A senior Ukrainian official says this enabled Russian attacks and accuses him of "committing evil".

Elon Musk says he refused to give Kyiv access to his Starlink communications network over Crimea to avoid complicity in a “major act of war”.

Kyiv had sent an emergency request to activate Starlink to Sevastopol, home to a major Russian navy port, he said.

His comments came after a book alleged he had switched off Starlink to thwart a drone attack on Russian ships.

A senior Ukrainian official says this enabled Russian attacks and accused him of “committing evil”.

Russian naval vessels had since taken part in deadly attacks on civilians, he said.

“By not allowing Ukrainian drones to destroy part of the Russian military (!) fleet via Starlink interference, Elon Musk allowed this fleet to fire Kalibr missiles at Ukrainian cities,” he said.

“Why do some people so desperately want to defend war criminals and their desire to commit murder? And do they now realize that they are committing evil and encouraging evil?” he added.

The row follows the release of a biography of the billionaire by Walter Isaacson which alleges that Mr Musk switched off Ukraine’s access to Starlink because he feared that an ambush of Russia’s naval fleet in Crimea could provoke a nuclear response from the Kremlin.

Ukraine targeted Russian ships in Sevastopol with submarine drones carrying explosives but they lost connection to Starlink and “washed ashore harmlessly”, Mr Isaacson wrote.

Starlink terminals connect to SpaceX satellites in orbit and have been crucial for maintaining internet connectivity and communication in Ukraine as the conflict has disrupted the country infrastructure.

  • BigNoteEnglish
    32·
    9 months ago

    You would have a point were I simply speculating, but I’m not.

    I am simply stating what the most well-informed and knowledgeable sources are saying.

    You would know this if you had sanitized and healthy media consumption habits, but you obviously don’t.

      • BigNoteEnglish
        21·
        9 months ago

        I won’t name any specific organizations, but the upshot is that you need to consume a variety of news sources from different countries and in different formats. It also pays to get into very specifically focused news organizations.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      11·
      9 months ago

      You are far too confident in your knowledge of the world.

      Starlink is a strategic asset for the US military. It’s primary revenue stream comes from the US government. China is on record as saying Starlink itself is a threat.

      And the reason it’s a threat is because each orbit has a limited carrying capacity for satellites. Starlink is occupying a specific orbit that is strategically valuable for battlefield information services. The US military is funding it in as a race to occupy the orbit faster and more thoroughly than China because there is no current legal regime for limiting who can occupy an orbit and how they must share it after saturation. Therefore, the existence of Starlink itself is a threat to China, and China has said so.

      The idea that China is fine with Musk but not if he does this one specific war thing is based entirely on believing the delusion of Musk as a private business person who is just out to make a buck and has no politics. China doesn’t believe that, the USA doesn’t believe that, the billionaire class doesn’t believe that. Only the class-unconscious proles seem to believe it.

      Musk is deeply enmeshed in the USA’s project for hegemony. He is operating with significant oversight and collaboration with US government agencies for US power projection domestically and abroad.

      • BigNoteEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        This is a convenient fiction for your narrative, but it ignores the fact that far from being OK with what Musk has done with his Starlink satellite network, the US security establishment is currently freaking out over the level of autonomy that a private citizen has gained with regard to something that clearly has international security implications.

        This would scarcely be the case were it so, as you argue, that Musk is somehow beholden to the US national security establishment.

        And that’s leaving aside the obvious point that Musk himself is openly hostile to the current administration.

        In other words, nothing you say actually pencils out. It’s all bullshit.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          You want to source your evidence for the US security establishment currently freaking out? Consider that it was the former head of the CIA’s investment arm that got SpaceX the funding it needed, potentially from that fund but we can’t know. Consider that the vast majority of SpaceX payloads are military intelligence payloads. Consider that SpaceX has hired multiple former US officials to high positions within the company.

          Consider that none of his lucrative relationships are with Biden or Biden appointees but with generals and other military officials that do not change with the administration. Consider that the Starlink project underwent research and development in conjunction not with the Trump administration but with the Air Force directly. Consiser that Obama refused to give weapons to Ukraine and it was, in fact, the Trump administration that was the first US administration ever to provide them with weapons.

          Whatever silly little narrative about red vs blue you think is happening here, it’s delusion. Whatever belief you have about the sanctity of the private company and it’s complete separation from the intelligence community, it’s fantasy. The military intelligence apparatus regularly puts its agents into jobs in corporate America, particular in positions with influence and access to information.

          No one is sending spy satellites into orbit with direct and constant military intelligence oversight. From the investment through design, planning, and operations, intelligence is all over Musk’s work day in and day out.

          The people who are freaking out are either outsiders who are enjoying the attention/grifting in the culture wars, or it’s deliberate propaganda from insiders.

          And it’s not limited to SpaceX. It’s well documented just how much intelligence and state department officials participate in corporate America, from social media (Facebook, Twitter, Google, the US TikTok) to telecom (AT&T, Verizon, StarLink, Google) to high tech (Google, Intel, Oracle, Palantir) to weapons (look it up) to finance (In-Q-Tel, Cerberus, Paladin, BIA). And that doesn’t even cover all of the active duty officers who take jobs in US companies with overseas offices in order to create a cover for their presence.

          This isn’t shit the USA leaves to emotions and temper tantrums of celebrities. This is war with America’s second most important opponent in the world. Musk doesn’t buy one of the State Dept’s and intelligence’s most leveraged propaganda company (Twitter), when it already has a dozen officers already there, when it has to go through the FTC, when it’s heavily integrated into the financial network, without having handlers.

          • BigNoteEnglish
            1·
            9 months ago

            There is no universe in which I feel myself obliged to read and respond to your wall of text.

            I think you have mistaken me for someone who actually gives a fuck about your long-winded, deeply uninformed and rather dreary opinion.

            You would be doing yourself a kindness by reserving such rants for those who actually give a shit about what you have to say.

              • BigNoteEnglish
                1·
                9 months ago

                Everyone is free to have uniformed opinions about their interlocutors in an anonymous Internet forum. You calling me “ignorant” doesn’t hurt my feelings at all. I’ve been called a lot worse by better people than you.