view the rest of the comments
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Others say he disabled the system. Malicious narcissist & pathological liar says he didn't. If Musk disabled the system it makes him look very bad and may result in a major government response that would harm Musk and his business.
Gee, I wonder who is telling the truth?
This isn't "who said what", these are facts:
As much as I dislike Musk —and I wouldn't be surprised if he used this to negotiate a better contract—, this one was a total fuckup by the US DoD, and in part by Ukraine for not pressuring the DoD into signing a contract much sooner.
Where do you get your "facts'? Especially like the "shit happens" addition to explain an admitted action by Musk. Very creative.
Facts come from history, most are recorded for everyone to check, particularly these ones are public. You may even find the exact dates for each one.
The "shit happens" is Ukraine botching a military operation because they asked a private US citizen to break US law. You may have confused "action" with "inaction as ordered".
Edit: Here's a link with sources and dates.
Thanks for the link. So many people online just pull stuff from their ass it's a surprise when sources actually exist.
I see nothing in those links regarding the DoD contract specifics and I think you're making assumptions about how US law is applied in foreign war zones involving our allies and hostile adversaries. US law is amazingly flexible in just about any situation that can be said to involve our or our allies national security. The Defense Department has withheld almost all information about the Starlink contract, and from what I can see even the date it was signed hasn't been made public. All I can find at multiple sites is that a contract has been signed with almost zero additional information.
From the WA Post:
From Ronan Farrow's excellent New Yorker article:
I find it laughable that Musk would assert that Putin wants peace and that Ukraine should negotiate. Putin can achieve peace by unilaterally withdrawing his forces and restoring pre-war borders. In other words Musk wants peace on his and Putin's terms and that means victory for Russia.
We don't know the specific timelines of what else has gone on with Musk and Ukraine yet. We do know that Musk lies constantly about things as important as major government contracts, buying out major corporations, taking companies private, the capabilities of Telsa vehicles and even about things as mundane and ridiculous as showing up for a cage match with Zuckerburg. It strains credulity to suggest he's not lying about what he's done with Starlink if telling the truth might make him look bad. Given his history of openly siding with Putin and pushing Ukraine to surrender significant parts of their country, it is more than reasonable to assume he's lying in support of that goal too.
Not sure if it was in an article or on TV, but at some point there was a map showing Starlink coverage over Ukraine, and how it faded towards the borders in order to go down to zero in the conflict areas. Obviously the moment Ukrainian forces started to push, they went into the blackout areas and were SOL.
Regarding the DoD agreement... I'm not sure where I've read it, but apparently he asked the DoD to foot the bill for Starlink around the end of 2022... and then when the agreement was drafted and they were about to pay for it, he decided that "nah", he'd follow providing the service for free. I highly suspect that was a weasel way to negotiate better terms and/or amount, knowing that the DoD needed a contract to hold him accountable, and that they were actually willing to pay.
You're not wrong in not trusting the guy, nobody should; according to his recent biography, he seems to take everything as a big game with the main objective of making more money.
What I find especially disturbing about this entire scenario is that Musk is literally choosing to protect the Russian war machine instead of the people who are being attacked - including seniors, women, infants and children. Taking steps to protect an aggressor while actively preventing a country from defending its non-combatant citizens from unprovoked attacks is just plain evil.
I expect Musk will have a movie made about him someday. It won't be flattering.