Musk has commented already in public that if the request came from the US Department of Defence, he would comply. The US has an embargo on exporting products/services to Crimea.
All these arguments about what Musk should have done are pointless
The important question is, what would the Pentagon have done? Did they explicitly tell Musk to allow Starlink activation in Crimea to allow the attack on Russian fleet? If not, he was absolutely right not to activate Starlink over Crimea
I don't have a subscription to Blomberg and the archive link isn't working for me, but this seems ridiculous.
Musk and the SpaceX president have been consistently saying they doesn't want Starlink to be used for offensive purposes. If I recall correctly they explicitly made it clear when he gave the dishes to Ukraine what their position was. Even the terms of use say to not use for offensive purposes.
Your Terms of Service do not superscede your host country's foreign policy goals.
This may come as a surprise to some who apparently never took, or slept through civics, but as it so happens, the U.S. Federal Government has absolute, uncontested, and final say in terms of things like foreign policy. You do not get to be selective on that front.
State level anti-BDS laws are worth as much as toilet paper, but if the President has negotiated our support behind an ally, I am not aware of anything that allows you to independently pull back that support as a private citizen.
If this is going to turn into the landmark case, that's cool; but there it is very cut and dry who gets final on things like this. And again, these are very perilous waters to test, as a finding of aiding and abetting a foreign adversary of the United States is literally the only circumstance where the label treason is applicable.
Mr. Musk, you are not the diplomatic arm of the United States. Usurp at your own peril.
> Your Terms of Service do not superscede your host country's foreign policy goals.
I must have missed the part where the United States government requested Starlink be activated in Crimea.
Elon has explicitly stated if the request came from the US government he would have complied. It did not. It came from the Ukrainian government, which is not his host country. The US government knows how to contact Elon and could have done so if they wanted him to do it. https://youtu.be/tKqJ5-kkUGk?t=332
If Ukraine had asked SpaceX for a Falcon 9 they wanted to crash into the Kremlin should they have given it to them?
I'm quite confused as to your post. Are you suggesting that Musk is obligated to promote the US' foreign policy goals? If he never decided to provide Starlinks dishes to the Ukrainians would you think he is obligated to provide them or is it once he provided them he has to do everything the current administration wants?
Do you hold this position with other wars? If Musk provided Starlinks in Afghanistan (pre pullout) would he be obligated to allow the Afghan government use them to attack the Taliban? What if he gave it to the Israeli government. Should he be forced to allow the use in attacking the Palestinians?
It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader.
And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing).
The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on.
A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way.
I'm not sure I'm quite that cynical personally though. ;)
> A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way.
I think that's probably just medium level cynicism.
There's a whole bunch of other angles to consider here:
- Ukraine was previously a supplier of rocket parts to his competitors; if Russia succeeds that's unlikely to resume; if Ukraine succeeds they're likely to resume and be more closely aligned with the US (than previously)
- he has a habit of supporting whatever the dictator says, to further his business interests (see: comments on Taiwan, and his car business in mainland China)
- he has become increasingly cozy with Republicans, a number of whom apparently think Ukraine should be left to fend for itself.
>It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader
You didn't answer my question in my previous post. Do you hold this view with Israel? Israel is a US ally. Israel retaking the Palestinian land would be considered driving out an invader by both the US and Israel. Should Musk be forced in using Starlink in those attacks against the Palestinians?
If not, then you aren't being consistent. You only support forcing Musk to help Ukraine because you support Ukraine, not because of some greater principle that you seem to be espousing.
>And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing).
Agreed.
>The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on.
Perhaps, but we can't really know that.
>A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way.
That could explain it, but frankly, we don't have any proof. It is just conjecture.
The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't make things clearer. Musk doesn't have the most consistent or coherent world view.
> The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't make things clearer. Musk doesn't have the most consistent or coherent world view.
Funny you say that considering they are trying to launch a government version of Starlink (Starshield) that would likely be used to kill people.
I haven't seen any evidence that Star shield will be used to kill anybody.
Also, to be clear, Musk isn't opposed to using it for killing people. If he was he wouldn't allow it in defensive military actions in Ukraine. Defensive actions require killing after all.
Using it for the US military doesn't mean offensive killing either. From what I have seen the purpose is for "additional high-assurance cryptographic capability to host classified payloads and process data securely". Not necessarily offensive killings.
This is my problem with this whole thread. Everybody is just making assumption after assumption. Maybe Musk is being a hypocrite on Ukraine using Starlink. I don't know, but the available evidence doesn't show either way.
> The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want ...
That could indeed be his motivation. It doesn't change that he deliberately used his power to block the Ukrainians from winning when it counted.
If any pretty much any other US citizen had pulled that shit, they'd already be arrested on treason charges. Musk has his fingers in so many pies though (SpaceX specifically), that they're going to have to handle^Wreplace him carefully.
Do you think a person who was opposed to their technology being used by Israel to kill Palestinians would be arrested on treason. Even if you think they would be arrested, would you be in favor of it, or do you just hold this view with Ukraine?
Please stop with the Israel stuff. That's a very complicated situation that has been going on for a very long time.
It's not a useful comparison to Ukraine defending itself from an invader. Repeatedly trying to introduce Israel here just sounds (to me) like you're arguing in bad faith.
>That's a very complicated situation that has been going on for a very long time.
So is the Russia / Ukraine situation. They have been fighting for more than 300 years. Russia even annexed Crimea in the 1700s. The idea that it is not long or complicated seems erroneous to me. History didn't start when you were born.
>It's not a useful comparison to Ukraine defending itself from an invader. Repeatedly trying to introduce Israel here just sounds (to me) like you're arguing in bad faith.
The problem is both Israel and Ukraine consider themselves as being on the defensive. Israel is trying to retake the land they controlled a few thousand years ago while Ukraine is trying to retake land they controlled a couple decades ago.
At what point is it no longer your land? You probably don't think Israel has a legitimate claim over Palestine so obviously 2500 years ago is too much. The Kievan Rus (ancestors to Ukraine) took Ukraine in 1037 so you obviously don't think the people who controlled Ukraine prior to them are the legitimate owners of the land. You think Ukraine should control Crimea so 20 years ago is legitimate.
At what point is the cut off? 50 years? 100? If Russia controls Crimea for that long would you say Russia is the legitimate ruler?
My issue with this whole argument is that people don't have any underlying principles on which they are forming their views. It is strictly emotional.
If somebody shouldn't be forced to offensively support Israel than they shouldn't be forced to offensively support Ukraine. The only difference is the time frame.
To be clear, you're saying that taking the opportunity to remove opposition assets when they're attacking you directly is ok, but removing them otherwise (breaking blockades, supply chains, reinforcements, etc) is not on?
I'm not Musk, but I assume it is based on who started each conflict within the war. If Russia moves troops further into Ukraine stopping that push would be defensive. If Ukraine tries to remove Russian troops that would be offensive. Maybe that is arbitrary, but it is what the Ukrainians agreed to.
I'm just annoyed of people always assuming the worst in people. Musk is a pubic enemy so anything he does or says is bad. It is just so tiring. Every day on the front page of HN there is Musk hate. Look, I'm not a fan of Musk, but I don't need to see this kind of crap every single day here.
I would do this for somebody who was a billion dollars in debt. I don't care about their wealth or lack of maturity or anything of the sort. I just want people to stop picking the bad guys and constantly picking apart every thing they do. All it is doing is dividing us. We should come together where we agree. Musk supports using Starlink in defensive actions and it sounds like you do as well. Great, let's build on that instead of tearing each other down.
> Musk supports using Starlink in defensive actions and it sounds like you do as well.
That's the problem though - having your own special definition of "defensive actions" makes the whole sentence meaningless.
It's like if I said "I am a vegetarian"... and by vegetarian I mean I don't eat animals I personally have seen while they're alive. You see how that's a problem?
The US Government has been very clear that they don't condone Ukrainians using NATO-supplied weapons to make attacks into Russia. That's a common-sense definition of "offensive" - doing something to attack the opponent on "their side".
But this whole thing was about Crimea. Crimea is part of Ukraine, despite what Russians and Putin's fanboys have spouted for the last 9 years.
> All it is doing is dividing us.
This phrase gets used so much by one crowd, it's almost like you're wearing a red MAGA cap.
The idea of course is genius. Make people feel bad for standing up for what they believe in, by guilting them into believing that it's better to support insurrectionists, racists, homophobes, etc - whatever shit-bird ideals the American Right has put on display that day, if you argue that they're a shit-bird, the instant response is "this is dividing us".
No shit. Most people don't want to be considered part of the same group as right wing extremists.
>That's the problem though - having your own special definition of "defensive actions" makes the whole sentence meaningless.
To suggest going on an offensive is not an offensive is ridiculous. Ukraine has been talking about a spring offensive for months. Last I checked a spring offensive is an offensive not a defensive.
You can't seem to separate a defensive war with offensive actions within the war. Not all actions within a defensive war are defense. I agree with you that the distinction in this case is arbitrary and dumb. Musk at least claims it is not. The Ukrainians agreed to Musk's distinction so they should keep their word or renegotiate with him.
>The US Government has been very clear that they don't condone Ukrainians using NATO-supplied weapons to make attacks into Russia. That's a common-sense definition of "offensive" - doing something to attack the opponent on "their side".
To be clear, since you are seemingly assuming a massive amount about my positions, I fully agree with you here. I am just trying to explain what position Musk is taking. I think taking back the land you lost is fine and still part of an overall defensive war. It is an offensive action, but part of an overall defensive war.
>But this whole thing was about Crimea. Crimea is part of Ukraine, despite what Russians and Putin's fanboys have spouted for the last 9 years.
OK? Not sure your point. Going on an offensive to recapture the land you lost is still an offensive.
>This phrase gets used so much by one crowd, it's almost like you're wearing a red MAGA cap.
>The idea of course is genius. Make people feel bad for standing up for what they believe in, by guilting them into believing that it's better to support insurrectionists, racists, homophobes, etc - whatever shit-bird ideals the American Right has put on display that day, if you argue that they're a shit-bird, the instant response is "this is dividing us".
You need to touch grass and get off the internet for a month. Please go outside and talk to the average person. And no I'm not talking about some San Franciscans, but normal and average everyday people. Most people are absolutely tired of all of this bickering. They just want people to get along and don't give a shit about all this. The average person would be sick if they saw you basically accusing me of being a racist and a homophobe even though I said nothing of the sort. You are destroying this country with your stupid shit.
Could you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN and please particularly avoid tit-for-tat spats like this? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We want curious conversation here.
Please read what I wrote. I never said you were an American. I said you were destroying the country with your stupid shit.
You could be an American or you could be a foreigner injecting yourself into American politics. Asking people to stop dividing us is not some right wing talking point. If you were an American you would you know the left was huge into saying Trump was dividing us and how that was bad. Now suddenly saying the same thing is right wing. Give me a break.
Like I said in my previous post. Please get off the internet for a while, touch grass, and talk to normal and average people in person. You will be a happier person and stop with calling everybody you don't agree with a racist.
You started a hellish flamewar in this thread and then fueled it repeatedly. Please don't do this on HN, and please particularly avoid tit-for-tat spats like this. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We want curious conversation here.
I never called you a racist, and I never said you shouldn't try to prevent division.
I said the extreme right use the phrase "you're trying to divide us" to guilt people into accepting their abhorrent views. It's just a new spin on the same old game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Fine you just alluded to it. Let's take this hypothetical conversation
You: I'm a vegetarian
Me: You know Hitler was a vegetarian and you look like you are basically wearing a swastika.
You: Why are you calling me Hitler?
Me: I'm not, I'm just randomly bringing up Hitler even though he has nothing to do with the topic. I'm also just randomly mentioning this similar attribute you and Hitler share for no reason other than I wanted to mention it.
Nobody in their right mind would think I wasn't calling you Hitler. You implied I was a racist, a Trump supporter and a homophobe regardless if you explicitly said it just because I said stop dividing people.
That's the point though. The whole point is that the exact phrase you used, is used by right wing shit birds to shutdown any pushback or negative commentary on their views.
This whole thread is grounded in the discussion of a billionaire man baby trying to speed run the right wing shit-bird trail, and you use the literal phrase used by other right wing shit birds to defend such behaviour.
This is not at all like comparing any vegetarian to Hitler.
This like questioning their motives when someone is demanding you welcome them them "Heil, mein Führer" while doing a goose-step.
The phrase is literally used by everybody not just right wingers. I don't think you were paying attention for the entirety of Trump's presidency since the left consistently used it. It is a completely innocuous phrase.
If I said "make America great again" or something like that then you might have a point.
It is offensive to Putin, who probably has compromising documents on Musk. Musk is very controversial, so finding something very damaging won't be that hard. Like his unclear connection to Epstein which he was to be subpoenaed for few month ago.
