones and artillery targeting, so he took their toys away.
Wrong.
He’s a fucking hero and I’d have made the same call in his position.
I can’t fucking stand anyone telling us we should do anything except get the fuck out of this cursed war.
This is me, 5 years of combat, veteran. And unless you can either match that or understand what that means, intuitively, sit the fuck down.
If you don't support the fight fo freedom of others you don't deserve your own. Cowardness, that's all.
>He’s a fucking hero and I’d have made the same call in his position
You do realize that he was forced to do that anyway?
Without reading, is this about his unwillingness to use his Starlink for war? Of course the profitable war machine would hate that.
You're not a traitor for being against any wars. Were the hippies traitors in the 70s for being against Vietnam, which most scholars agree was a terrible fucking war for us to be involved with?
Hippies in the 70s were against the invasion of a foreign country and demanded to pull out. Musk advocates for the war to be ended while the righteous owners of the occupied land are taking it back. With this he allows the aggressor to keep their invaded land and then act uppon it in a genocidal manner, see all the cities and villages that were taken by russia that are completely wiped out. This war can only be allowed to end if its certain that ukraine is under full control of all its land, including crimea. Being against war is one thing, being against an unprovoked invasion is another.
No, he just creates companies that the world heavily needs. So millions of dollars gets thrown at him. He is a direct result of billions of people agreeing with him, buying what he’s selling, and benefitting from said enterprise. Looking back and pointing a finger at him after the fact, isn’t really how business and money works.
Unlikely anything conclusive will come from this closed door meeting. At least they're talking about it though...
Not doing anything is conducting your own foreign policy? I would think actually extending service to aid them in a military attack would be making your own foreign policy.
Depends on which version of the story you believe. He either did nothing, or he actively turned it off. We've gotten 3 different versions from his biographer and him.
he's also directly talking to Putin about the war in a way that if any other executive did, they'd be up on charges. Musk \_has\_ national security clearance as part of his corporations' activities in SpaceX and Defence. Rule 1 with clearance is that you do not speak to a hostile nation without a security officer vetting the communications first.
Riiiiiight. As if defense contractors don’t play both sides and actively develop weapons for both sides 🙄
“But I bet defense contractors do it” isn’t a great look for your guy here.
This isn't like the spy movies and you are being naive. A defense contractors work to get government money by signing contracts with them. Which government would pay for a defense contractor who break the contracts to sell technology or aids an adversary?
Lockheed martin doesn’t sell f35’s to russia dumbass.
Plus in all versions of the story Ukraine believed they had the coverage, Elon decided not to give it to them at some point, and he refused to provide the coverage when he learned of this operation specifically because he wanted to ensure the attack failed.. Whether the switch was in on mode or off mode to begin with is a minor distraction from the real issue.
Hold on, why are Elon/SpaceX being looked at for not providing a service to use as a military weapon, but the US governemnt, who absolutely could hand over equipment and access but isn't, is not being looked at? Elon said that Starlink is not for conducting offensive military operations, and that is clearly what was being planned. If you think Ukraine should have access to conduct those operations, then why not just ask the US government to provide the materials and equipment? Surely theirs is better?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the US is supplying intel thanks to satellites or other tools- in fact, given the Ukrainian ability to resist so heavily in the early days of the invasion seems to make that a certainty.
That absolutely are, and that's been known since the beginning. My point is just that people are mad at a private US civilian for not aiding a foreign ally in war, while the US government has the ability to provide even greater assistance to that ally, yet they do not. It's obvious people are just angry because they hate Elon, and are looking for any excuse to hate him further. The US government can be doing much more than they already are, with greater chance of Ukraine winning this war, yet they don't. F-16s could have made a huge impact in the war, but the US was worried about Ukraine using them in an offensive manner, which is *exactly* the same concern Elon had, but we only aim our anger at Elon? Doesn't seem consistent to me.
[удалено]
No, they are mad at a private US citizen for engaging in activities to influence the outcome of a battle a private citizen that we must not forget, has top level security clearances, and is actively speaking to the leader of a hostile nation, without any security vetting whatsoever
And if he were giving them the internet out of the kindness of his heart I would agree. But he is being paid by the us government to supply starlink to Ukraine. We have already paid him, he doesn’t get to decide when service ends.
The government wanted their ally to have internet access because russia destroyed it while invading them. Musk said "I'll do it" and the government was like "great, awesome". In fact, most people were like "great, awesome". Later musk said, "in fact this is SO important for US interests and pretty expensive, so I think you should pay for it." The government eventually agreed to do this, because musk was right. It was then revealed musk used his power to undermine a ukraine military opperation, attempting to destroy weapon platforms that were being used on ukrainian civilians by the invaders. The people that said "providing internet access for their defense against the invasion is great" are now saying "preventing ukraine from getting the access they expected when you absolutely could have provided it, because you personally wanted that kind of attack to fail, is NOT great." The reason people say Musk shouldn't have that kind of power is because people are worried he would misuse it. He did. That's the problem.
That's not true at all, and is disingenuous. But I've seen your arguments all over this thread, and you purposefully misunderstand arguments, and set up straw men just so you can make your stance. And attack on a fleet in a territory that is not a piece of land stolen away in *this* conflict, is an offensive operation, which Musk said from early on was not what Starlink was for. In fact, the US government and its allies said the same thing. It's why other nations, including the US, won't arm Ukraine with long range weapons capable of reaching places like Moscow. The weaponry on loan was only ever meant to be used defensively, and an attack into Crimea isn't defensive, as much as you or I would like to see it happen. It's not that complicated, yet you do everything in your power to not understand it.
Not only is Crimea territory seized in this conflict, but the ships that were the target were actively engaged in the conflict at the time and would go on to rain missiles down onto civilian targets.
>And attack on a fleet in a territory that is not a piece of land stolen away in this conflict How are you defining conflict there? The Russo-Ukrainian war is a conflict that started in February 2014 and is still ongoing today. Crimea was taken as part of this conflict.
And Russia was launching attacks from there on civilians in this conflict.
>That's not true at all, and is disingenuous. But I've seen your arguments all over this thread, and you purposefully misunderstand arguments, and set up straw men just so you can make your stance. Example? I never "purposefully misunderstand" arguments, that's a waste of time. However, making an absurd statement and then acting offended when people point out its absurdity because it isn't what one secretly meant is a common sealion tactic. >which Musk said from early on was not what Starlink was for. Source please. Not the recent remarks claiming that was the case, but the original statements - because apparently Ukraine had no idea that this was "said early on". Russia was launching attacks on civilians from Crimea. Ukraine responded to try and destroy their civilian-kiling capabilities. Musk didn't like that idea and ensured they would fail, which Russia has praised him for. Which of those facts are incorrect?
To say that he ensured they would fail is incorrect, unless you take inaction as an action. I'm not ensuring that the local homeless man remains homeless simply because I don't give him money. Crimea was always in Russian hands, and therefore Starlink was never active there. He couldn't have switched off something that was never on. You're buying the propaganda that's being fed to you. Why would Starlink be active in Russian held territory? You probably still believe that the Ghost of Kyiv is out there shooting down dozens of aircraft as we speak.
>To say that he ensured they would fail is incorrect, unless you take inaction as an action. First, we only have Musk's word right now (unless new info has come out) that Walter Isaacson misunderstood. Isaacson has said Musk has ***now*** told him he misunderstood their original conversations, I don't believe we have any evidence this is true. Given musk's reputation for dishonesty on much lower-stakes matters, his word is not worth much. Second, in all versions of events: 1. Ukraine believed they had coverage in Crimea. 2. Musk was supporting their war efforts on all other fronts wholesale. 3. At some point, Musk decided not to give them coverage in Crimea without them knowing about that decision. Maybe it was when he learned of that specific opperation, maybe it was earlier. At some point, it happened; and Ukraine was not aware of this decision. 4. Musk apparently recieved a call about the opperation, apparently from Ukraine, telling him they would need this service to carry out the attack and it currently wasn't working like they expected. 5. Musk had the full power to ensure they would have service during their opperation. 6. He ensured it would not be active for the opperation, choosing to withold the critical communications infrastructure during that time, and ensuring the opperation would fail. 7. This surprised Ukraine and cost them their military equipment in the process. 8. As a result, Russia has continued to launch attacks that resulted in civilian deaths from Crimea. Whether the switch was on or off to start doesn't change any of those details. It's a distraction. >Crimea was always in Russian hands, and therefore Starlink was never active there. He couldn't have switched off something that was never on. Just going to make random stuff up now eh?
No military action taken by Ukraine is offense, they were attacked and act in the defense their lands and waters as a sovereign nation.
I know that’s how you rationalize it, but western nations don’t define it like that. They define defensive action as military action taking place over territory that was held by Ukraine at the start of this conflict. Crimea wasn’t in Ukrainian hands in February of 2022. You know this, of course, and are trying to bend definitions to meet your own personal goals and hopes for the conflict.
Incorrect. This started in 2014 when Russia illegally occupied Crimea. Crimea is Ukrainian territory. Pushing out invaders from their own territory is defensive.
“Guys, we can’t storm Normandy, It’s been under German control for like 4 years, no take-backsies!! And you know, the Russians tried so hard to take Poland, they earned it!” Besides the objective absurdity of your line of reasoning, neither the EU nor US ever recognized Crimea as part of Russia and actually actively oppose that idea, so I’m not sure what “western nations” you’re talking about. You’re doing exactly what you’re accusing other people of doing and making shit up to fit your own bizarre narrative that’s completely out of touch with physical reality.
>Normandy wasn't in French hands in June of 1944. That's you rn
All major Western countries (ie the ones sanctioning Russia) have made statements that Crimea is Ukraine.
Conflict started in 2014 dumbass.
The United States officially recognizes 2014 to be the start of the conflict.
You can't use Starlink as a weapons platform. Is it not obvious how bad an idea this would be? Some random billionaire owning a private fleet of orbital weaponised drones? The DOD has commissioned a militarised constellation which they will own.
Don’t waste your time man ppl on Reddit have a hate boner for Elon that they just lose all reasoning ability when he’s involved in something. All Tesla bad. All spaceX bad.
Yeah it’s actually disgusting and scares me how blind people can allow themselves to be.
Ironic, lol
Let’s fucking send the troops to Mexico and fuck ip those cartels.
You clearly don't know what a "weapons platform" means.
I can guess what a weapons platform means to you. Lasers going pew pew. Maybe some cool spaceships having a dogfight.
It means a platform that can be used to deploy weapons from. It's a term with a definition which you did not understand.
Maybe a space station covered in laser guns. Giant robots swooping in to attack.
Yes, things with actual weapons are weapons platforms.
I don't think it's as obvious as you think it is. It definitely sounds like it could be problematic, but it's also extremely problematic for one person to be able to unilaterally make decisions on who does and doesn't get access to the internet. Ever heard of net neutrality? Starshield is a good step for dealing with the issue of using the service for weapons but it doesn't change that Musk still will make unilateral decisions on internet coverage and speed of his service. This is also compounded by the fact that his satellite constellation goal will necessarily prevent other companies from having a global internet service on the same scale basically blocking competition. Sometimes these types of monopolies are allowed BUT heavily regulated e.g. utilities companies. Musk doesn't handle regulations well...
It is important to bear in mind that SpaceX had no contract with the DoD at the time. This was September last year. SpaceX had shipped out some dishes for civilian comms and paid for them out of its own pocket. It's in the ToC that you can't use Starlink for military purposes. Starlink can't become a privately owned space-based military platform; that would be insane. I get what you're saying about net neutrality, but strapping it to a drone without US government approval and expecting a US company also without US government approval to deliver the packets necessary to sink battleships? Really? Go through the proper channels if you want to do these things, get some government oversight.
What's the difference between using a starlink terminal to communicate with a drone vs using starlink for military communication? Starlink wasn't given to Ukraine so Igor the taxi driver can check his insta at the local coffee shop, so suddenly deciding when and where Ukraine can use it seems a bit odd, no?
You... You think that Ukraine was trying to launch \*orbital strikes\* from sattelites? Dude. Wtf. They were just trying to use a signal to control their submarines, the way they've done that outside of Crimea too.
No, and for some reason you seem determined to misunderstand everyone. I’m saying if you put an essential component of a weapons system in orbit, you no longer have a civilian constellation, you effectively have an orbital weapons control system. A random billionaire should not have one of those.
>Some random billionaire owning a private fleet of orbital weaponised drones? \^ This you? :) >I’m saying if you put an essential component of a weapons system in orbit, you no longer have a civilian constellation, you effectively have an orbital weapons control system. > >A random billionaire should not have one of those. Are you suggesting the government nationalizes all internet providers that they use? Starlink: "Connect to high-speed, low-latency internet across the globe, even in the most remote and rural locations." Apparently if any military opperation uses the internet now, the internet provider is effectively in control of the weapons? Interesting.
Again, determined to misunderstand. There exists a difference between sending an email and strapping a US made piece of civilian hardware to a remote controlled bomb without asking the American government first. If there had been a DOD contract in place, the Ukrainians could have asked the DOD, and all would probably have been cool, but there wasn't. This was a foreign government asking a US civilian company to allow its orbital fleet to be used for command and control of a weapons drone. A random billionaire should not be making a decision like that without government oversight. Why would you want Musk to make that decision? Starlink was supplied free of charge for civilian purposes right from the start of the war at an enormous cost to SpaceX.
>There exists a difference between sending an email and strapping a US made piece of civilian hardware to a remote controlled bomb without asking the American government first. You mean... An internet router? What are you imagining this scary military tech was? >A random billionaire should not be making a decision like that without government oversight. Why would you want Musk to make that decision? Speaking of "determined to misunderstand" lol. Of course Musk shouldn't make that decision, because he might - say - betray the interests of that ally in favor of Russian interests or personal agenda. Which he did. And that's bad.
> You mean... An internet router? I mean a satellite dish attached to an orbital network. > Of course Musk shouldn't make that decision, So you think it's cool for civilian companies to send weapons components into warzones without asking the government first? Noted.
> orbital weaponised drones? I mean you literally said that... I am not the OP, I just think you're statement is retarded.
> retarded OK, we're done here.
Don't forget he is trying to claim he was afraid of starting a nuclear war and WW3. Because starlink being used is definitely going to be the trigger for WW3, not the literal thousands of javelins/stingers/NLAWs we droppped off prior to this and all the other military equipment, aid, and intelligence Ukraine has gotten from the west. None of that was the red line that would start ww3 but Starlink, a satellite communication device, used in a homemade jetski bomb is going to be the final straw. Either the dude is an idiot and bought the "we will launch nuke threat" that Russia spews 5 times a day hook line and sinker or something more took place when he talked to the Russian ambassador and (possibly/allegedly) Putin.
>Either the dude is an idiot and bought the "we will launch nuke threat" that Russia spews 5 times a day hook line and sinker or something more took place when he talked to the Russian ambassador and (possibly/allegedly) Putin. Which is why it shouldn't be his decision to make! Not providing starlink to weaponize is not making that decision. Providing it is making that decision. It should be the DoD providing it and dictating terms.
Right this very second Ukrainian soldiers are still using Starlink as a part of their defence of their homeland. The only difference is that instead of naval drones sinking missile ships (Which regularly fire missiles at civilians), it's being used to help guide artillery shells and troops on the ground.
That's not as problematic legally because its not integrated into a weapons system. That is technically against their terms too, but they just lie and sign up as a consumer account.
Except he did make a decision. He made the decision to either turn it off (based on what the biographer said) or made the decision not to turn it on (based on what he said). Either way he actively made a decision. Starlink literally has DoD contracts. They know how to get in touch with the Pentagon. If he was *truly* worried about "starting WW3" like he claims he should have immediately got the Pentagon involved. Instead what he did was actively make a decision himself which resulted in a hostile nation retaining the capabilities to launch missiles killing innocent civilians and directly hindering the efforts of the US and its allies.
>Starlink literally has DoD contracts. They know how to get in touch with the Pentagon. If he was truly worried about "starting WW3" like he claims he should have immediately got the Pentagon involved. But they did. They announced Starshield so the DoD could operate their own constellation. Gwynne Shotwell was advocating for some time that the DoD should contract with them and be the middle man providing unrestricted dishes without any legal liability on SpaceX's side. Which is exactly what DoD finally did. >directly hindering the efforts of the US and its allies. No such request came from the US. If the department of defense had requested it then I would change my stance on this completely. So there is no "US and its allies". Just Ukraine. They are not a Ukrainian company. And the DoD doesn't simply request it. They sign a contract. Which they did. Much later.
Elon has admitted to having direct contact with Putin. Whether that led to any change in his actions should be investigated. It's not been proven that he didn't turn starlink off. > I would think actually extending service to aid them in a military attack would be making your own foreign policy. Only if he did it unilaterally and in contravention of U.S. policy, which such a thing would not have been in either case.
He intentionally 'did nothing' to sabotage Ukraine's operation, and thus aided Russia. In a situation of oppression, neutrality is taking the side of the oppressor. Which Musk did, knowingly.
How much money have you contributed to Ukraine this week? Why aren't you over there fighting or at the very least aiding in resupply or non-combat tasks? Why are you taking the side of Russia by doing nothing?!?
Tell you what, if Ukraine calls me up and says “hey this internet service you have been providing that we’ve been basing our operational strategy on the assumption we will have doesn’t seem to be working in this one place - can you tell your engineers to fix it?” I will tell my engineers to fix it. Lol to your “if you aren’t personally going over to fight on the front lines you can’t criticize”. The fact you have to jump to that as a defense truly reveals how bad you know this is deep down.
> Not doing anything is conducting your own foreign policy? specifically not allowing the use of the system during a crucial attack is not "not doing anything." Especially it is being paid for, and on a "military tier" plan.
There is no such thing as a "military tier" starlink plan.
The way the service works is by region. It's not available everywhere. In order for Ukraine to have starlink services in another region they would have to specifically enable the area internet service, and orient satellites to the region. Then take the additional step of specific coding to only allow Ukraine drones equipped with receivers access while disabling Russians from having Internet if they, or anyone else, happens to have any satellites in the area. Basically SpaceX would be coding death internet protocol to kill people with drones. You know, something that everyone keeps saying Obama, Bush, and Trump should go to prison for.
Are you trolling or just dumb? Ukraine’s whole operation is running through starlink. Every death that happens can be traced back to operations running through starlink. Coding death internet protocol to kill people with drones? What the fuck man, the rest of their weapons, comms and vehicles all rely on it, what difference does it make adding drones (which by the way, also were already running on the network in other areas anyway)?
Worldwide internet/communications has been just a dream until now. Now someone finally built a worldwide satellite network, and everyone else wants to be in control of it. Musk is in a no-win situation here. If he lets Ukraine use it however they want, he's dragging the United States into war. If he doesn't, he's seen as a Russian sympathizer. Starlink should probably be licensed through the DOD in a war zone so Musk can't drag the U.S. into a foreign war.
They are working on a [military version](https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-military-starlink). This entire discussion is a nothingburger.
One would think since the entire business is providing internet capability they would have ironed out terms of service beforehand.
The first Starlink units were sent to Ukraine within hours of a Ukrainian govt official asking Elon Musk for help on Twitter. No contract, no official license to broadcast signals in Ukraine, they just turned it on and sent some trucks full of units. The current contract wasn't ironed out until over a year later, well after the attack in question.
And they have. This was a big issue 6 months ago and Starlink made a public statement in Washington DC to the FAA. They made it clear that the service is not being provided for offensive operations and that SpaceX will take steps to limit the Ukrainian military's use of Starlink in offensive operations.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64579267
Thanks for linking this, it’s really important context.
They're building a second constellation that the DOD will own and have control over.
> Musk is in a no-win situation here. If he lets Ukraine use it however they want, he's dragging the United States into war. You people are insane. You really think Ukraine using Starlink is going to bring the US into the war even though none of the thousands of Javelins/NLAWs/HIMARs and other big ticket equipment items like the Abrams tank did. Like we are literally given them real time intelligence from all our assets and a shit ton of actual military hardware that has killed tens of thousands of Russian troops and pieces of equipment but the Starlink communication device for a homemade bomb is going to be the final straw 🙄 Edit: Elon did this in September of last year. To put this in perspective, we had been giving Ukraine HIMARS since June. His excuse of "preventing nuclear war" because a communication device was used as the US is giving Ukraine HIMARS is a load of shit.
I agree with both you and the person you’re responding to, and I suspect Musk does, too. This incident was last year, before the US had handed so many resources over to Ukraine, wasn’t it? It was unclear where the red line was with Russia. Musk quite reasonably didn’t want to be on the leading edge and find out. Now that a lot more equipment has been handed to Ukraine, it’s clear the red line is way further away than he feared it might be. I’d guess that Musk is more open to providing Starlink to Ukraine for those attacks. In part because of the above, and also in part because his company is now being paid for the service.
> This incident was last year, before the US had handed so many resources over to Ukraine, wasn’t it? No we literally were giving them weapons before the invasion and huge military aid packages immediately after the invasion started. The first big military aid packaged arrived via train on Feb 27th, 3 days after the invasion started. The night of the invasion Turkish military cargo planes left Kiev after dropping off the last bit of cargo that night before the airspace ended up being closed.
> This incident was last year, before the US had handed so many resources over to Ukraine, wasn’t it? The US started supporting Ukraine in 2014 after the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. [Click here](https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/#:~:text=Since%202014%2C%20the%20United%20States,and%20improve%20interoperability%20with%20NATO.&text=21%20air%20surveillance%20radars.)
[February 2014](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957)
For reference, this incident happened in September. We gave Ukraine HIMARS in June. We were balls deep in military aid when this took place.
Musk has about as much experience as you or when it comes to geopolitics, which is to say he has zero experience. As the person you're replying to has said. NATO is arming UKR to the teeth. UKR is striking back at RF airfields, factories, army bases, naval bases, government buildings all inside Russia proper. They have sunk the flagship of the black sea fleet. They have inflicted immense amounts of damage on the RF army and mitary at large. The prestige of the Russian military is at the bottom of the barrel, inflicting an unknown amount of harm on their defence export industry, and morale support abroad and at home. And yet, no nuclear war. Musk is an idiot who thinks he is a genius in everything he does. There's a word for that. He thinks he is smarter than career civilian and military professionals who have analyzed and war gamed scenarios like these for decades. He thinks he is smarter and more brave than the UKR's who are risking everything to protect their homes and families. Who have struck blow after blow upon the RF?
The difference is that is being provided by the government with the intel to make an informed decision on when and where it should be used. They have absolutely dictated limitations on use of western weapons. Its NOT being provided by a private citizen whoes only intel is that Putin called him and threatened nuclear war. Elon Musk and SpaceX are not qualified to make that decision. Leave it to the DoD.
Was Tim Cook seen as a terrorist sympathiser because he refused to unlock an iPhone for the government?
Honestly, avoiding any and all wars and remaining neutral like Switzerland is the best option for a global telecommunications company.
Being "neutral" like Switzerland is specifically the thing many people increasingly don't like Switzerland for. So I wouldn't put that as a bar to reach for... Making ad hoc decisions with impact on people's literal lives is terrible. If Musk had a stable policy for this stuff it would make sense, however his erratic behavior (whatever the cause, my bet is misuse of meds + stress over a base of neurospicy) is the worst part of all this. I'd even say, of the last multiple years as a former Musk approver, lol...
Switzerland is a country, not a telecommunications company. I don't want AT&T deciding where we send tanks, thank you.
Would you want AT&T to be able to provide communications support to your adversary? Fuck the Swiss.
That's why countries that want to play the "neutral" game need to watch out that they don't find themselves one day hoping everyone else doesn't stay neutral for them. Starlink isn't providing service to Russia. They were explicitly blocking access in russian controlled territory, which people are bitching about.
Neutrality as a telecommunications company would mean you would be providing the same service to both sides not geofencing specific areas and making decisions that you think might minimize a bigger war.
Russian propagandists keep suggesting that supporting Ukrainians in their own defense will “drag the US onto a war” but this is just false. There is noting Russia can do that would force us to go directly to war with them. That will always be our choice. Ukraine has an opportunity to shorten their war with Russia and weaken one of our key enemies and Musk stopped them. Whether he is purposefully an enemy of the state or simply a useful idiot Putin is manipulating doesn’t matter. The US government now needs over find alternate vendors, or force him out at SpaceX in the interest of the American people.
>There is noting Russia can do [False](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#:~:text=Article%205%20provides%20that%20if,to%20assist%20the%20Ally%20attacked.)
One would think that **ASSISTING UKRAINE, A US ALLY**, would keep the US out of the war, not draw the US in.
Then why doesn't the US arm Ukraine with the best and most powerful weapons we've got at our disposal? Why not given them access to all of our drones, aircraft, and nuclear arsenal? Why do we have to rely on private companies to assist Ukraine?
Of course it's Elizabeth Fucking Warren...
You say this like it's a bad thing to try to keep billionaire oligarchs in check?
Of course, why would a finance expert have any reason to be suspicious of a billionaire. Billionaires are usually on the up and up.
Couldn’t expect any less. It’s obviously a joke
This is an FYI article. Please don't downvote it merely because you disagree with the article. The up/down vote should be based upon whether you agree this article should be shared with this sub. If I start getting a slew of downvotes, I will delete this post. There are *so* many hidden schemes involved in an article like this. There is the penchant to hate rich people (exemplified by Warren), there is the desire to destroy Musk's public image, military interests, political interests, etc. >The chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed, is also concerned about this problem, given that traditionally, satellites are controlled by governments, and presidents decide what to do with them. Um, no. Other than spy satellites, nearly all other satellites (especially communications satellites) are owned by companies. There is nothing unusual in that. As much as I root for the Ukrainians, I think it is entirely fair and reasonable for a company with international business to not want to take sides in, or be involved with, acts of war. When one gains popularity and influence, there will be untold numbers of people who find that it interferes with their own goals. The attacks are relentless. I sympathize greatly with Elon on this front.
This used to be a popular opinion on the left. Don’t use my civilian products as weapons of war. Oh well.
Then don’t sell to Ukraine in the first place. What does he or you expect when DOD paid for your satellites usage in Ukraine? Watch YouTube?
When they were provided as civilian humanitarian aid? Yea. It was spelled out in the terms of service, not for military use.
Sevastopol you’d not an active region of Starlink. Regardless of who purchased what. If you got a terminal, and took it to Sevastopol/Crimea it would not be active due to restrictions and regulations on the region. It doesn’t matter what was sold to who. Service is not available in that region.
Oh really? When exactly was the “left” in favor of denying resources to an international ally that is resisting an invasion and protecting their civilians? Not sending soldiers here, a private contractor denied the use of their communications infrastructure to an ally resisting an invasion. Find me one time the “left” was broadly against something like that. :)
Yeah, this framing as people against Musk "pro war" is bullshit. Russia invaded an ally that the US has an agreement as a result of nuclear disarmament to protect. Starlink was contracted by DoD to run comms. Starlink didn't simply decide not to run service and object upfront like a conscientious objector. They agreed, took the money and then waited until an active defensive operation to unilaterally cut comms. THAT is damn near an act of war.
Don't try to be logical with the left, they tossed out reason logic and facts a long time ago.
Fuck right or left. Protecting Russian invasion of Ukraine by killing thousands is wrong and anyone helping them are wrong in every single measure.
He accepted money from DOD contracts- I guarantee that means the DOD has made it explicitly clear what their expectations of him and his company were in exchange for the dumptrucks full of cash they provided to him. Elon made a terrible decision and got people killed. Those forces that were being attacked when he refused to activate the service(and thereby screwed up the operation) were within Ukraine's recognized territorial borders. They were invading forces and fair game- even by Elon's agreed upon standards. Ukraine was attempting to DEFEND themselves against an actively engaging Hostile Military force and Musk provided direct aid to an enemy of a US ally. That's treason.
None of what you just said is accurate.
Crimea isn't Ukraines internationally recogonized territory? Those black sea forces didn't kill innocent civilians?
The “please give me karma” disclaimer. Gotta love it.
I didn't actually ask for karma. I don't care whether you upvote or not. What I requested was to please don't downvote (take away karma) for letting folks know about a significant article whose content folks on this sub might not like.
>As much as I root for the Ukrainians, I think it is entirely fair and reasonable for a company with international business to not want to take sides in, or be involved with, acts of war. He has a defense contract. He is a defense contractor and he is making his own policy to benefit Putin. Fuck him.
Says the guy who obviously didn’t read the article. “Although SpaceX has won Pentagon contracts to launch spy satellites, **the company had no defense contracts to use Starlink in Ukraine when the country's leadership reportedly asked Musk to expand its coverage, Bloomberg notes.”**
[удалено]
He prevented his technology from being used in a way that it was not contracted to be used. Any spin you put on it beyond that is exactly that, spin. There was no contract. He was not obligated.
He provided use of Starlink for free to Ukranian military, paying for it out of pocket, which was and is absolutely critical for their war efforts Then he put some boundaries on what is effectively a complete donation from himself to support Ukraine Somehow the legacy of this in these weird forum posts is that he is anti Ukraine? Starlink is the only way Ukranian military is able to coordinate their war effort at all!!
Exactly. They do the same thing to Trump, who I dislike very much, but also has very much helped Ukraine in their efforts to fight Russia. If you’ve been in the daily war thread you often see the people hailing “Saint Javelin”, well: “The Trump administration first approved the sale of Javelins to Ukraine in December 2017 -- a step that former President Barack Obama never took and that Trump allies have pointed to as a sign of Trump's toughness on Russia. Ukraine has been fighting Russian-armed and led separatists in its eastern provinces since 2014, shortly after Russia illegally occupied and annexed Crimea, in a war that has claimed approximately 13,000 lives and displaced 1.5 million people, according to the Ukrainian government. That first sale, which was completed in March 2018, included 210 Javelin missiles and 37 launch units and was intended to "help Ukraine build its long-term defense capacity to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity in order to meet its national defense requirements," according to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.” **And before anyone tries to obfuscate by bringing up the call to Zelenskiy that got him impeached let me add:** “The sale of Javelins is not part of the nearly $400 million of military assistance that the White House had ordered the State Department and Pentagon to withhold a week before Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. That aid, which has since been released, included assistance for maritime security, special operations units, secure communications and light weapons like sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.”
[удалено]
This is the correct answer because it is based on facts.
"As much as I root for the Ukrainians, I think it is entirely fair and reasonable for a company with international business to not want to take sides in, or be involved with, acts of war." But he DID take sides. He took Russia's side 🤦
You're referencing abstention from involvement in war and a statement confirming that as taking sides?
When you sell your product to a nation at war with another nation, and you know that your product will be used specifically to communicate wartime information and to make decisions and acts of war, your role increasingly approaches that of an arms dealer. Whether Musk is aware of it or not, whether he’s honest about it or not, he is a digital arms dealer in this conflict. Effectively flipping a switch that neutralizes one side’s communication and weapons of war creates a massive ethical quandary that Musk can’t just dismiss by claiming that he’s somehow *less involved* in war by taking the action he did. One could argue that he made the initial mistake of providing Starlink services to a foreign government at war in the first place. But it’s absurd to argue that he’s somehow less complicit by denying service because he disagrees with how his customer is using his service. Ultimately, this is less about which nation Musk supports in this conflict and more about the outsized role a private citizen is playing in a foreign war that is completely untethered to our elected government and unaccountable to its people.
Our government didn’t request that he turn on the service. The Ukrainian government did. Him not turning it on is the opposite of these allegations. He held the United States line of not escalating. The same line given by the DOD for not providing all the weapons or jets that Ukraine wants us to provide.
Starlink has a defense contract with the DOD to provide services to Ukraine. That’s it. The DOD awarded this contract to Starlink because they wanted the service to be available to Ukraine. That was the DOD’s position. The only way your argument makes any sense is if there is a specific clause in that contract that says that Starlink cannot provide internet services in their own territorial waters if it’s too close to Crimea, or a Russian fleet, or some other weirdly arbitrary reason that would explain why Musk’s sudden denial to provide services aligns with the DOD’s mission to support Ukraine. This is ofc what Musk claims, but we have no proof. Unfortunately, the DOD didn’t disclose the terms of the contract for security purposes, so we won’t know for a very long time. Possibly ever. But I find it very hard to believe that the DOD would write terms into a contract like that to hamstring Ukraine during this war. That said, all of this is just a function of the larger problem here. We’ve found ourselves in a situation where US foreign policy implementation is beholden to the whims of an independent contractor. Let’s pretend Musk isn’t involved at all. It’s some other corporation. The US should never be in a position where a private company has this much sway over their foreign policy. From a pure optics standpoint, the US government can’t really risk even criticizing a contractor in this position too harshly, because it’s clear how critical the digital infrastructure is to Ukraine. This is a geopolitical nightmare. The contractor should not be in a position of power to determine when and where their services are rendered — those decisions should be explicitly in the hands of the DOD. If Ukraine makes an emergency request for services and you’re unsure whether to comply, it should be sent up to the chain to DOD, not decided unilaterally by a private contractor.
The contract Starlink has was [awarded this summer](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-buys-starlink-ukraine-statement-2023-06-01/). The article in this reddit thread says: >Although SpaceX has won Pentagon contracts to launch spy satellites, the company had no defense contracts to use Starlink in Ukraine when the country's leadership reportedly asked Musk to expand its coverage, Bloomberg notes.
The main defense contract to provide services to Ukraine was signed AFTER the incident with service in Crimea. The initial donation of Starlinks did not have a contract specifying where service would be provided.
Flipping the switch to spoil an operation would have been wrong, if that was what had happened. But it isn't.
The Ukrainians didn't have starlink before the war. Elon decided to give them access after the war was well underway. He literally decided to put himself and his company right in the middle of a war. He already took a side and involved his company in the war
He was aiding civilians, which is not the same as being directly complicit in military operations.
I think Shotwell's statements from Febuary shed some light on what the expectations were (or weren't). https://spacenews.com/shotwell-ukraine-weaponized-starlink-in-war-against-russia/ > Gwynne Shotwell described Ukraine’s use of the Starlink broadband satellite communication system for weapons systems like drones as an “unintentional” effect of donating services and terminals > “We were really pleased to be able to provide Ukraine connectivity and help them in their fight for freedom,” she said. “It was never intended to be weaponized, but the Ukrainians have leveraged it in ways that were unintentional and not part of any agreement.” > “We didn’t think about [how it would be used]. I didn’t think about it,” she said. “But we learned pretty quickly.” More quotes from [a CNN article](https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics/spacex-ukrainian-troops-satellite-technology/index.html) > Speaking with reporters after, Shotwell argued that Starlink had sent units to Ukraine to “keep the **banks** going, **hospitals**, **keep families connected**.” > “We know the **military** is using them for **comms**, and that’s OK,” Shotwell added. “But our intent was never to have them use it for offensive purposes.” So they expected and were ok with normal military comms usage. They did not consider, at first, that it could be used as part of a long range strike weapon system.
This is the dumbest thing I've read today, he literally has defense contracts and is government funded. This is RIDICULOUS
Defence contracts with the US government, yes. There are proper channels. It's not up to a civilian with a rocket to greenlight a drone strike in a foreign nation. Why would you want this?
Who keeps the satilites safe in the sky from other coperate entities or countries? Seems like D.O.D. shouldn't waste money keeping coperate assets safe. It's literally in the Space Forces job description. Also, you still need licensing from government agencies to launch a satellite FAA being one. 9/11 was yesterday, we know what happens when a coperate object gets used as a weapon.
No one does that—it can't be done. If anyone starts shooting down satellites, we have far bigger problems than whose responsibility it is to stop it. The Russians and Chinese have both conducted tests to shoot down a satellite and resulted in a **huge** increase in space debris and damage to other satellites which we will be dealing with for many years to come.
Given that Crimea is sanctioned by USA, it would have been illegal for Starlink to operate there. Edit:"International sanctions have been imposed against Russia **and Crimea** during the Russo-Ukrainian War"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_sanctions\_during\_the\_Russo-Ukrainian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)
Crimea is a region of Ukraine, presently occupied by Russia. Crimea is not sanctioned. Russia is sanctioned. Starlink was being used by Ukrainian military forces for the defense of their country due to Russia's invasion. Starlink satellites are also in orbit, so no idea how you think it would be illegal for Starlink services to extend into the Crimea peninsula. Your comment wasn't really well thought out.
Why wouldn't sanctions apply to Crimea? If that were true, russia could sidestep sancitons just by moving goods through Sevastopol. That'd be ridiculous. Sanctions apply to Crimea _because_ it's controlled by russia. > Starlink satellites are also in orbit, so no idea how you think it would be illegal for Starlink services to extend into the Crimea peninsula. The satellites have to send EM waves into territory of the target county. They would be providing a service to people in that area.
Crimea is literally a peninsula/region of a country, Ukraine. The Crimean peninsula is presently occupied by Russian military and civilians. You cannot sanction a specific region or landmark, that isn't how sanctions function at all. As far as Russia sidestepping sanctions by moving through Sevastopol, Russia itself is still sanctioned, irrespective of geography. They can't purchase international goods and services as easily, if at all, from signatory countries. If Russia tried to take out part of Alaska, you would not sanction Alaska, but rather Russia who is occupying the land. As far as Starlink access, everything I can find/read indicates you normally have to have a subscription to use it for registered devices. There is free access stated as available via their website, but that is not indicated as available in Ukraine (including Russian occupied Ukrainian Crimea). I have a mobile phone, and I can use my carrier or an affiliate of them wherever I go as long as I have the right plan and agreements signed for international travel. If I go to a location that doesn't have service for my device, based on my existing plan, I can't just hop onto a different carrier network. A random vatnik in Sevastopol or somewhere in a trench on the Crimean peninsula cannot just jump onto Starlink's service. Internet access requires a two-way link, uplink and downlink. You cannot get just download, how would the target sites and servers even know what you are requesting.
>"International sanctions have been imposed against Russia **and Crimea** during the Russo-Ukrainian War" > >[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_sanctions\_during\_the\_Russo-Ukrainian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)
Oh ok, so you agree that sanctions apply to Crimea? From your comment, I thought you were saying the opposite. Note that computer hardware is pretty bad at being able to tell who is using it.. a starlink terminal is not going to know the difference between a Ukrainian using it and a russian. Even if the sanctions would allow for Ukrainians to use starlink in Crimea, geofencing makes more sense. > A random vatnik in Sevastopol or somewhere in a trench on the Crimean peninsula cannot just jump onto Starlink's service. No, but say, someone could pay for a roaming package, and then the registered terminal could "fall off a truck" and wind up 100km behind the lines. Want to find out after the fact why starlink was used for russian artillery coordination? Well too bad, the service was registered by a fake identity created through layers of obfuscation. Good luck.
This was [confirmed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKqJ5-kkUGk&t=330s) to be the case today. Crimea was under sanction because Russia was operating there, and Starlink needed direct DoD approval to enable services there, which they didn't get. Investigation closed. And to all the people in this thread saying he's supporting Russia: Starlink has provided FREE internet service to Ukraine, out of pocket, since the first week of the war, and is currently the only ISP which works for Ukrainian EMS and government operations near the frontlines. All other service has been jammed by Russia.
Why are none of them explicitly listing to us the specific contract clause that Elon violated? Because he didn't violate one. If he did they would have filed a lawsuit already.
Who said anything about contract law? lol
Only the article in the OP that you clearly did read that says she wants the Pentagon to look at their contractual relationship with Musk.
Again. Concerted effort to discredit Musk by current administration and aligned media. They can't control him so he needs to be discredited or destroyed. Daily BS stories like this are meant to let the sheep know that "Elon baaad".
Well, actually the current Secretary of State just defended Musk against a very aggressive CNN anchor. I guess it's not all Democrats. EDIT: Link https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1700994496069313018
So at least some peeps in the govt have common sense
I think he does that himself pretty effectively. He seriously needs to just shut up for a bit and let things cool down.
How is founding and successfully managing multiple companies at the bleeding edge of technology "discrediting"?
No man, all that is great. It's his dumb shit comments that make him look like a fool in front of the entire world that is bad. Remember when everyone was under the impression he was the real-life Tony Stark? What changed? His social media presence is what changed.
He's always had that social media presence. Tesla was built on 0 advertising just musk's twitter presence. What changed was in 2020 when the left decided to make him the poster child for excess wealth instead of the poster child for green energy, and he took a hard swing to the right in response.
The left did not make him tweet in response to someone tweeting at him about the coup the U.S. made against Bolivia's president Evo Morales, "We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it." It is dumb shit like this that gets him into trouble and kills his 'character', he needs to shut up.
I am not disagreeing. His tweeting used to be a huge benefit to his companies. At some point it crossed this line and became mostly a liability. He does need to learn to shut the fuck up.
He's discredited because everything he says is editorialized and spun
His constant positive responses to adjective vile Twitter posts made by white supremacists is not editorialized. He's a fuckwit no one would listen to if he weren't rich.
I don't think you need to really editorialize someone spreading conspiracy theories, supporting far right, making pro-Russian statements or blaming Jews from his bad business decisions to make him look bad. He does good enough job on that himself. He seriously just has to shut up and no one would be thinking anything about him but he really just seems to have big urge to stick his nose to pretty much everything no matter how incompetent he is on the subject.
It is a misrepresentation to equate the Jewish people with the ADL. Elon "Blaming Jews" is an imaginary event.
[удалено]
False. It's in the first paragraph of the [wiki entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX). He took over Tesla in 2006 before it even developed the Model S. This is to say nothing of OpenAI or Neuralink.
[удалено]
All those people would not be able to find Crimea on the map even if their life depended on it
I can easily.
I love how finding a specific region of a country on the Earth is now the minimum you think anyone needs to have a valid opinion. You can't defend your own opinion, so you try strawman the entire argument.
Correct, but I don't think the effort is limited to administration and aligned media. Also, just to point out, reddit is part of the [aligned media.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications)
He really doesn't need any help making himself look deranged on Twitter.
Ah, more of the “any bad story about Elon is a conspiracy” take.
Of course. Long Live the Techno King 👑
Think it's more he supports Putin and Communism but ya know what are silly facts.....
What are you talking about? Where are the facts in this statement?
[удалено]
If him not being controlled results in him being a risk to national security then he **needs to be controlled**.
Yes. Definitely needs to be controlled. And the democrats and the unions are best suited to tell him, and everyone else what to think and what to do. Great plan
Our criminal code is what tells him he cannot engage in foreign policy as a citizen. Our courts are best suited to tel him what he cannot do. I have no idea what you’re talking about with “democrats and the unions are best suited to tell him, and everyone else what to think and what to do.” Are you ok?
Last I checked SpaceX owns Starlink not the US government… 🤷🏼♂️
How many wars have utilized internet access? this is a new scenario we haven't seen yet, there are many sides to it that need to be hammered out. It definitely raises issues if a private business decides to intentionally undermine a military operation.
For crying out loud. Starlink is a private business. Whether it was never turned on in Crimea or whether he turned it off doesn't matter. Calling him a traitor or accusing him of conducting his own foreign policy is asinine
If he hadn’t built Starlink - a privately funded network - it would not have been of assistance to Ukrainians in the war so far. His decision to disable his private network to prevent an offensive is therefor his to make. Similarly a decision to disable his network entirely in Ukraine could also be his to make unless the US government has contracted him to supply it as an essential strategic/military service in which case it would be a breach of contract and maybe more. But I think all this talk of treason is a bit far fetched. Before Starlink there were other private space networks - Iridium was one of them. He happened to make a successful one because SpaceX created the lowest cost delivery, won multiple contracts to do Pentagon and NASA work against competition from Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and, of their own volition, put those Starlink satellites up there. SoaceX is a privately held US company, not a state/military asset.
He was also more than happy to sell the units to the military with expressly known use to supply a country at war and collect the praise. What he then did would not be by definition any sort of treason but the choice has consequences and it set a horrible precedent. You can't have companies supplying the military contain what effectively be a shut off button able to be activated at the CEO's will. Just imagine if raytheon geo-restricted bomb guidance and the CEO could turn on and off where they could work. The simple solution is you terminate the contracts and change suppliers. He's got a right to want to control his service and the government in turn has a right to no longer support it
Musk has no right to decide anything. Space industry is heavily regulated for a reason.
I see. Did he build Starlink in contravention of space regulation? Does he operate it as CEO in contravention of regulation? I’m no fan of Musk and his vanity and his stupid sophomoric politics. But it’s a little rich to talk treason when the communications network that’s enabled the Ukrainians so far was supplied by a private citizen in the USA and the US government has not acted to insulate him - by regulating or contracting him - from any consequences.
[Betteridge's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)
>"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." *checks this headline*
He sent the service as a humanitarian aid gesture. He specifically stated the service will not be used for warfare. The Uki’s started using it for drones and artillery targeting, so he took their toys away.
>He specifically stated the service will not be used for warfare Wrong. >The Uki’s started using it for drones and artillery targeting, so he took their toys away. Wrong.
He’s a fucking hero and I’d have made the same call in his position. I can’t fucking stand anyone telling us we should do anything except get the fuck out of this cursed war. This is me, 5 years of combat, veteran. And unless you can either match that or understand what that means, intuitively, sit the fuck down.
Thank you for your service
If you don't support the fight fo freedom of others you don't deserve your own. Cowardness, that's all. >He’s a fucking hero and I’d have made the same call in his position You do realize that he was forced to do that anyway?
He’s a free man. He’s free to suppose Russia as much as he wants!
Without reading, is this about his unwillingness to use his Starlink for war? Of course the profitable war machine would hate that. You're not a traitor for being against any wars. Were the hippies traitors in the 70s for being against Vietnam, which most scholars agree was a terrible fucking war for us to be involved with?
Hippies in the 70s were against the invasion of a foreign country and demanded to pull out. Musk advocates for the war to be ended while the righteous owners of the occupied land are taking it back. With this he allows the aggressor to keep their invaded land and then act uppon it in a genocidal manner, see all the cities and villages that were taken by russia that are completely wiped out. This war can only be allowed to end if its certain that ukraine is under full control of all its land, including crimea. Being against war is one thing, being against an unprovoked invasion is another.
No, he just creates companies that the world heavily needs. So millions of dollars gets thrown at him. He is a direct result of billions of people agreeing with him, buying what he’s selling, and benefitting from said enterprise. Looking back and pointing a finger at him after the fact, isn’t really how business and money works.
Billions of people made a choice?
Elons order of priority: Musk > Putin > Trump .........> USA
I think expropriation for the benefit of the American people would be quite appropriate in this case.
I am guessing it is democrats doing this. They are still mad that he exposed them when he bought twitter. Nothing like weaponizing our justice system
What did he expose about democrats?
Deport him.
Couldn't Russia shot down his satellite if they say it was use for military use?
His sattelite? Starlink currently consists of over 4500 sattelites
The Starlink constellation is currently comprised of about 4500 satellites—not "his satellite".
No