736
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by little_cow@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PeckerBrown@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] somethingp@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

"Moral idiocy" is a great way to sum it up

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Musk saw a bully go over and punch a kid. So Musk ran over and held the kid’s hands behind him. Because punching back would have just escalated things.

[-] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Racist war criminal says what?

[-] umbraroze@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Russian chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov said that plan displayed “moral idiocy”

Musk: "Moral idiocy? Moral idiocy?! I'm not a moral idiot! I'm an immoral idiot! Besides, chess is a kid's game! 1v1 me in Polytopia, bitch! Bet you can't understand fog of war, noob!"
Kasparov: "...very well. Please show me how these pieces move."
[15 minutes later later]
Musk: "I can't BELIEVE I fell for that."

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Musk didn’t survive the emerald mine wars and spend six years at West Point for you to second guess his decisions. /s

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


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".

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.

SpaceX, in which Mr Musk is the largest shareholder, began providing thousands of Starlink satellite dishes to Ukraine shortly after Russia launched its full-scale assault on its neighbour in February last year.

In the past, Mr Musk has said that while the system had "become the connectivity backbone of Ukraine all the way up to the front lines", "we are not allowing Starlink to be used for long-range drone strikes".

He also offered a personal opinion, calling for a truce and saying that Ukrainians and Russians were dying "to gain and lose small pieces of land" and this was not worth their lives.


The original article contains 558 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Gyrolemmy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

By not allowing Ukrainian drones to destroy part of the Russian military (!) fleet

I think this quote is where we all need to take a step back. People are essentially blaming him for not empowering one warring party's ability to attack another.

It doesn't matter which side you are on. He doesnt immediately become responsible for everything that the russians do with the soldiers and equipment that weren't killed/destroyed in the attack.

This is also assuming the drone attack would have been successful.

I wouldn't call it interference it was just refusal to play.

The type of attitude used here is a very childish "you are with me or you are against me" take that everyone publicly recognizes as wrong.

I would def prefer a ukrainian victory, but you guys treat musk like he is some sort of chaos god and all knowing entity or something.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago

What's even more mind boggling is that despite Starlink being so critical to Ukrainian communications, neither the Ukrainian government nor the US entered into a contract with a clause obligating Starlink to maintain service. Musk can just legally turn off Starlink for them with no legal repercussions because they never negotiated something against that into a contract with him. Even if they had to pay a premium rate for Starlink, for a service that critical to the Ukrainian Armed Forces it's worth it

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
736 points (95.2% liked)

World News

39040 readers
1152 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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