5 ms·

They were using humanitarian/civilian internet given freely for deadly cross border offensives. If you want military grade comms, you can buy them.

by 10u152 3y ago

ferbivore 3y ago
Not cross-border from Ukraine's perspective. Or the US government's.
- trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  Yes, morally Ukraine is in the right, although it's understandable why Musk wants his globally operating businesses to at least appear to be neutral. Despite being obviously US-based. Maybe more interesting is the question why they need Starlink at all? Why are they dealing with a private for profit company when the US military could provide them with satellite communications?
  - ferbivore 3y ago
    They were using Starlink to get live video from small maritime drones. As in, things that you can only fit a tiny non-directional antenna onto. I can't imagine trying to talk to WGS with one of those would go well.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    Meanwhile, US military contracts Starlink for some of its communications. Private contractors are very much the standard for military logistics these days.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    starlink is the only game in town for high bandwidth low latency.
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  So Musk should grant internet to enemy occupied zone giving them super unfair advantage because of feelsies and vibes?
freejazz 3y ago
That's a justification but it doesn't rebut that it happened
victorbjorklund 3y ago
Crimea is part of Ukraine. Only russia and its supporters recognize the russian occupation as valid.
- elzbardico 3y ago
  And the ethnic Russian majority on it. Of course the west and the neocons don't recognize it and their propaganda organs will make sure people think otherwise, after all Crimea is strategic for controlling the Black Sea. enlighten yourself a bit on recent Crimea history: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give-away-crimea-sixty-years-ago https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give...
  - victorbjorklund 3y ago
    You mean Russian speakers like Zelensky? And of course Crimea has less crimean tatars and Ukrainians now after Russian ethnic cleansing. Russians has always engaged in that.
creatonez 3y ago
To be clear, Starlink is fine with defensive use, including Ukraine's cross-border counteroffensives that the US government sees as having a defensive purpose. They are very much already a military contractor, and Ukraine has gone through the proper avenues to receive the service for military purposes.^1 The problem is that the consequences of accidentally providing service to Russia, a country that is both sanctioned by the US (so Starlink would face headache-inducing legal problems in the US) and is conducting an offensive invasion (which matters because it's against Starlink policy), are considered far too high for the Pentagon to approve it without the use of hexagon geofencing. This hexagon geofencing means it's not as useful for crossing over the Russia-Ukraine front line. It is updated frequently to reflect the situation on the ground, but they can only provide service to a hexagon if all of that land has been taken back from Russia, so it will never quite satisfy how fast Ukrainian soldiers would prefer the geo-fencing to update. It's likely that Starlink wants to refine this geofencing to be useful for Ukraine's cross-border counteroffensives, or to use some other measures to ensure the captured equipment and signals are not useful for Russia, but as long as the US Government says no, it won't happen. --- ^1: There was some usage of the service before it was properly approved, which was around the time Elon Musk was publicly saying Starlink wouldn't support counteroffensives and blocked off access in Crimea. But this is history now as Starlink is obligated by the Pentagon to support Ukraine, Musk's opinions do not appear to be guiding Starlink's current policies. Unfortunately this series of events has spawned some really confused news articles, angry Ukrainian soldiers on social media, and various partisan nonsense... the publicity and drama of it all pretty much overshadowed what actually ended up happening, which could have been much more interesting to investigate by anyone who is pro- or anti-ukraine, or pro- or anti-Musk -- or just anyone who is interested in how these military contracts work.
- woleium 3y ago
  given how few starlink units are available and how ubiquitous wifi mesh network technology is this is likely a non issue. One starlink unit will likely be providing backhaul for a large portion of front line from a rear station.
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
baybal2 3y ago
[dead]

They were using humanitarian/civilian internet given freely for deadly cross border offensives. If you want military grade comms, you can buy them.

by 10u152 3y ago

They were using humanitarian/civilian internet given freely for deadly cross border offensives. If you want military grade comms, you can buy them.

ferbivore 3y ago

Not cross-border from Ukraine's perspective. Or the US government's.

trompetenaccoun 3y ago
Yes, morally Ukraine is in the right, although it's understandable why Musk wants his globally operating businesses to at least appear to be neutral. Despite being obviously US-based. Maybe more interesting is the question why they need Starlink at all? Why are they dealing with a private for profit company when the US military could provide them with satellite communications?
- ferbivore 3y ago
  They were using Starlink to get live video from small maritime drones. As in, things that you can only fit a tiny non-directional antenna onto. I can't imagine trying to talk to WGS with one of those would go well.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  Meanwhile, US military contracts Starlink for some of its communications. Private contractors are very much the standard for military logistics these days.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  starlink is the only game in town for high bandwidth low latency.
dzhiurgis 3y ago
So Musk should grant internet to enemy occupied zone giving them super unfair advantage because of feelsies and vibes?

freejazz 3y ago

That's a justification but it doesn't rebut that it happened

victorbjorklund 3y ago

Crimea is part of Ukraine. Only russia and its supporters recognize the russian occupation as valid.

elzbardico 3y ago
And the ethnic Russian majority on it. Of course the west and the neocons don't recognize it and their propaganda organs will make sure people think otherwise, after all Crimea is strategic for controlling the Black Sea. enlighten yourself a bit on recent Crimea history: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give-away-crimea-sixty-years-ago https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give...
- victorbjorklund 3y ago
  You mean Russian speakers like Zelensky? And of course Crimea has less crimean tatars and Ukrainians now after Russian ethnic cleansing. Russians has always engaged in that.

creatonez 3y ago

To be clear, Starlink is fine with defensive use, including Ukraine's cross-border counteroffensives that the US government sees as having a defensive purpose. They are very much already a military contractor, and Ukraine has gone through the proper avenues to receive the service for military purposes.^1 The problem is that the consequences of accidentally providing service to Russia, a country that is both sanctioned by the US (so Starlink would face headache-inducing legal problems in the US) and is conducting an offensive invasion (which matters because it's against Starlink policy), are considered far too high for the Pentagon to approve it without the use of hexagon geofencing. This hexagon geofencing means it's not as useful for crossing over the Russia-Ukraine front line. It is updated frequently to reflect the situation on the ground, but they can only provide service to a hexagon if all of that land has been taken back from Russia, so it will never quite satisfy how fast Ukrainian soldiers would prefer the geo-fencing to update. It's likely that Starlink wants to refine this geofencing to be useful for Ukraine's cross-border counteroffensives, or to use some other measures to ensure the captured equipment and signals are not useful for Russia, but as long as the US Government says no, it won't happen. --- ^1: There was some usage of the service before it was properly approved, which was around the time Elon Musk was publicly saying Starlink wouldn't support counteroffensives and blocked off access in Crimea. But this is history now as Starlink is obligated by the Pentagon to support Ukraine, Musk's opinions do not appear to be guiding Starlink's current policies. Unfortunately this series of events has spawned some really confused news articles, angry Ukrainian soldiers on social media, and various partisan nonsense... the publicity and drama of it all pretty much overshadowed what actually ended up happening, which could have been much more interesting to investigate by anyone who is pro- or anti-ukraine, or pro- or anti-Musk -- or just anyone who is interested in how these military contracts work.

woleium 3y ago
given how few starlink units are available and how ubiquitous wifi mesh network technology is this is likely a non issue. One starlink unit will likely be providing backhaul for a large portion of front line from a rear station.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago

baybal2 3y ago

[dead]