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.
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.
Responding to the book’s claim, Mr Musk said on X that SpaceX “did not deactivate anything” because it had not been activated in those regions in the first place.
“There was an emergency request from government authorities to activate Starlink all the way to Sevastopol. The obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor,” he said.
“If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.”
Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, eight years before Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine
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”.
Mr Musk reiterated the point to Mr Isaacson, asking: “How am I in this war? 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.”
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.
He provoked anger last year when he proposed a plan to end the war which suggested the world formally recognise Crimea as part of Russia and asking residents of regions seized by Russia last year to vote on which country they wanted to be part of.
Russian chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov said that plan displayed “moral idiocy”
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.
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.
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.
This doesn’t work because we all know Russia is the aggressor. It still sounds bad for Elon
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.
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
Is exactly what happened.
He did not act.
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.
Did his company agree to provide this service specifically?
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.
And they knew those access points didn’t have coverage in Crimea, that’s why they asked him to give them access in Crimea.
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.
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.
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
The US government has recently contracted for Starlink satellites. They did it when he first flinched under Russian pressure and threatened to turn them off
My question is, if he was actually worried about being complicit with the war or whatever, why did he provide starlink at all? It was obvious what it was going to be used for. He get cold feet because Ukraine is doing way better then expected?
Article explains that he was worried he was contributing to an escalation that could lead to nuclear strikes, while he still provides ground support services to Ukraine proper
Not arguing this was the right choice, but explaining that’s his decision-making process.
Buddy you’re in the middle of learning that nuanced takes don’t play on Lemmy, because this place is full of radicalized outcasts that don’t even read articles.
Yeah, I honestly don’t understand why this narrative even needs to be played out.
I don’t know what angle there is by making Musk a scapegoat beyond, maybe, Ukraine trying to strengthen its supporting relationship with the US population, but it already has most of the US support anyway.
Musk has his issues, there’s no doubt about that, but not wanting to be involved is an ethical stance to take on his part.
No. Russia is 100% in the wrong, continously committing crimes against humanity for no justifiable reason at all.
… that, in the pursuit of taking away Ukrainian freedom and independence.
Hence, to actively disrupt their defense is deeply unethical. He chose to do something rather than nothing, and it directly helps those wishing to make the world a worse place. Disgraceful.
You mean he chose to do nothing rather than something. The starlink access was never turned ON
By musks account. By Walter Isaacson’s account the opposite was the case. Considering musks opposition to aiding the victim, it would be on brand.
I don’t disagree, but what evidence was produced that we can’t see?
I have evidence that you diddle 12 year olds, but noone is allowed to see it. You’re a reddit mod so it would be on brand.
See what I mean?
I think we owe the claim some level of skepticism if theres no proof provided.