this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
736 points (95.2% liked)

World News

39142 readers
2671 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Elon Musk says he refused to give Kyiv access to his Starlink communications network over Crimea to avoid complicity in a "major act of war".

Kyiv had sent an emergency request to activate Starlink to Sevastopol, home to a major Russian navy port, he said.

His comments came after a book alleged he had switched off Starlink to thwart a drone attack on Russian ships.

A senior Ukrainian official says this enabled Russian attacks and accused him of "committing evil".

Russian naval vessels had since taken part in deadly attacks on civilians, he said.

"By not allowing Ukrainian drones to destroy part of the Russian military (!) fleet via Starlink interference, Elon Musk allowed this fleet to fire Kalibr missiles at Ukrainian cities," he said.

"Why do some people so desperately want to defend war criminals and their desire to commit murder? And do they now realize that they are committing evil and encouraging evil?" he added.

The row follows the release of a biography of the billionaire by Walter Isaacson which alleges that Mr Musk switched off Ukraine's access to Starlink because he feared that an ambush of Russia's naval fleet in Crimea could provoke a nuclear response from the Kremlin.

Ukraine targeted Russian ships in Sevastopol with submarine drones carrying explosives but they lost connection to Starlink and "washed ashore harmlessly", Mr Isaacson wrote.

Starlink terminals connect to SpaceX satellites in orbit and have been crucial for maintaining internet connectivity and communication in Ukraine as the conflict has disrupted the country infrastructure.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

People are essentially blaming him for not empowering one warring party’s ability to attack another.

No. We are blaming him for preventing Ukraine to defend itself. If you punch me and I punch you to get you off me then that's not me attacking you, it's still you attacking me.

Worse, somebody just punched me and I'm about to punch back, and while I do that you swipe my leg so I lose my footing, saying "but you can't attack them!", causing me to land unluckily and break my wrist. That is what Musk did: He put Ukrainian forces and assets in direct danger over pulling a service he agreed to provide. Noone would blame him had he stayed out of things in the first place, or given notice that he's backing out, or something like that. We'd be calling him a pussy, but that'd be it. But committing and then retracting support at a critical moment? That's treason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with your statement, the fact that Musk can just make decisions like that is an issue. Regardless of whether or not he owns the majority of the company he agreed to provide this service. That means he should have to give ample notice before disabling the service.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did his company agree to provide this service specifically?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. He donated access points to the Ukrainian military. Militaries tend to use the hardware they have to do military things, Musk knew they weren't planning on using starlink to play fortnite.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And they knew those access points didn't have coverage in Crimea, that's why they asked him to give them access in Crimea.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Musk agreed to provide service In Ukraine. That includes Crimea. It also includes their territorial waters. It also includes the rest of the occupied territories, which they again and again disable service for.

Ukraine certainly didn't know that there was no connectivity around Sevastopol otherwise they wouldn't have sent drones there relying on starlink, now would they.

Also, all in all this isn't his decision to make. He has a contract with the US government to provide service in Ukraine. Lockheed-Martin doesn't get to decide whether or not the US exports F-35 to Poland or not. It is not their place to say "but that would annoy the Russians so we'll disable them".

If you don't want to be a military contractor, don't be a military contractor. If you are a military contractor, submit to democratically legitimised decisions of the fucking government.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The US government buys F-35s and then owns them. The US government is contracting Musk to provide coverage over certain areas of Ukraine.

It's a significant difference. The gov can't later use Starlink to help people in Taiwan, for instance, without a new contract.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Just because you call it treason doesnt make it treason.

Just as you pointed out, replace defend itself with attack Russia.

Hows it sound then?

Also as was pointed out it was never activated so its not like he deactivated it. Your analogy doesnt stand.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Just as you pointed out, replace defend itself with attack Russia.

Hows it sound then?

This doesn't work because we all know Russia is the aggressor. It still sounds bad for Elon

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Japan aggressed against the US in WW2, the US still attacked the Japanese navy at many points. Stop trying to twist language to make a point that's not necessary to make. Everyone knows Russia started the war, that's irrelevant to whether something is an offensive move in a war.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It was already activated, Musk ordered it shut off during an Ukrainian operation meant to take out those ships. The same ships that have been launching missiles and hitting civilian targets.

Elon Musk secretly ordered his engineers to turn off his company’s Starlink satellite communications network near the Crimean coast last year to disrupt a Ukrainian sneak attack on the Russian naval fleet, according to an excerpt adapted from Walter Isaacson’s new biography of the eccentric billionaire titled “Elon Musk.”

As Ukrainian submarine drones strapped with explosives approached the Russian fleet, they “lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly,” Isaacson writes.

Source:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/politics/elon-musk-biography-walter-isaacson-ukraine-starlink/index.html

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

emergency request to turn on satellite access

Is exactly what happened.

He did not act.