“Papa puta is happy with muskreek. Papa puta promised not to press death button, muskreek is hero! Why people angry with muskreek papa puta?” - The best model science can build of musk’s current thought process
And people here are thinking that USA is gonna let one rich guy to effect national strategy because he felt like it. I don’t know which is worse people believing that these people got government contracts because they are rich or deep state (military industrial complex) letting them do these things just because they are rich. They are forgetting even Elon himself openly stated that his company is under strict surveillance and control because it’s seen as a national security matter regarding the rocket technology and he can’t even finalize who to employ or share information unless government approved it.
Well, the USA and EU also attach conditions on delivered weapons - not to be used against targets in Russia. Also, maybe he is afraid of Russians shooting down his satellites, as they threatened to do.
“Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes.”
Yes my satellite that is actively being used in a war should be designed only for Netflix and chill.
Exactly. This rule should have made clear from the start (instead of gifting Ukraine access to Starlink at the beginning of the conflict), not taken back later on - and silently, too, with a high cost for the Ukrainian army.
Musk / Starlink is absolutely in the wrong here. But since we’re seeing Musk stray further and further from grace, is this surprising?
If he’s not careful the US will simply nationalize SpaceX. It’s not going to happen in the next couple of years, but this kind of shit will cause it to happen eventually.
The reason Space X had suck an easy start was lack of competition in the launch business.
Boeing and Lockheed had so fucked up a competition for launch vehicles, the only way to avoid eternal lawsuirlts was to form United Launch Allliance, initially a 50/50 ownership split between the only 2 launch providers.
The military and alphabet agencies want to buy launches not build big rockets. ICBMs being the exception.
Any system capable of manipulating the outcomes of international conflict needs to become property of the government via eminent domain…especially if that system is used…especially if used by an entrepreneur operating without oversight.
From what I understand he didn’t deactivate it… it was already deactivated and he refused to turn it on.
He had disabled starlink systems over Russian territories - in order to help Ukraine. This included Crimea. Ukraine last year wanted to do a drone-strike on Crimea, so they asked Musk to turn them on. He refused, claiming he was scared of war escalation and that he didn’t want to be involved in offensive war operations.
The way you put it is at the very least a rationale. Obviously it can be debated one way or the other, but it makes more sense than him being overtly pro-Russia. I don’t think he’s so dumb as to make it obvious.
Yeah don’t trust headlines. They create the best possible headline to make as many people as interested as possible… forget about the truth or nuance. During this same period, remember that the US didn’t want to give fighter jets or tanks to Ukraine out of fear of escalation. Musk was essentially following official US military policy.
again… i agree but this is the world we live and we are discussing reality not what ifs. i also think people shouldn’t go hungry but here we are with hundreds of millions living in malnutrition
all i’m trying to do is give context so people can actually try and understand what is happening instead of having the wool pulled over their eyes by some other group of rich men
i doubt anybody knows what really happened besides musk, the US government, and some important people who work with the starlink system. so no, I don’t know with any certainty what really happened.
but i can be reasonably sure that the headline used in this title is sensationalist and misleading
“As Ukrainian submarine drones strapped with explosives approached the Russian fleet, they “lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly,” Isaacson writes.”
That’s from the CNN article over this. The drones were in the middle of their approach when they got deactivated.
There’s a reason there’s weird wording in all of these articles. The reason the drones would have gotten “deactivated” as they got close to Crimea is because before they were near Crimea, they were connected to the system. Once they got close, they got disconnected since the satellites over Crimea were disabled. This is because Musk disabled Starlink over Russian territory very early on. Ukrainian officials would have been well aware before any operation. There are even sanctions in place since 2014 that Obama put in that restricts any company from doing business in Crimea.
The articles are wording it in a way that’s meant to imply that he turned something off mid-operation in an attempt to stop a specific attack. This simply isn’t the case.
I’m honestly impressed at the level of blatant twisting of the truth that’s going around on the news. Are journalists lazy? Is this just click-seeking behavior? Or is it deliberate misinformation and misdirection?
Here’s a quote from the article you linked
the Starlink service provided by his company SpaceX was never active over Crimea and that the Ukrainian government made an “emergency request” to him to turn on service.
“There was an emergency request from government authorities to activate Starlink all the way to Sevastopol,” Musk posted on X, the platform formally known as Twitter that he owns. Sevastopol is a port city in Crimea. “The obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor. If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.”
SpaceX has disabled Starlink over Russian-controlled regions of Ukraine. As per Business Insider, some have suggested it may have been shut off over certain regions to prevent Russia from exploiting the network.
prompting speculation that it [starlink system] had been shut off in areas controlled by Russia — perhaps to prevent the Kremlin from exploiting the network.
Speaking to political analyst Ian Bremmer from the Eurasia Group, Musk said that Ukraine’s government had urged him to turn on Starlink in Crimea, which Russia invaded and forcibly occupied in 2014
In September Ukrainian officials told The Economist that Mr Musk had rejected a Ukrainian request to allow Starlink to be used in Crimea, a part of Ukraine which Russia invaded and annexed in 2014, … SpaceX has continued to restrict the use of Starlink in Russian-occupied territory, according to Ukrainian officials
Honestly, it’s just that journalists want to make Elon Musk look like the bad guy. And thank you so much for taking the time to write this out so that it is far more obvious what’s happening because it’s just so confusing what they’re saying
I think Musk is scummy, but I appreciate your response here clearing things up. It makes sense why he wouldn’t re-activate it, but at least it’s not like he shut it off mid-flight. They just went out of the known range.
I still think Musk is scummy, but for other reasons.
Yeah I understand why he wouldn’t wanna get involved. Start facilitating aggressive operations and you’re all of a sudden a legitimate military target. I have doubts Russia would shoot down a SpaceX satellite… but you never know.
We generally don’t expect US companies to actively participate in wars, especially a war that the US isn’t officially involved in.
I think Musk’s decision to offer Starlink access for free to Ukraine is an interesting one. On one hand, they get a bunch of good PR for helping out a country during an aggressive invasion - we’re talking hundreds of millions they essentially donated to Ukraine. On the other hand, any good PR they got has probably been canceled out by now. Which I think is ironic - no good deed goes unpunished.
However, I don’t think Musk helped just for good PR. I think he felt it was a good opportunity to show off the capacities of his system during a globally publicized war. And it seems like it has definitely met expectations - the Ukrainians have come to rely on the system. So other countries are taking notice. China and Russia are both developing similar systems.
So yeah, I’d probably do the same thing if I were him. He’s probably just following the advice of his advisors. I think Musk is scummy too. I don’t like him for a number of reasons, the prime being that it seems he’s putting all his eggs on fascists coming to power in the US.
But this specific news cycle I think is a psyop meant to discredit Musk. Which fuck it, I don’t care really. But I like to know the truth, not propaganda. If I dislike someone, I want to dislike them for actual reasons not lies told to me by a news headline.
Whose government though? That’s the issue with this thinking. As a person who does not live in the US, I’m not sure I want the US to own everything that can be used in war.
It would obviously be the government of the country of origin.
Starlink was designed, built, and deployed from the United States, by SpaceX (a US company) which is owned by Elon Musk (a US citizen), and launched from US soil. Obviously all that junk and and people are subject to US governance, so when I say this specific stuff should be seized by eminent domain, I mean seized by the US Government.
Other junk in other countries built by other people of similar magnitude and ability to interfere with global conflicts would be subjected to those other governments. I wouldn’t expect the US Government to seize, under eminent domain, foreign owned stuff in other countries.
How so, by providing defensive abilities only from the get go? Sorry your pet “latest thing” Ukraine didn’t get to use American infrastructure to kill and do your bidding.
Make sure to save this for the next time that shitbird or one of his moron suckups tries to say he helped Ukraine. Fucker oughtta be treated the same as any Russian collaborator.
Add comment