10 ms·
Musk’s Denial of Ukraine’s Starlink Request Prompts Senate Probe
- archo 3y agohttps://archive.is/ctNVZ https://archive.is/ctNVZ
- ImJamal 3y agoI 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.
- justinclift 3y agoTo 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?
- ImJamal 3y agoI'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying what Musk's views are.
- mola 3y agoSome would say that defending your country against an occupier is a defensive operation....
- ImJamal 3y agoSome might, but Musk doesn't. I don't see why he should be forced to provide a service for an action that the Ukrainians agreed not to use it for.
- salawat 3y agoYour 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.
- rlt 3y ago> 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 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?
- ImJamal 3y agoI'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?
- stephenr 3y ago... please explain to all of us, how fighting an invading/occupying force is an "offensive" purpose?
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoIt 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.
- ImJamal 3y agoI'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.
- stephenr 3y agoIt's hard to believe all this creative writing talent is being wasted on making up excuses for a billionaire man child.
- ImJamal 3y agoI'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.
- victortan83 3y agoAll 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
- mgiannopoulos 3y agoThe Pentagon had nothing to do with this. The Ukrainians made a request to Musk directly.
- hulitu 3y agoYeah, right.
- mgiannopoulos 3y agoThis is what the article states. Any other source?
- mgiannopoulos 3y agoMusk 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.
- inemesitaffia 3y agoHe said Biden
- mgiannopoulos 3y agoIs there a big difference?
- inemesitaffia 3y agoAccuracy helps