4 ms·

That article was dated April 8th 2022 over a year ago. A more recent article says that the U.S. stopped paying for them in September and SpaceX picked up the co

That article was dated April 8th 2022 over a year ago. A more recent article says that the U.S. stopped paying for them in September and SpaceX picked up the costs. Then in December they got funding from European countries. If Musk were “anti-Ukraine” he would have simply stopped the service. SpaceX is the sole internet provider for a vast part of Ukraine. A Ukrainian official said: "Musk assured us he will continue to support Ukraine. When we had a powerful blackout, I messaged him on that day and he momentarily reacted and has already delivered some steps. He understands the situation." Boy, that doesn’t sound very anti-Ukrainian to me. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/starlink-will-send-another-10000-satellite-terminals-to-ukraine/amp/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/starlink-will-se... Crimea belongs to Russia. Russia invaded in 2014 and no one, including Obama, did anything about it. The entire world stepped back and let it happen. No one lifted a finger. You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval over something almost 10 years later and say “hey that shouldn’t have happened!”. The outcome of war determines who owns land, regardless of what people may want to see. People may say what they want about Israel’s right to occupy the Holy Land but I dare them to try to take it away through war. Israel owns the land that it occupies.

lisasays 3y ago
You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval over something almost 10 years later and say “hey that shouldn’t have happened!”. Actually you can and it happens all the time. Crimea belongs to Russia. Just as your car now belongs to me, every since I saw you left the keys in it and decided to take it out for a joy ride.
dragontamer 3y ago
[flagged]
- remote_phone 3y ago
  I’m stating a fact with no opinion behind it. Russia owns Crimea. If the rest of the world cared or supported Ukraine back in 2014, they would have done something but no one lifted a finger including Obama. These are facts. If the world wants to help Ukraine reclaim Crimea then they would be doing so but no one is. Now whether the world SHOULD help Ukraine reclaim Crimea is a separate question but there is no confusion over the ownership of Crimea currently: it’s Russia. To argue otherwise is unintelligent and immature.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    1. Ukraine wants starlink over Crimea. 2. Russia does not. Do you support #1 or #2? Mr. Musk has chosen #2, a decidedly pro-Russian stance on this matter. If you want to argue #2 or whatever, sure. Whatever. But that's on you buddy, and whatever semantic games you wanna play I don't have to put up with it. I recognize what you want. ---------- In any case, its obvious Mr. Musk isn't a reliable partner. We need to work on giving the Ukrainian commandos (and partisans) in Crimea access to internet without Starlink. Even if we somehow forced Mr. Musk into the right decision here, he could flip at any time. So finding an alternative satellite internet company is in USA's and Ukraine's best interest.
    - remote_phone 3y ago
      What exactly is your point now, because you’re all over the place and thrashing in a cringeworthy fashion. You argued that Musk was “anti-Ukrainian” and I destroyed that argument with words from Ukrainian officials themselves. Now you’re saying… that Musk is still anti-Ukrainian because he turned off Starlink in Crimea even though he has it in every other place in Ukraine? Or that Musk is inconsistent or capricious? Go ahead but don’t expect me to participate and waste my time, I’m not interested.
      - dragontamer 3y ago
        My point is pretty simple. Musk should allow Ukraine to use Starlink in Crimea. Do you agree, or disagree? You have a way of dancing around my point. So lets be as short and direct as possible.' > I destroyed that argument with words from Ukrainian officials themselves. Cool. So... it wouldn't be so hard for Musk to enable Crimean access to Starlink? Argue all you want, but the Ukrainians are waiting. And whenever Mr. Musk supporters go on wild tangents about why Russia is the true owner of Crimea or some other crap like that, you only hurt the argument and further prove Mr. Musk's pro-Russian sympathies.
klntsky 3y ago
> but I dare them to try to take it away through war. Why don't you apply the same logic to the opposite side? > You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval "Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all.
- caconym_ 3y ago
  > "Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all. I mean, it's sort of true, but it's very weird to (as GP did) espouse might-makes-right as a determinant of moral ownership and then turn around and say "Russia owns Crimea" when there is literally a war happening in Ukraine right now and the Western war machine is straining at its leash to utterly annihilate the Russian presence in what it considers Ukrainian territory, held back only by Russia's semi-credible threat of nuclear escalation.
  - remote_phone 3y ago
    No, not moral ownership. De facto ownership. I never talked anything about morality. The fact is Russia took Crimea by force and is physically occupying it. The only way to get it back is by force. Until they Russia unquestionably owns Crimea. Saying “it’s not fair!” will not change the fact that Russia is currently owning Crimea.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      > Saying “it’s not fair!” What the hell? I'm saying that Ukraine deserves Starlink access in Crimea. And you go off on tangents about irrelevant details. The only person who matters in this discussion is Elon Musk, who is refusing to enable Starlink access in Crimea. But as I said in other posts: even if Mr. Musk enabled Starlink in Crimea, I don't know if the Ukrainian Commandos could trust it. We need to simply choose an entirely different satellite system to provide them... because Mr. Musk is seemingly compromised here. (And if Mr. Musk turns it off at a bad time, it could be even worse than his current inaction)
    - 3y ago
caconym_ 3y ago
> You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval over something almost 10 years later and say “hey that shouldn’t have happened!”. Of course you can; it happens all the time. See the GOP's recent dismantling of Roe v. Wade as an unfortunate recent example. Crimea's ownership is disputed within the international community and its ultimate disposition is far from settled.

lisasays 3y ago

You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval over something almost 10 years later and say “hey that shouldn’t have happened!”. Actually you can and it happens all the time. Crimea belongs to Russia. Just as your car now belongs to me, every since I saw you left the keys in it and decided to take it out for a joy ride.

dragontamer 3y ago

[flagged]

remote_phone 3y ago
I’m stating a fact with no opinion behind it. Russia owns Crimea. If the rest of the world cared or supported Ukraine back in 2014, they would have done something but no one lifted a finger including Obama. These are facts. If the world wants to help Ukraine reclaim Crimea then they would be doing so but no one is. Now whether the world SHOULD help Ukraine reclaim Crimea is a separate question but there is no confusion over the ownership of Crimea currently: it’s Russia. To argue otherwise is unintelligent and immature.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  1. Ukraine wants starlink over Crimea. 2. Russia does not. Do you support #1 or #2? Mr. Musk has chosen #2, a decidedly pro-Russian stance on this matter. If you want to argue #2 or whatever, sure. Whatever. But that's on you buddy, and whatever semantic games you wanna play I don't have to put up with it. I recognize what you want. ---------- In any case, its obvious Mr. Musk isn't a reliable partner. We need to work on giving the Ukrainian commandos (and partisans) in Crimea access to internet without Starlink. Even if we somehow forced Mr. Musk into the right decision here, he could flip at any time. So finding an alternative satellite internet company is in USA's and Ukraine's best interest.
  - remote_phone 3y ago
    What exactly is your point now, because you’re all over the place and thrashing in a cringeworthy fashion. You argued that Musk was “anti-Ukrainian” and I destroyed that argument with words from Ukrainian officials themselves. Now you’re saying… that Musk is still anti-Ukrainian because he turned off Starlink in Crimea even though he has it in every other place in Ukraine? Or that Musk is inconsistent or capricious? Go ahead but don’t expect me to participate and waste my time, I’m not interested.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      My point is pretty simple. Musk should allow Ukraine to use Starlink in Crimea. Do you agree, or disagree? You have a way of dancing around my point. So lets be as short and direct as possible.' > I destroyed that argument with words from Ukrainian officials themselves. Cool. So... it wouldn't be so hard for Musk to enable Crimean access to Starlink? Argue all you want, but the Ukrainians are waiting. And whenever Mr. Musk supporters go on wild tangents about why Russia is the true owner of Crimea or some other crap like that, you only hurt the argument and further prove Mr. Musk's pro-Russian sympathies.

klntsky 3y ago

> but I dare them to try to take it away through war. Why don't you apply the same logic to the opposite side? > You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval "Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all.

caconym_ 3y ago
> "Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all. I mean, it's sort of true, but it's very weird to (as GP did) espouse might-makes-right as a determinant of moral ownership and then turn around and say "Russia owns Crimea" when there is literally a war happening in Ukraine right now and the Western war machine is straining at its leash to utterly annihilate the Russian presence in what it considers Ukrainian territory, held back only by Russia's semi-credible threat of nuclear escalation.
- remote_phone 3y ago
  No, not moral ownership. De facto ownership. I never talked anything about morality. The fact is Russia took Crimea by force and is physically occupying it. The only way to get it back is by force. Until they Russia unquestionably owns Crimea. Saying “it’s not fair!” will not change the fact that Russia is currently owning Crimea.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    > Saying “it’s not fair!” What the hell? I'm saying that Ukraine deserves Starlink access in Crimea. And you go off on tangents about irrelevant details. The only person who matters in this discussion is Elon Musk, who is refusing to enable Starlink access in Crimea. But as I said in other posts: even if Mr. Musk enabled Starlink in Crimea, I don't know if the Ukrainian Commandos could trust it. We need to simply choose an entirely different satellite system to provide them... because Mr. Musk is seemingly compromised here. (And if Mr. Musk turns it off at a bad time, it could be even worse than his current inaction)
  - 3y ago

caconym_ 3y ago

> You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval over something almost 10 years later and say “hey that shouldn’t have happened!”. Of course you can; it happens all the time. See the GOP's recent dismantling of Roe v. Wade as an unfortunate recent example. Crimea's ownership is disputed within the international community and its ultimate disposition is far from settled.