4 ms·

He is on the side of Russia but giving away for free this Starlink thing to the UAF that has proven useful for their operations. But how come the UAF are still

He is on the side of Russia but giving away for free this Starlink thing to the UAF that has proven useful for their operations. But how come the UAF are still using Starlink if it's provided by someone clearly on the side or Russia?

threeseed 3y ago
SpaceX has a contract with the US DoD to supply them to Ukraine.
simion314 3y ago
>But how come the UAF are still using Starlink if it's provided by someone clearly on the side or Russia? US government bought some antennas so even if he loves Putin he can't bite the USA government who gave Tesla and SpaceX a ton of money.
saiya-jin 3y ago
[flagged]
- vardump 3y ago
  I think they were geofenced all along. Otherwise Russians could have used captured Starlink terminals to their advantage. Nothing to do with Starlink or Musk. Those orders were from the State Department.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  Look at the starlink coverage map
- throwaway44023 3y ago
  One thing is if some soldiers use it to have Google Meet video calls from the battle field. That's comparable to selling some consumer laptops to the army - nobody cares. Entirely another thing - and now I mean the US ITAR perspective - is if it's used literally as key and unique capability enabling part of a drone weapon. Now that makes it a weapon too. SpaceX doesn't have the US government's approval to manufacture weapons, export weapons or sell them to Ukraine army. The terminal or the constellation itself must not be used as a weapon according to the US law, and the operator must do everything to stop such use. You should be angry with the US government. Biden could go live on the TV right now and say "Mr. Musk, it's fine - we allow it.". And if Musk didn't do it anyways, then you'd be right to be angry with him. But the US government didn't and won't do that. Take it to your elected representative, not to a businessman doing what the law requires him to do. You know what was the biggest fail, IMHO? That UA soldiers put the video online. Up until nobody knew, nobody cared. They carried out several attacks. Then they showed the world - and of course it got banned, there is no other option on SpaceX or Musk's side.
pilsetnieks 3y ago
> As of June 2023 Starlink expenses for Ukraine are covered by the US Department of Defense through a contract with SpaceX. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-buys-starlink-ukraine-statement-2023-06-01/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-...
yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
If you are actively working to protect the ships that russia uses to launch cruise missiles at civilians, then you are on the side of russia.

threeseed 3y ago

SpaceX has a contract with the US DoD to supply them to Ukraine.

simion314 3y ago

>But how come the UAF are still using Starlink if it's provided by someone clearly on the side or Russia? US government bought some antennas so even if he loves Putin he can't bite the USA government who gave Tesla and SpaceX a ton of money.

saiya-jin 3y ago

[flagged]

vardump 3y ago
I think they were geofenced all along. Otherwise Russians could have used captured Starlink terminals to their advantage. Nothing to do with Starlink or Musk. Those orders were from the State Department.
inemesitaffia 3y ago
Look at the starlink coverage map
throwaway44023 3y ago
One thing is if some soldiers use it to have Google Meet video calls from the battle field. That's comparable to selling some consumer laptops to the army - nobody cares. Entirely another thing - and now I mean the US ITAR perspective - is if it's used literally as key and unique capability enabling part of a drone weapon. Now that makes it a weapon too. SpaceX doesn't have the US government's approval to manufacture weapons, export weapons or sell them to Ukraine army. The terminal or the constellation itself must not be used as a weapon according to the US law, and the operator must do everything to stop such use. You should be angry with the US government. Biden could go live on the TV right now and say "Mr. Musk, it's fine - we allow it.". And if Musk didn't do it anyways, then you'd be right to be angry with him. But the US government didn't and won't do that. Take it to your elected representative, not to a businessman doing what the law requires him to do. You know what was the biggest fail, IMHO? That UA soldiers put the video online. Up until nobody knew, nobody cared. They carried out several attacks. Then they showed the world - and of course it got banned, there is no other option on SpaceX or Musk's side.

pilsetnieks 3y ago

> As of June 2023 Starlink expenses for Ukraine are covered by the US Department of Defense through a contract with SpaceX. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-buys-starlink-ukraine-statement-2023-06-01/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-...

yakshaving_jgt 3y ago

If you are actively working to protect the ships that russia uses to launch cruise missiles at civilians, then you are on the side of russia.