5 ms·

Why would he? Is the US at war with Russia?

dsr_ 3y ago
Not yet.
ceejayoz 3y ago
Because sanctions issued by the country he lives and does business in apply, and his most lucrative client is that country’s government.
threeseed 3y ago
US is currently imposing sanctions on Russia. And so if Musk were to be providing material support he could see Starlink placed on the export control list. Which if it happened would then open Musk up to severe criminal charges if he didn't take steps to prevent devices being used by Russia. So I suspect he might want to do the right thing ahead of time given the US government is a pretty important customer for SpaceX.
oneshtein 3y ago
Russia is at (undeclared) war with US and NATO. Russian propaganda currently says that they started the war to counter NATO expansion.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - sgift 3y ago
    Because NATO did not expand. Countries decided to join NATO. You may think this is the same with other words, but it isn't. In the first version there's only two actors in the world, who can make decisions: Russia and NATO (or rather USA, for they argue NATO is basically the USA with another name). In the second version countries are free to decide who they associate with. There wasn't some empty space that NATO moved into. The countries who were there said "hey, NATO. Russia has been attacking and oppressing us for a long time and we fear they will do it again. We'd like to join." To answer your second question: Exactly what Russias neighbors feared is the reason. Russia is unhappy they couldn't oppress their neighbors anymore since 1990 and they want to do it again. They cannot really do it to the countries that already joined NATO, so they did it to the country that was late to the party.
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      >Because NATO did not expand. Countries decided to join NATO. You may think this is the same with other words, but it isn't. In the first version That is sort of a weird argument. Do you believe that is the case for the US as well? The US did not expand into Indian areas those areas just decided to join the US..
    - khzw8yyy 3y ago
      Just to clarify: the "we" who would like to join is a government that was installed by the USA in a coup. What kind of "attacking and oppressing" happened before the coup?
      - jnsaff2 3y ago
        So Finland and Sweden have governments "installed by USA in a coup"?
        khzw8yyy 3y ago
        That's just being obtuse to be obtuse. You and I both understand the difference between the choices that Finland or Sweden made and the "choices" that Ukraine or Iraq made.
        jnsaff2 3y ago
        So Ukraine can’t have choices without russians getting all murderous about it but it’s fine when Finns and Swedes do?
        khzw8yyy 3y ago
        If a political party came to power in Finland or Sweden outside the normal electoral process and decided to align the country with Russia, would the EU and the USA call them usurpers and terrorists and start military intervention to liberate Finland or Sweden? Or would they not?
  - Paradigma11 3y ago
    Russia wants to control and annex its former vassals who in turn try to flee under the shield of NATO. That is all there is to it. Right now the west can send as much weapons as it wants to Ukraine to be used against Russia with impunity. If Ukraine was a member of NATO Russia would be completely safe. But the US cant even be bothered to send an insignificant amount of aid to Ukraine, never mind an actual attack. Russia knew this very well and much of its strategy is based on this decreasing interest and support.
  - simion314 3y ago
    >Why is this "propaganda", and not fact? Why is it so hard to believe that the Russians don't want what they consider hostile parties on their borders? We would do the exact same thing. I am from eastern Europe, we do not want to sacrifice our lives to invade Russia and loot their shit, we begged to enter in NATO to ensure our survival from Russia, from our history and large number of Russian invasion we understand better why we wanted it then some Westerners. Again we have no fucking intention to still Russian land or their toilets. >What, in your opinion, is the reason? I thin it is easy to understand, Putin grabbed Crimea in a genius move, the Western Europe were surprised and too dependent on Russia to do anything about it, the retards shoot down an airplane with civilians and EU did nothing. And here all it starts, Putin got his ass kissed so hard by his minions that now he thought he can do again a genius blitz attack in Ukraine, Zelensky will run, the old people will pull out the communist flags and portraits of Putin and all will be glorious. Basically Putin was misinformed and stupid enough to think he can win in 3 days or 2 weeks whatever makes Rusky feel better. And why would Putin want to grab land, steal crap? It is a Russian thing, they like to control, steal, invade etc. They always cry that they lost their sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and they accuse us Eastern Europeans of beeing Rusofobs and brainwashed by CIA. The final plan was probably to grab as many territories as possible before this countries enter EU and NATO, this is why Ruzzia is supporting anti-EU groups in their neighbors to delay things so his army can invade. When some Rusky or tanky will tell you that Ruzzia is just afraid of beeing invaded, use your brain and remember that Ruzzia has nuclear weapons so nobody will invade them, the danger for them is the diea that ex-USSR cuntries are prospering in EU and NATO, this idea makes itharder to keep the new generation under contrl so extreme measures were taken to brainwsh them.
  - khokhol 3y ago
    Why is it so hard to believe that the Russians don't want what they consider hostile parties on their borders? "Russians" who have an awareness of history (who are all the Russians I know personally) understand, implicitly, that these countries did not join NATO out of hostile intent - but from the need for some level of security to protect against a neighboring country which has done, as I'm sure you must know, some pretty awful things to them in the not so distant past. They don't love NATO by any means. But they fully get why these countries sought membership. And don't for a minute believe the hogwash put out by the current Tsar, that it was somehow "necessary" to start bombing an shooting everywhere with oblivion, and letting the bodies pile up with such an awful stink -- just to make a "point". (I put "Russians" in quotes because only about 70 percent of the country is what one would call ethnically Russian). We would do the exact same thing. You're right - "we" (by which you mean the US) did in fact do a basically very similar thing, in regard to numerous countries in Latin America from about 1961-1985. To the point of establishing or supporting dictatorships that killed and tortured probably upwards of 200,000 people, on top of putting multiple generations of social development in these countries effectively on hold. And for which we have been rightly and thoroughly condemned, by folks with a good conscience, and an awareness of basic history everywhere.
- d1sxeyes 3y ago
  Russia has always (somewhat fairly) been vocal that since the collapse of the Warsaw pact, Nato has no reason to exist other than to defend against a potential attack from Russia. Nato have always acted as though that's true, and have pursued expanding the alliance to countries bordering Russia, and established missile defence installations there. The closest we ever got to nuclear war was when Russia moved missiles to Cuba, so it doesn't take a geopolitical scientist to understand that the US is very uncomfortable about threats near its borders, but expects Russia to accept it the other way round. I'm not up to date with what the propaganda systems are belching out in Russia, but I believe the original reason was something about Nazis in Ukraine, and it would not surprise me if the narrative is shifting to be 'Nato is creeping up on us again'. Which is odd, because Russia already has borders with Nato countries, and controlling Ukraine actually brings them closer to where Nato already has a strong foothold. A lot of what's going on in Ukraine at the moment is linked to Sevastopol, I think. Russia absolutely cannot afford to lose Sevastopol. Not sure quite what happened that triggered the full scale invasion after the annexation of the Crimea, mind. Edit: added a quite important “not”
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Nothing changed. "Ukraine does not exist. It's not a state. Ukrainians do not exist."
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    > Which is odd, because Russia already has borders with Nato countries, and controlling Ukraine actually brings them closer to where Nato already has a strong foothold. A couple of minutes with a globe would answer many of those questions. Not the propaganda ones, of course.
    - d1sxeyes 3y ago
      No I just mean it’s a bit of an implausible explanation and requires Russian citizens to adopt doublethink. Not that they’re not used to it, just harder in the internet age.

dsr_ 3y ago

Not yet.

Because sanctions issued by the country he lives and does business in apply, and his most lucrative client is that country’s government.

threeseed 3y ago

US is currently imposing sanctions on Russia. And so if Musk were to be providing material support he could see Starlink placed on the export control list. Which if it happened would then open Musk up to severe criminal charges if he didn't take steps to prevent devices being used by Russia. So I suspect he might want to do the right thing ahead of time given the US government is a pretty important customer for SpaceX.

oneshtein 3y ago

Russia is at (undeclared) war with US and NATO. Russian propaganda currently says that they started the war to counter NATO expansion.

itsoktocry 3y ago
[flagged]
- sgift 3y ago
  Because NATO did not expand. Countries decided to join NATO. You may think this is the same with other words, but it isn't. In the first version there's only two actors in the world, who can make decisions: Russia and NATO (or rather USA, for they argue NATO is basically the USA with another name). In the second version countries are free to decide who they associate with. There wasn't some empty space that NATO moved into. The countries who were there said "hey, NATO. Russia has been attacking and oppressing us for a long time and we fear they will do it again. We'd like to join." To answer your second question: Exactly what Russias neighbors feared is the reason. Russia is unhappy they couldn't oppress their neighbors anymore since 1990 and they want to do it again. They cannot really do it to the countries that already joined NATO, so they did it to the country that was late to the party.
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    >Because NATO did not expand. Countries decided to join NATO. You may think this is the same with other words, but it isn't. In the first version That is sort of a weird argument. Do you believe that is the case for the US as well? The US did not expand into Indian areas those areas just decided to join the US..
  - khzw8yyy 3y ago
    Just to clarify: the "we" who would like to join is a government that was installed by the USA in a coup. What kind of "attacking and oppressing" happened before the coup?
    - jnsaff2 3y ago
      So Finland and Sweden have governments "installed by USA in a coup"?
      - khzw8yyy 3y ago
        That's just being obtuse to be obtuse. You and I both understand the difference between the choices that Finland or Sweden made and the "choices" that Ukraine or Iraq made.
        jnsaff2 3y ago
        So Ukraine can’t have choices without russians getting all murderous about it but it’s fine when Finns and Swedes do?
        khzw8yyy 3y ago
        If a political party came to power in Finland or Sweden outside the normal electoral process and decided to align the country with Russia, would the EU and the USA call them usurpers and terrorists and start military intervention to liberate Finland or Sweden? Or would they not?
- Paradigma11 3y ago
  Russia wants to control and annex its former vassals who in turn try to flee under the shield of NATO. That is all there is to it. Right now the west can send as much weapons as it wants to Ukraine to be used against Russia with impunity. If Ukraine was a member of NATO Russia would be completely safe. But the US cant even be bothered to send an insignificant amount of aid to Ukraine, never mind an actual attack. Russia knew this very well and much of its strategy is based on this decreasing interest and support.
- simion314 3y ago
  >Why is this "propaganda", and not fact? Why is it so hard to believe that the Russians don't want what they consider hostile parties on their borders? We would do the exact same thing. I am from eastern Europe, we do not want to sacrifice our lives to invade Russia and loot their shit, we begged to enter in NATO to ensure our survival from Russia, from our history and large number of Russian invasion we understand better why we wanted it then some Westerners. Again we have no fucking intention to still Russian land or their toilets. >What, in your opinion, is the reason? I thin it is easy to understand, Putin grabbed Crimea in a genius move, the Western Europe were surprised and too dependent on Russia to do anything about it, the retards shoot down an airplane with civilians and EU did nothing. And here all it starts, Putin got his ass kissed so hard by his minions that now he thought he can do again a genius blitz attack in Ukraine, Zelensky will run, the old people will pull out the communist flags and portraits of Putin and all will be glorious. Basically Putin was misinformed and stupid enough to think he can win in 3 days or 2 weeks whatever makes Rusky feel better. And why would Putin want to grab land, steal crap? It is a Russian thing, they like to control, steal, invade etc. They always cry that they lost their sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and they accuse us Eastern Europeans of beeing Rusofobs and brainwashed by CIA. The final plan was probably to grab as many territories as possible before this countries enter EU and NATO, this is why Ruzzia is supporting anti-EU groups in their neighbors to delay things so his army can invade. When some Rusky or tanky will tell you that Ruzzia is just afraid of beeing invaded, use your brain and remember that Ruzzia has nuclear weapons so nobody will invade them, the danger for them is the diea that ex-USSR cuntries are prospering in EU and NATO, this idea makes itharder to keep the new generation under contrl so extreme measures were taken to brainwsh them.
- khokhol 3y ago
  Why is it so hard to believe that the Russians don't want what they consider hostile parties on their borders? "Russians" who have an awareness of history (who are all the Russians I know personally) understand, implicitly, that these countries did not join NATO out of hostile intent - but from the need for some level of security to protect against a neighboring country which has done, as I'm sure you must know, some pretty awful things to them in the not so distant past. They don't love NATO by any means. But they fully get why these countries sought membership. And don't for a minute believe the hogwash put out by the current Tsar, that it was somehow "necessary" to start bombing an shooting everywhere with oblivion, and letting the bodies pile up with such an awful stink -- just to make a "point". (I put "Russians" in quotes because only about 70 percent of the country is what one would call ethnically Russian). We would do the exact same thing. You're right - "we" (by which you mean the US) did in fact do a basically very similar thing, in regard to numerous countries in Latin America from about 1961-1985. To the point of establishing or supporting dictatorships that killed and tortured probably upwards of 200,000 people, on top of putting multiple generations of social development in these countries effectively on hold. And for which we have been rightly and thoroughly condemned, by folks with a good conscience, and an awareness of basic history everywhere.
d1sxeyes 3y ago
Russia has always (somewhat fairly) been vocal that since the collapse of the Warsaw pact, Nato has no reason to exist other than to defend against a potential attack from Russia. Nato have always acted as though that's true, and have pursued expanding the alliance to countries bordering Russia, and established missile defence installations there. The closest we ever got to nuclear war was when Russia moved missiles to Cuba, so it doesn't take a geopolitical scientist to understand that the US is very uncomfortable about threats near its borders, but expects Russia to accept it the other way round. I'm not up to date with what the propaganda systems are belching out in Russia, but I believe the original reason was something about Nazis in Ukraine, and it would not surprise me if the narrative is shifting to be 'Nato is creeping up on us again'. Which is odd, because Russia already has borders with Nato countries, and controlling Ukraine actually brings them closer to where Nato already has a strong foothold. A lot of what's going on in Ukraine at the moment is linked to Sevastopol, I think. Russia absolutely cannot afford to lose Sevastopol. Not sure quite what happened that triggered the full scale invasion after the annexation of the Crimea, mind. Edit: added a quite important “not”
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Nothing changed. "Ukraine does not exist. It's not a state. Ukrainians do not exist."
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  > Which is odd, because Russia already has borders with Nato countries, and controlling Ukraine actually brings them closer to where Nato already has a strong foothold. A couple of minutes with a globe would answer many of those questions. Not the propaganda ones, of course.
  - d1sxeyes 3y ago
    No I just mean it’s a bit of an implausible explanation and requires Russian citizens to adopt doublethink. Not that they’re not used to it, just harder in the internet age.