What a disingenuous statement. By not agreeing to do it he is complicit in major acts of war, i.e. whatever attacks the Russians do with their fleet. What a tosser.
Starlink was specifically agreed for civilian use only. It's the Ukraine who tries to breach that agreement, SpaceX simply doesn't want to be accused of exporting weapons
That's a bullshit excuse used by Melon's fan boys.
Whether the technology is restricted by ITAR isn't based whether it was ever used as a weapon, but whether the US government thinks it can be used as a weapon.
And the US government was left scrambling to get a formal contract in for Ukrainian access after Musk started to publicly spout pro kremlin shit. So there's no way an ITAR argument could fly: the DoD wanted a contract to help ensure starlink availability for fucks sake, especially since Musk proved unreliable and a useful idiot for Putin's wildest assplay desires.
Famous for overseeing many civilian contracts including Netflix accounts, Comcast accounts and my subscription to Highlights magazine (I like the word searches).
Yeah, if a much larger country was invading, shelling apartment buildings, mining the fuck out of farmland and murdering thousands of people, I'd probably breach a ToS.
Also, that sounds a bit absurd considering he just got the US DoD to pay for Ukraine's starlink service.
No it wasn't. The Pentagon pays for the service explicitly as military aid to Ukraine. Since, you know, Russia blew up a lot of Ukrainian infrastructure.
Not to this degree. Musk is the richest person ever to have lived. He’s got more money than most nations on the planet have ever had, comparatively. His wealth, power, and influence are obscene.
His wealth is currently growing at $14.75 million per hour. He could spend a million dollars every day for a thousand years and still be the richest person on earth.
I don’t think many people can fathom how extreme his wealth hoarding actually is. It’s literally mind-boggling. He could single-handedly solve the hunger crisis planet-wide and make a huge impact on the climate crisis, but instead he uses his money to fellate himself, take credit for others’ work, and ruin things.
In the past, kings and barons have only wished to have the money and power he wields, and this is what he’s doing with it. It’s absolutely shameful.
Quite a few supporters for independence in America's revolutionary war against England were quite wealthy, and stood to make very good money with an independent US. Hancock was one of them.
I don't know if I'd say that was the entire reason for the war of independence, but I think it was substantial enough that we can consider it an example in this case.
no, it is not, just because there was an economic incentive for some people during the revolution doesn't mean that it is comparable, if you want comparable, imagine if the of the richest Italians had replaced many of the American cannons with wooden fakes
It's important to note that the company, and the technology being used was not created by him, too. He just bought it... And now he's doing evil things with it while he pretends he's some sort of anti-war hero.
Like... Congratulations, douchebag, you helped a defend an evil superpower during their active, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation involving countless war crimes and crimes against humanity. What a fuckin' hero you are, Elon.
The way he phrases it is as if Ukraine asked him to enable them to make the attack. They asked him to switch it back on, because he had explicitly disabled service in the area, after giving the devices to Ukraine in the first place.
So they can Netflix and chill during the Russian invasion. That's definitely what these devices were for. No way Elon could've known there was any military usage in a country desperately fighting for it's existance.
He's said as much... That's the really fucked up part. He's behind
“Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes”.
-Elon Musk
Like... 'don't worry about the war crimes, just Netflix and chill, Ukraine.'
Couldn't you say the same thing about power companies and the mail system? We're taking about shutting off utilities to help/hinder those that align with ideals.
Well at the very least you have to agree, that he was in quite a dilemma. If he allows it, he interferes by action. If he doesn't, he interferes by inaction.
To him, and to me too, inaction seems more impartial, which is probably all he cares about at this point, and once again it's what I would probably care about too.
You can be mad at someone who is impartial, but at the end of the day, the only thing you are mad at, is them not doing jack-shit, which of course can be very annoying.
He had a choice in his hands with privileged information, then he chose the Russian side. This declarations are just justification to wash his hands, he is team Putin all the way, always has been. He has been seen partying with Russian oligarchs. The reason he bought SpaceX was because his original idea of buying dismantled ICBMs from his rusky arms dealer pals was too incredibly stupid to pull off, and it was easier to do it by way of an aerospace company.
Starlink service was bought by Ukraine to provide internet access to civilians and the military. Technically it was provided by the US because Musk offered to, for free initially, though he later pedalled back to charge inordinate amounts of money. Which the US and UA agreed to pay anyway. Because single companies monopolizing entire control to fundamental services is a huge issue. War time or not. He is profiteering and unfortunately owns the only company that can provide this specific kind of service. But in strategic matters, he will always go to bat for his BFF Vova.
People just don't get it. All they want is dead Russians. I myself would prefer humiliated and defeated Russians, not necessarily dead. All they have to do is capitulate and admit they are losers and ill be happy.
Elon musk is not a military entity. He is a private citizen. His taxes just like yours and mine are going into this war. But he is also providing starlink to the civilian population as a humanitarian gesture. Expecting every private citizen to get up and wield a weapon against Russia for Ukraine is not realistic, nor does refusal to do so make you complicit in helping Russia. Just like being a conscientious objector in Vietnam didn't make you complicit in supporting the Viet Kong.
According to CNBC, SpaceX is funding Starlink in Ukraine, not the government:
"Musk reportedly told the Pentagon in October he would no longer finance the Starlink terminals in Ukraine as the country prepared to fight through the harsh winter months. However, the billionaire reversed course and did continue to fund the service."
The Pentagon said Thursday it has agreed to purchase Starlink satellite internet terminals from Elon Musk’s SpaceX for use in Ukraine as Kyiv continues to defend itself against a full-scale Russian invasion.
Oh pish posh. Elon's isn't providing starlink as a humanitarian, he's making the US government pay for it. That's his whole game, subsidized capitalism that gives him plausible deniability.
Elon doesn't get it. He is neck deep in it. With his denying he helps the Invaders whereas with his allowance he would have helped ukraine fighting for their freedom.
The video involving an excessively bear like Russian man and Musk bent over saying "Use me daddy!", while wearing nothing but a pair of frilly, white, crotchless panties?
Alternate take: Elon Musk knowingly and intentionally prolonged the war in Ukraine. Sinking the Russian fleet at anchor would have been the most expedient way to end the war with as few casualties as possible. It's really really hard to fight a war without a navy.
The last time we capitulated to a dictator who invaded Europe, they didn't stop with just the first invasion. Just because Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons doesn't mean we have to roll over for him and give him an easy win in Ukraine.
That's not what I'm saying. Russia having control over the black sea means more for Ukraine than for Russia, as it's essentially the only route to deliver supplies to Ukraine. Russia has plenty of other routes to continue supplying the war effort. Taking back control over those waters means Ukraine can more easily import and export supplies and it extends their ability to fight the war, but it doesn't do much to actually push Russia out (except maybe cut Russia off from a quick retreat out of Crimea).
Taking out the Russian fleet undoubtedly would have helped Ukraine, i don't dispute that, I just don't think it would have expedited any kind of end to the war because Russia has other options both for supplying their positions and in launching attacks and defenses.
If we believe Ukraine will win in the end, something that helps Ukraine should also help them win sooner. That is the opposite of prolonging as you claim.
Seems to me that although this war is drawing out, the tides are turning to favor Ukraine more than Russia.
Yes, but I don't belive that. Sometimes good guys lose. And as inefficient and slow the Russian army is, it has multiple times the resources, and don't make the mistake of thinking they are stupid or something like that, because you would underestimate your opponent.
"The tides are turning in favor of Ukraine" is something we've been hearing since the start of the war and I'm believing it less and less by the day.
This is a pretty wild claim, but if it's true then it's the best argument for a treaty I've heard. If all they want is access to the sea, no need to continue warring over Crimea or Donbas, just sign another lease to the port
Though I've repeatedly heard their justifications for annexing Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, so I don't think anyone has any reason to believe they'd leave if they were just allowed to "protect their naval base"
I'm getting the feeling this is more of a "vibes" conversation though, sorry for throwing off the vibes
I agree. A war usually ends with one of the sides overpowering their opponent. The bombing would have made Ukraine stronger and Russia weaker relatively, but in that process it would have only made the playing field more level. Something that doesn't happen when the end of a war is nearing.
While I hate elon, this is a bad take. Ukraine and russia boarder each other. Most of the fighting has been over land. What good is a navy in such a battle? The most I could think of is shelling but AFAIK russia has been doing it's shelling with traditional artillery. Further, Russia's navy is a hot garbage mess. They only have 1 aircraft carrier and it's been scuttled for pretty much the entire war (and has constantly caught on fire while being scuttled).
The only wars that are hard to fight without a navy are wars where a significant portion of the warring nation and front-lines are near the water. That's not this war.
Not to say there aren't advantages to Ukraine sinking the russian navy. But rather, it's unlikely that "the war would have ended tomorrow if they did".
The russian navy can exert control and is a threat to the hundreds of kilometrrs of black sea cost as well as the ukrainian ports being absolutely crucial to the ukranian economy.
Also dictators like their fancy navy. Blowing it up would damage Putins image tremendously
No disagreement, it would be a major blow to russia. I just don't think it would have ended the war. The navy simply hasn't played a major role in this war.
They fire missiles from those ships. Also can prevent grain exports from Ukraine which has a major impact on the economic war.
Significant damage to the Black Sea fleet would make it clear to many in Russia that Putin is weak which makes a coup more likely. Continuing this war is not in Russia's best interests it's only in Putin's interests (admitting defeat also makes him look weak. A coup in Russia likely ends the war.
Certainly it's not something that would automatically end the war, but it significantly increases the probability of the war ending sooner. And there is significant strategic value to that fleet even if it's not directly engaged in combat.
the navy acts as mobile missile bases, they also allow Russia to move supplies by water, with there only being 2 land routes to most of the front, the ability to use shipping to bypass blockades, the sinking of the Russian fleet would also have allowed Ukrainians to more easily destroy the bridge between Russia and Crimea, this would make 80%+ of Russian positions in Ukraine untenable in terms of holding militarily, and since Putin can't afford to lose half his army in just a few months he would be forced to pull out and negotiate.
The crazy thing is that the Air Force, Army, and just about every other branch of the military has contracted or is looking to contract with Space X to get Starlink. He doesn't have a problem with providing the US with that capability because we're not in direct conflict, but will deny it to ukraine when it's in Russia's favor.
After this I, I would totally re-look those agreements.
Russia isn't an "enemy" legally, and halting a service to a third government to prevent an attack on Russia isn't the same as hindering the US military.
He has not. Get over yourself. Could you live with yourself knowing your technology would be used to kill people? I certainly could not. It's not like he sabotaged an operation, he simply refused to get blood on his hands. Which should be admirable, right? It's not his fault a country full of no-brain socialists is doing all it can to troll the free world. He is not part of the war yet people seem to want him to be... Somehow. Very very strange. It's easy to point the finger at someone whose richness you envy, but put yourself in their place.
Now would you comply with a request to enable your service simply so it could be used to kill actual people?
Don't get me wrong, I fucking despise Russia and socialism and totalitarianism, but it doesn't mean I am willing to partake in murdering those who don't.
Musks actions enabled those russian warships to launch missiles into ukranian cities with no regard to civilian casualties. So instead of the russian aggressors being sunk and killed in port, it's innocent civilians that die. What a great trade off.
Also, look at grandparent's comment that started this thread you're commenting in. Space-X now has a DoD contract to provide Ukraine access to starlink. Then go lookup starshield, the planned military focused offshoot of starlink. The point is Musk has no issue selling shit to the US gov to help participation/perpetuation of war.
So don't give us that russian talking point that musk's actions were to avoid blood on his hands. That weak argument was so easy to poke holes in, and it's insulting you'd think anyone would fall for.
Yes I could knowing it would kill invaders and what's most important russians. Polander here so might be biased against those mongrels more than you but I would love to provide more tools to get rid of them from Ukrainian territory.
You're an absolute dry dog turd. He signed up for exactly that back when everyone joined the Ukraine bandwagon. He did it for internet points then, and afterwards pussed out or was paid out. He contracted this exact blood on his hands.
Correction. He doesn't have a problem providing the US with service because the government pays a SHITLOAD for guaranteed access to that. Ukraine cannot afford such expenditures.
I think the fact that to Elon Musk the morals of this are confusing to him, says a lot about who he really is.
Or rather confirms what many may have already expected for a while.
Russia started an unprovoked war against a peaceful neighbor. Ukraine is defending themselves, while Russia can end this instantly, by merely going home. How can Musk doubt the Ukrainians right to defend themselves?
As I see it, he can only do that by having no empathy or sense of morality, something he has shown in many situations now.
Also the escalation thing is a very clear Russian and Putin talking point. Russia call it Ukrainian escalation even if Russia did the same 10 times worse. The only escalation of this conflict is 100% due to Russia being the aggressor and their continued aggression.
He calls himself a free speech absolutist and uses saudi funds to buy twitter at the same time. Then the Saudis use twitter data to give the death penalty to people who don't like them publicly on twitter and elon does - nothing.
Because anything that isn't "Ukraine rolls over and gives Russia everything," is escalation. Obviously.
Nevermind that Russia is the aggressor who invaded another country and has been continually escalating the level of violence they're using. Anything other countries do to help Ukraine is seen as prolonging the war, and anything that Ukraine does to fight back is called escalation.
If I had a product, I wouldn't want it being used for war either. Know how id handle it? By not accepting millions from the Pentagon in the first place
So if the country you lived it was being invaded, would you turn off the Internet in your country to prevent acts of war in the form of defensive operations?
If the country I lived in was being invaded they'd end civilization with their stockpile of 3000 or so nuclear warheads. Would I help them do that? No.
Aiding a terrorist regime by disabling this attack and losing Ukrainian assets. Acting as a foreign agent by discussing this with Putin. That's two, right there.
We've sanctioned Russia heavily for this and begun providing that money to Ukraine as relief. They've stolen children from Ukraine. Elon is a war criminal.
Laws don't apply to the rich my dude, we know this. Besides, if it were illegal to meddle with foreign states, there's a laundry list of US administrations that would be guilty of that
PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO DESIGNATED TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS (FUNDRAISING) (18 U.S.C. 2339B)
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 gave the Secretary of State authority to designate foreign terrorist organizations whose terrorist activity threatens the security of United States nationals or the national defense, foreign relations or economic interests of the United States. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 302, 110 Stat. 1214, 1248. See also section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1189). The Antiterrorism Act also created 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which makes it unlawful, within the United States, or for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States anywhere, to knowingly provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 303, 110 Stat. 1214, 1250.
Note: The HARM act hasn't passed yet, so this might be on shaky grounds. But he may yet find himself in violation. Also, I'm not a lawyer, and I'd bet there's better ways to prosecute this.
FARA is an acronym for the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (“FARA” or “the Act”). FARA requires the registration of, and disclosures by, an “agent of a foreign principal” who, either directly or through another person, within the United States (1) engages in “political activities” on behalf of a foreign principal; (2) acts as a foreign principal’s public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee, or political consultant; (3) solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of a foreign principal; or (4) represents the interests of the foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government. In addition, FARA requires agents to conspicuously label “informational materials” transmitted in the United States for or in the interest of a foreign principal. There are some exemptions to FARA’s registration and labeling requirements for specified categories of agents and activities.
What are the penalties for violating FARA?
The penalty for a willful violation of FARA is imprisonment for not more than five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. Certain violations are considered misdemeanors, with penalties of imprisonment of not more than six months, a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. There are also civil enforcement provisions that empower the Attorney General to seek an injunction requiring registration under FARA (for applicable activities) or correcting a deficient registration statement.
PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO DESIGNATED TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS (FUNDRAISING) (18 U.S.C. 2339B)
Russian federation is not in the US's list of terrorist organization
He did not provide anything to Russian federation
FARA requires the registration of, and disclosures by, an “agent of a foreign principal” who, either directly or through another person, within the United States
(1) engages in “political activities” on behalf of a foreign principal;
You'd have a hard time proving that this falls under "political activity" and that he did it because of foreign influence.
(2) acts as a foreign principal’s public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee, or political consultant;
(3) solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of a foreign principal; or
(4) represents the interests of the foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government. In addition, FARA requires agents to conspicuously label “informational materials” transmitted in the United States for or in the interest of a foreign principal. There are some exemptions to FARA’s registration and labeling requirements for specified categories of agents and activities.
Without your ISP you wouldn't have been able to post that comment.
So if your ISP decides to disconnect your service when it feels like you're not doing the things they want you to do with it, you should still thank your ISP because you wouldn't be able to do the limited things they allow you to do otherwise.
Part of me thinks that, based on his conduct over the recent years, Elon Musk is exactly so stupid that he never considered that if his company supplies gear for a military, they're going to use it to do, like, military shit, and now he's having a real crisis of conscience because he just never thought that his stuff would be used for, you know, war.
But on this occasion, I'm pretty sure Hanlon's Razor won't apply. Even if he said "Yes, I've been really really stupid about this and I'm a stupid little boy and you can quote me on that, put it on a shirt, make a Netflix documentary about it while you're at it", I'd still think this is is obviously a smokescreen and he's being Putined one way or other.
This whole thing has made me so angry, I'm so upset about this.
Musk doesn't have the power to to stop Russian ships attacking cargo vessels in the black sea so he shouldn't be stopping Ukrainians from fighting back - in their own territory.
Musk is partially to blame for the lack of food coming from Ukraine. He's responsiveness got higher food prices.
If you decide to make Elon Musk a wanted man for interfering with communications infrastructure and wartime military goals, let me just put out there that you have my thumbs up.
He protected militants participating in an attack. This resulted in thousands of civilian deaths by prolonging the war.
That's the only way to look at this.
A few years ago, I saw a SpaceX press conference about the state of the space launch industry. One of the questions asked, by a lady with a heavy Slavic accent, was whether Russia and second-world countries would be allowed to engage in cooperation. The answer was no for reasons of national security.
Now SpaceX has a self-declared wartime Russian agent at its head. How the fucking turntables.
I hate the prick too but that's not what "registered foreign agent" means. That's specifically referring to US citizens who perform govt lobbying activity in the employ of foreign interests.
Just my two cents, he's a textbook narcissist. Would he accept responsibility, no. Is his ego so big he thinks he can actually start WWIII and nuclear armageddon, absolutely. Add a dose of kompromat et vois la, Elon Musk is now sympathetic to Russia.
Did you read what happened? It was literally turned off the entire time. Ukraine fired at an area that wasn't under starlinks current usage for the war (due to US contraints) and the warheads lost connection.
Your comment is literally the most wrong comment in this whole fiasco yet one of the most upvoted. Yall need to read more
Musk just opened himself up to an act of retorsion. Ukraine can go as hard as they want to after him, because the rule of proportionate response doesn't apply to acts of retorsion.
You yourself conflate foreign powers and foreign governments in this very comment. Musk is obviously not a government, but he's definitely foreign and it's hard to find a definition of the word "power" that "able to shut down comms for military in a way that completely scuttles a mission that's in progress" doesn't fit.
Yeah, well, when did we start using that term? Was it before billionaires? Because if you act like billionaires are normal individuals and ignore the fact that they can function as if they can force governance on others, then you're just begging for the corpo-state instead of an elected government.
Does Musk count as a foreign power? I mean I could technically see that being the case, but your reasoning here is slightly flawed. That would be like calling Boeing a foreign power outside the U.S.
Nah, I get the hate he is getting, I personally develop a serious allergic reaction towards anyone and anything with a net worth of more than a few million dollars. BUT. I don't think he is with the Russians. Why would he be, it would destroy whatever reputation he still had. This one is not a good look either, but as someone who lives not even a thousand kilometers away from the frontline, I personally don't want the Russian fleet "destroyed at anchor" as it would, as Musk has put it "escalate the conflict" and probably by a lot. I want this war to end. And I underatand that some people who probably live very far from Ukraine want to see Russia get punished (as do I to some degree), but that won't happen, at least not without potentially the entire world ending up as collateral damage, or at the very least a few countries around Ukraine, and as luck would have, those would probably include my own.
It seems as it doesn't matter if I start my comment by establishing whether I hate the guy or don't, so this time I won't. The thing I hate, is war. And would bombing the fleet ever prolong that wouldn't it? I know it's not very nice of me to assume that Ukraine won't win this war, not even with the advantage the bombing could have given them, but the weight classes are not too balanced, even if Russia seems to preform a lot more poorly than we assumed before the war it would.
I hate war too, but Russia started a major war for internal political points, and now is enjoying the fruits of their miscalculated aggression. Their fleet should rightly be an artificial reef for the fish of the Black Sea. Musk should be prosecuted under the Logan Act and any other applicable law.
Pacifism is pro fascist, to placate those who could fight against fascism to inaction is to aid the fascist. the fascist cares not for moral force, the only thing a fascist understands is physical force. to stop the fascist, you must fight him.
remember Czechoslovakia, remember Poland, France and Britain both followed your logic, the results? one of the greatest losses of human life we have ever seen, the slaughter of entire ethnic groups, the destruction of Europe, completely.
you know why? because the fascist does not stop until he is stopped, or has consumed everything.
The thing I hate, is war. And would bombing the fleet ever prolong that wouldn’t it?
Taking out the fleet would reduce Russia the aggressors capability of continuing this war. If you hate war, you should absolutely support the defending side. It should not pay to be the aggressor.
So assuming Ukraine ultimately wins, this would have done the opposite of prolonging the war.
Even if Russia were to occupy Ukraine entirely they'd still lose in the end. They don't have the resources to successfully occupy a country of Ukraine's size and population if Ukrainians actively resist. Putin's plan depended on a quick installation of a puppet government and there being little to no resistance from the Ukrainian population. That didn't happen, Russia will ultimately lose. Whether they lose after a few years of a conventional military war or loses after decades of Ukraine conducting an asynchronous warfare campaign against an occupation, all paths lead to a Russian defeat.
Holding a country is significantly more difficult to achieve than invading a country. Russia hasn't even been successful in invading Ukraine, they haven't even gotten to the hard part yet.
So the idea that not supporting Ukraine will somehow lead to a faster resolution to the war is simply bullshit propaganda. The only way to end the war sooner is to expedite a Ukrainian victory. Anything else is promoting Russian occupation and very likely another Holodomor kind of situation.
It seems as it doesn't matter if I start my comment by establishing whether I hate the guy or don't,
It's not that.
There's a huge embargo on Ukrainian grains that the Russians are using to grab the world by the balls right now. They refused to renew the agreement to let ships pass last month after several months of being a pain in the ass iirc. The most affected are poor African nations on the verge of starvation and many Asian nations that gave seen skyrocketing prices. The Russians are using this as leverage, but in the meantime I don't think it's only soldiers who will be dying for this power move.
Russia has already lost the war. Even if they take the entire country, they've lost.
They've turned the entire West against them, and they're feeling the ramifications from resultant economic sanctions.
NATO has been revitalized, at a time where a lot of the West was beginning to doubt its necessity.
Sweden and Finland have decided to join NATO as a direct consequence of the invasion.
The political left and center in the West are decidedly anti Russian now. Except for the extreme far right, the right is anti Russian as well. They've left a negative impression that Zoomers and Millennials won't forget easily.
Their military is seen as an international laughingstock. They can only make empty threats now, and their ability to project power is heavily diminished. Putin is no longer seen as a mastermind strategist.
You could even argue the government is as seen as weak with the Wagner coup and how far they got with little resistance.
Population collapse may be inevitable. COVID already took some of their working population. This war has taken even more of them, and they have a draft even. The working population may not be large enough to support the aging population nor the economy.
The draft and war in general led to a good number of intellectuals fleeing the country. Their best and brightest are gone.
I think we're going to look back and see this war as the beginning of the Putin regime's collapse.
I didn't make a tactical decision, I voiced my opinion. Musk didn't really make a decision either. They asked him for a resource he can provide, as far as I know without going through the Government of the USA, he politely refused. He only had to make a tactical decision, because they presented him one. Either way he was going to decide would have influenced the outcome of the war, so the way that is staying out of it does is the way he is influencing it.
Would removing Putin's ability to effectively wage war through what would have been a modern day pearl harbour potentially up to and including the nuclear retaliation have been a good thing?
Is that the question we should be asking?
Perhaps asking why it is up to a private citizen to provide vital military infrastructure is a better question.
Just understand this headline could have just as easily read: Venture Capitalist averts Global Nuclear War.
It's all about perspective. Your opinion of Elon Musk shouldn't matter because he should have never been in this position to begin with.
I belive so too. You know why? Because a war never ends with the weaker side bombing a military unit of the stronger. Lot of people say this would be like Pearl Harbor. Did Pearl Harbor win WW2 for the Japanese? Before you ask, Russia is nowhere as strong as we thought before the war, but if someone says Ukraine is stronger, they are clearly out of their minds.
For Ukraine to win Russia just needs to go home, Russia left Afghanistan who were way more ill equipped, and they will leave Ukraine.
The reason you have heard the tide is turning many times, is because it has happened continuously since the beginning. Russia attempted a blitz against Ukraine, but failed, and lost territories they gained already early on. They also lost Kherson, and now they are losing on the retracted fronts too, both in the east and south.
The Russian army has only lost and hasn't gained ground for a year now. The only place Russia gained a little bit, was Bakhmut, and that was Wagner and not the Russian army. Wagner is dysfunctional now, another loss for Russia due to internal disagreements.
With DoD’s budget, I would expect their own satellite constellation. (Heck, they already have one for GPS.) Maybe they’ll sell bandwith to civilians, too?
They already funded one through starlink, maybe they will confiscate it for breach of contract and national security. Probably not, but elon is in the fuck around stage right now and I'm curious when he's going to find out.
Switzerland were neutral in WWII and the USA were neutral until they were attacked by the Japanese, does that mean they were colluding with Nazi Germany?
The Swiss also provided safe passage for Jews escaping the Holocaust. The Swiss also shot down German plans that violated their air space. Where they "colluding" with Nazi Germany then too?
Well america isn't at war with Russia and he specifically didn't aid anyone here.
I hate this fucker as much as anyone but what you've said makes no sense
I'm not a US citizen so my opinion doesn't count for shit. But if it were up to me, the US needs to take control of SpaceX away from the hands of this narcissistic megalomaniac ASAP, as a matter of national security.
It should have been "obvious what they were going to do" the moment their country was invaded and they fought back instead of rolling over.
Elon Musk is now interfering in the defense against an ongoing genocide. He offered them this infrastructural support, he was going to get paid for it, he has shot himself in the foot on that side of the equation, and he is using that "mistake" to justify interfering in policy and planning for a sovereign government trying to defend its people.
There's no acceptable way to spin this. As my high school accounting teacher used to say, "You either knew or should have known." He knows what he's doing, or he's dangerously incompetent. Either way, he should be cut off from any opportunity to fuck with Ukraine.
That is not exactly true. While it is true that the military brought Starlinks over to Poland and Musk gave 1500 units to Ukraine as well. There was a lot of back and forth because technically you are not supposed to use a commercial product for actual military operations. For everday activities it was fine but when Ukraine started sending drone feeds over the systems and supplied those feeds to the US Forces, it sort of crossed a line and they had to start negotiating the terms in the contracts as well as scaling back the usage. So all along Musk has been walking a fine line with being complicit with his tech being used for war and trying to avoid it.
Let me clarify I am not a Musk apologist, I am just adding some context. I still do not like that he can seemingly over reach like this, but if the terms were not in place and negotiating was not done he is within his rights.
The US government has also bought terminals for Ukraine. That makes me hopeful that they'll keep Musk from being able to make these sorts of decisions in the future so their investment will be the most useful it can be.
I'm pro-Ukraine, but I can understand someone not wanting their technology to be used for warfare. Saying "here's Starlink, it'll keep you connected even if Russia bombs your lines of communication" is different than saying "here's a technology you can strap to a bomb and guide it to it's destination."
Musk is an egotistical asshole, but there's validity for a company not wanting their technology, their communication pathways, to be used for killing people.
I learnt the hard way in another thread that any comment not synonymous with "corporations should not be allowed to stay neutral regarding international conflicts" is not going to be received kindly.
Musk started out not neutral. This started as putting starlink over Ukraine to help with the war. Once it looks like they'll succeed in a big strike against Russia, Musk says no. How is that neutral?
I don't recall when the American people agreed to have war. I also don't remember when congress agreed to have war.
America isn't in war with Russia. So, spare me the bullshit. What Elon did stopped an escalation that could've led to a nuclear war. And yes, you deserve what I said. You deserve to feel hunger, and see your family and children die, so that you learn how bad war is and how sometimes you have to learn how to be a real man and shove your ego up your ass to save lives.
Theatrics.
The DoD can overwrite musk if they want, they have full control over starlink via spaceforce.
In fact the DoD funded the whole thing, musk was just used as a front so people dont get pissed the USA installed the biggest satelite contelation in orbit that has huge military applications.
Its a sure bet starlink is still servicing ukrainian drone ships.
The DoD just told musk to spread some disinformation so russia cant claim in public that ukraine is using american satelites.
What a disingenuous statement. By not agreeing to do it he is complicit in major acts of war, i.e. whatever attacks the Russians do with their fleet. What a tosser.
so while I hate this guy, starlink is complicit in the war either way. either for russia, or for ukraine.
War is peace.
Musk is love.
Starlink was specifically agreed for civilian use only. It's the Ukraine who tries to breach that agreement, SpaceX simply doesn't want to be accused of exporting weapons
That's a bullshit excuse used by Melon's fan boys.
Whether the technology is restricted by ITAR isn't based whether it was ever used as a weapon, but whether the US government thinks it can be used as a weapon.
And the US government was left scrambling to get a formal contract in for Ukrainian access after Musk started to publicly spout pro kremlin shit. So there's no way an ITAR argument could fly: the DoD wanted a contract to help ensure starlink availability for fucks sake, especially since Musk proved unreliable and a useful idiot for Putin's wildest assplay desires.
Contract for civilian use mind you. Strapping starlinks to kamikaze drones is a whole different story
Why would the DoD negotiate a contract for civilian use? That's not their job.
Ah yes, the Department of Defense.
Famous for overseeing many civilian contracts including Netflix accounts, Comcast accounts and my subscription to Highlights magazine (I like the word searches).
That's even worse because US government can change it's stance on starlink any time - which would be disaster for SpaceX
Yeah, if a much larger country was invading, shelling apartment buildings, mining the fuck out of farmland and murdering thousands of people, I'd probably breach a ToS.
Also, that sounds a bit absurd considering he just got the US DoD to pay for Ukraine's starlink service.
Also that larger country is firing missiles from ships in the Black Sea, and many of those missiles do kill civilians.
Also using those ships to disrupt grain shipments which is causing issues with the food supply world wide.
Ah, but Elron saved us ALL from nuclear war. A typical grandiose and pretentious statement for him, I suppose.
No it wasn't. The Pentagon pays for the service explicitly as military aid to Ukraine. Since, you know, Russia blew up a lot of Ukrainian infrastructure.
Saying ‘the Ukraine’ gives away your loyalties, tovarisch.
Uber wealthy private citizens able to control the path of wars in countries they don’t live in.
That’s some dystopian shit.
It's always been that way though
Almost exclusively, in fact.
Not to this degree. Musk is the richest person ever to have lived. He’s got more money than most nations on the planet have ever had, comparatively. His wealth, power, and influence are obscene.
His wealth is currently growing at $14.75 million per hour. He could spend a million dollars every day for a thousand years and still be the richest person on earth.
I don’t think many people can fathom how extreme his wealth hoarding actually is. It’s literally mind-boggling. He could single-handedly solve the hunger crisis planet-wide and make a huge impact on the climate crisis, but instead he uses his money to fellate himself, take credit for others’ work, and ruin things.
In the past, kings and barons have only wished to have the money and power he wields, and this is what he’s doing with it. It’s absolutely shameful.
nah, it's a relatively new thing, like only found after ww2.
I don't think so. For example, isn't it believed that Rothschild was a large contributing factor to The War of 1812?
I'd imagine a lot of those "old money" families dabbled throughout history
By anti-Semitic conspiracy circles, yes. By anyone who has looked into these claims without being a conspiracy nut, no.
Quite a few supporters for independence in America's revolutionary war against England were quite wealthy, and stood to make very good money with an independent US. Hancock was one of them.
I don't know if I'd say that was the entire reason for the war of independence, but I think it was substantial enough that we can consider it an example in this case.
no, it is not, just because there was an economic incentive for some people during the revolution doesn't mean that it is comparable, if you want comparable, imagine if the of the richest Italians had replaced many of the American cannons with wooden fakes
I think it's somewhat comparable since the economic incentive was heavily skewed towards leadership vs the common person.
no, because the leadership actually did the fighting, unlike musk who just shut off service when daddy Putin asked him to
It's important to note that the company, and the technology being used was not created by him, too. He just bought it... And now he's doing evil things with it while he pretends he's some sort of anti-war hero.
Like... Congratulations, douchebag, you helped a defend an evil superpower during their active, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation involving countless war crimes and crimes against humanity. What a fuckin' hero you are, Elon.
The way he phrases it is as if Ukraine asked him to enable them to make the attack. They asked him to switch it back on, because he had explicitly disabled service in the area, after giving the devices to Ukraine in the first place.
So they can Netflix and chill during the Russian invasion. That's definitely what these devices were for. No way Elon could've known there was any military usage in a country desperately fighting for it's existance.
He's said as much... That's the really fucked up part. He's behind
“Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes”. -Elon Musk
Like... 'don't worry about the war crimes, just Netflix and chill, Ukraine.'
Fuck Elon Musk.
"If I had agreed to their request, then spacex would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't SpaceX be explicitly complicit in conflict escalation by interfering with Ukraine's ability to defend itself?
i guess we found out what musk thinks about the trolley problem
Couldn't you say the same thing about power companies and the mail system? We're taking about shutting off utilities to help/hinder those that align with ideals.
"The best defense is a good offense"
Looks like you're right... I doubt the Russians agree with you though, lol.
Well at the very least you have to agree, that he was in quite a dilemma. If he allows it, he interferes by action. If he doesn't, he interferes by inaction.
To him, and to me too, inaction seems more impartial, which is probably all he cares about at this point, and once again it's what I would probably care about too.
You can be mad at someone who is impartial, but at the end of the day, the only thing you are mad at, is them not doing jack-shit, which of course can be very annoying.
Not really since its already being used by the military, knowingly and deliberately provided.
So he's already active.
Well now you got me, since I didn't know that. So this guy then just lacks any integrity, which is not suprising at all.
He had a choice in his hands with privileged information, then he chose the Russian side. This declarations are just justification to wash his hands, he is team Putin all the way, always has been. He has been seen partying with Russian oligarchs. The reason he bought SpaceX was because his original idea of buying dismantled ICBMs from his rusky arms dealer pals was too incredibly stupid to pull off, and it was easier to do it by way of an aerospace company.
Starlink service was bought by Ukraine to provide internet access to civilians and the military. Technically it was provided by the US because Musk offered to, for free initially, though he later pedalled back to charge inordinate amounts of money. Which the US and UA agreed to pay anyway. Because single companies monopolizing entire control to fundamental services is a huge issue. War time or not. He is profiteering and unfortunately owns the only company that can provide this specific kind of service. But in strategic matters, he will always go to bat for his BFF Vova.
People just don't get it. All they want is dead Russians. I myself would prefer humiliated and defeated Russians, not necessarily dead. All they have to do is capitulate and admit they are losers and ill be happy.
Elon musk is not a military entity. He is a private citizen. His taxes just like yours and mine are going into this war. But he is also providing starlink to the civilian population as a humanitarian gesture. Expecting every private citizen to get up and wield a weapon against Russia for Ukraine is not realistic, nor does refusal to do so make you complicit in helping Russia. Just like being a conscientious objector in Vietnam didn't make you complicit in supporting the Viet Kong.
According to CNBC, SpaceX is funding Starlink in Ukraine, not the government:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/01/pentagon-awards-spacex-with-ukraine-contract-for-starlink-satellite-internet.html#:~:text=Musk%20reportedly%20told%20the%20Pentagon,continue%20to%20fund%20the%20service.
First paragraph of the article you linked:
That's true, but still, those terminals cost money and SpaceX has provided free access for thousands of Starlink stations for Ukraine military access.
Oh pish posh. Elon's isn't providing starlink as a humanitarian, he's making the US government pay for it. That's his whole game, subsidized capitalism that gives him plausible deniability.
Taxes? This clown is far too rich to pay taxes.
Elon doesn't get it. He is neck deep in it. With his denying he helps the Invaders whereas with his allowance he would have helped ukraine fighting for their freedom.
He should be put on a list now imho.
Moscow simply paid him more than Kyiv. Probably accompanied by the phrase "Would be a shame if these pictures got out".
We've seen him shirtless. They can't show us anything worse than that.
Hasn't he been photographed with Ghislane Maxwell? There's probably much worse out there.
The video involving an excessively bear like Russian man and Musk bent over saying "Use me daddy!", while wearing nothing but a pair of frilly, white, crotchless panties?
As long as I can't see Musk's weird torso.
Oh it shows every fold, ripple and moan.
Like a slightly hairy ham that's been left out for too long in august.
Ukraine is taking on the debt, so they kind of are
Alternate take: Elon Musk knowingly and intentionally prolonged the war in Ukraine. Sinking the Russian fleet at anchor would have been the most expedient way to end the war with as few casualties as possible. It's really really hard to fight a war without a navy.
The last time we capitulated to a dictator who invaded Europe, they didn't stop with just the first invasion. Just because Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons doesn't mean we have to roll over for him and give him an easy win in Ukraine.
Which country will nationalize literal satellites flying outside of any country's jurisdiction?
The countries where the companies resides
If anything, Ukraine having control over the Black Sea means they can prolong their effort in the war, not end it quicker.
Yes because somehow Ukraine defeating Russia will lead to the war continuing... what the fuck is wrong with you.
That's not what I'm saying. Russia having control over the black sea means more for Ukraine than for Russia, as it's essentially the only route to deliver supplies to Ukraine. Russia has plenty of other routes to continue supplying the war effort. Taking back control over those waters means Ukraine can more easily import and export supplies and it extends their ability to fight the war, but it doesn't do much to actually push Russia out (except maybe cut Russia off from a quick retreat out of Crimea).
Taking out the Russian fleet undoubtedly would have helped Ukraine, i don't dispute that, I just don't think it would have expedited any kind of end to the war because Russia has other options both for supplying their positions and in launching attacks and defenses.
If we believe Ukraine will win in the end, something that helps Ukraine should also help them win sooner. That is the opposite of prolonging as you claim.
Seems to me that although this war is drawing out, the tides are turning to favor Ukraine more than Russia.
Yes, but I don't belive that. Sometimes good guys lose. And as inefficient and slow the Russian army is, it has multiple times the resources, and don't make the mistake of thinking they are stupid or something like that, because you would underestimate your opponent.
"The tides are turning in favor of Ukraine" is something we've been hearing since the start of the war and I'm believing it less and less by the day.
This is a pretty wild claim, but if it's true then it's the best argument for a treaty I've heard. If all they want is access to the sea, no need to continue warring over Crimea or Donbas, just sign another lease to the port
Though I've repeatedly heard their justifications for annexing Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, so I don't think anyone has any reason to believe they'd leave if they were just allowed to "protect their naval base"
I'm getting the feeling this is more of a "vibes" conversation though, sorry for throwing off the vibes
I agree. A war usually ends with one of the sides overpowering their opponent. The bombing would have made Ukraine stronger and Russia weaker relatively, but in that process it would have only made the playing field more level. Something that doesn't happen when the end of a war is nearing.
While I hate elon, this is a bad take. Ukraine and russia boarder each other. Most of the fighting has been over land. What good is a navy in such a battle? The most I could think of is shelling but AFAIK russia has been doing it's shelling with traditional artillery. Further, Russia's navy is a hot garbage mess. They only have 1 aircraft carrier and it's been scuttled for pretty much the entire war (and has constantly caught on fire while being scuttled).
The only wars that are hard to fight without a navy are wars where a significant portion of the warring nation and front-lines are near the water. That's not this war.
Not to say there aren't advantages to Ukraine sinking the russian navy. But rather, it's unlikely that "the war would have ended tomorrow if they did".
The russian navy can exert control and is a threat to the hundreds of kilometrrs of black sea cost as well as the ukrainian ports being absolutely crucial to the ukranian economy.
Also dictators like their fancy navy. Blowing it up would damage Putins image tremendously
No disagreement, it would be a major blow to russia. I just don't think it would have ended the war. The navy simply hasn't played a major role in this war.
They fire missiles from those ships. Also can prevent grain exports from Ukraine which has a major impact on the economic war.
Significant damage to the Black Sea fleet would make it clear to many in Russia that Putin is weak which makes a coup more likely. Continuing this war is not in Russia's best interests it's only in Putin's interests (admitting defeat also makes him look weak. A coup in Russia likely ends the war.
Certainly it's not something that would automatically end the war, but it significantly increases the probability of the war ending sooner. And there is significant strategic value to that fleet even if it's not directly engaged in combat.
the navy acts as mobile missile bases, they also allow Russia to move supplies by water, with there only being 2 land routes to most of the front, the ability to use shipping to bypass blockades, the sinking of the Russian fleet would also have allowed Ukrainians to more easily destroy the bridge between Russia and Crimea, this would make 80%+ of Russian positions in Ukraine untenable in terms of holding militarily, and since Putin can't afford to lose half his army in just a few months he would be forced to pull out and negotiate.
Fighting back counts as escalation?
If you're an orc bootlicker like EM yep
The crazy thing is that the Air Force, Army, and just about every other branch of the military has contracted or is looking to contract with Space X to get Starlink. He doesn't have a problem with providing the US with that capability because we're not in direct conflict, but will deny it to ukraine when it's in Russia's favor.
After this I, I would totally re-look those agreements.
Government contracts for Starlink services
If he tried cutting off the US military during an active operation, his life could be made very bad very quickly.
That would be literal treason.
It's already treason since he has provided aid and comfort to a hostile foreign government.
Russia isn't an "enemy" legally, and halting a service to a third government to prevent an attack on Russia isn't the same as hindering the US military.
It's horrible, but it isn't treason
He has not. Get over yourself. Could you live with yourself knowing your technology would be used to kill people? I certainly could not. It's not like he sabotaged an operation, he simply refused to get blood on his hands. Which should be admirable, right? It's not his fault a country full of no-brain socialists is doing all it can to troll the free world. He is not part of the war yet people seem to want him to be... Somehow. Very very strange. It's easy to point the finger at someone whose richness you envy, but put yourself in their place. Now would you comply with a request to enable your service simply so it could be used to kill actual people? Don't get me wrong, I fucking despise Russia and socialism and totalitarianism, but it doesn't mean I am willing to partake in murdering those who don't.
Musks actions enabled those russian warships to launch missiles into ukranian cities with no regard to civilian casualties. So instead of the russian aggressors being sunk and killed in port, it's innocent civilians that die. What a great trade off.
Also, look at grandparent's comment that started this thread you're commenting in. Space-X now has a DoD contract to provide Ukraine access to starlink. Then go lookup starshield, the planned military focused offshoot of starlink. The point is Musk has no issue selling shit to the US gov to help participation/perpetuation of war.
So don't give us that russian talking point that musk's actions were to avoid blood on his hands. That weak argument was so easy to poke holes in, and it's insulting you'd think anyone would fall for.
Yes I could knowing it would kill invaders and what's most important russians. Polander here so might be biased against those mongrels more than you but I would love to provide more tools to get rid of them from Ukrainian territory.
You're an absolute dry dog turd. He signed up for exactly that back when everyone joined the Ukraine bandwagon. He did it for internet points then, and afterwards pussed out or was paid out. He contracted this exact blood on his hands.
shades of howard hughs level wacky, but no one ever thought he'd work with the russians.
And space-x represent a host of capabilities that certainly fall in the country's direct security interest. nationalize spacex?
it would never ever be considered but musk is that fucking stupid.
also, he's lost tens of billions via twitter, so he's ripe for compromise.
tsk...
Correction. He doesn't have a problem providing the US with service because the government pays a SHITLOAD for guaranteed access to that. Ukraine cannot afford such expenditures.
I think space X shouldn't be involved with the war. It is not a military company. I don't know, just my opinion.
And now he is complicit with numerous ship-based missile attacks on Ukrainian civilians.
I think the fact that to Elon Musk the morals of this are confusing to him, says a lot about who he really is.
Or rather confirms what many may have already expected for a while.
Russia started an unprovoked war against a peaceful neighbor. Ukraine is defending themselves, while Russia can end this instantly, by merely going home. How can Musk doubt the Ukrainians right to defend themselves?
As I see it, he can only do that by having no empathy or sense of morality, something he has shown in many situations now.
Also the escalation thing is a very clear Russian and Putin talking point. Russia call it Ukrainian escalation even if Russia did the same 10 times worse. The only escalation of this conflict is 100% due to Russia being the aggressor and their continued aggression.
He calls himself a free speech absolutist and uses saudi funds to buy twitter at the same time. Then the Saudis use twitter data to give the death penalty to people who don't like them publicly on twitter and elon does - nothing.
How is counter attacking an aggressor's military targets "escalation" ?
Because anything that isn't "Ukraine rolls over and gives Russia everything," is escalation. Obviously.
Nevermind that Russia is the aggressor who invaded another country and has been continually escalating the level of violence they're using. Anything other countries do to help Ukraine is seen as prolonging the war, and anything that Ukraine does to fight back is called escalation.
Fellas, is humanitarianism when the world's richest capitalist says, "you can borrow my stuff, but only if you use it when and how I want".
Only if by "borrow" you mean "making the pentagon pay for it".
If I had a product, I wouldn't want it being used for war either. Know how id handle it? By not accepting millions from the Pentagon in the first place
Hoo boy, if they didn't accept all that money, they wouldn't have a company.
How so? Starlink predates the agreement musk made with the Pentagon to provide services in Ukraine
So if the country you lived it was being invaded, would you turn off the Internet in your country to prevent acts of war in the form of defensive operations?
... if they somehow had control over the entire countries network?
If the country I lived in was being invaded they'd end civilization with their stockpile of 3000 or so nuclear warheads. Would I help them do that? No.
Wut?
How is he not in jail already?
I just can’t get my head around this.
The fuck ist happening here
Name 1 thing that hes done thats against the laws of the united states of america?
Aiding a terrorist regime by disabling this attack and losing Ukrainian assets. Acting as a foreign agent by discussing this with Putin. That's two, right there.
We've sanctioned Russia heavily for this and begun providing that money to Ukraine as relief. They've stolen children from Ukraine. Elon is a war criminal.
Laws don't apply to the rich my dude, we know this. Besides, if it were illegal to meddle with foreign states, there's a laundry list of US administrations that would be guilty of that
And how is this against the USA law?
First point:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-16-providing-material-support-designated-terrorist-organizations
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 gave the Secretary of State authority to designate foreign terrorist organizations whose terrorist activity threatens the security of United States nationals or the national defense, foreign relations or economic interests of the United States. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 302, 110 Stat. 1214, 1248. See also section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1189). The Antiterrorism Act also created 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which makes it unlawful, within the United States, or for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States anywhere, to knowingly provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 303, 110 Stat. 1214, 1250.
Note: The HARM act hasn't passed yet, so this might be on shaky grounds. But he may yet find himself in violation. Also, I'm not a lawyer, and I'd bet there's better ways to prosecute this.
Second point:
https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/frequently-asked-questions
What is FARA?
FARA is an acronym for the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (“FARA” or “the Act”). FARA requires the registration of, and disclosures by, an “agent of a foreign principal” who, either directly or through another person, within the United States (1) engages in “political activities” on behalf of a foreign principal; (2) acts as a foreign principal’s public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee, or political consultant; (3) solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of a foreign principal; or (4) represents the interests of the foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government. In addition, FARA requires agents to conspicuously label “informational materials” transmitted in the United States for or in the interest of a foreign principal. There are some exemptions to FARA’s registration and labeling requirements for specified categories of agents and activities.
What are the penalties for violating FARA?
The penalty for a willful violation of FARA is imprisonment for not more than five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. Certain violations are considered misdemeanors, with penalties of imprisonment of not more than six months, a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. There are also civil enforcement provisions that empower the Attorney General to seek an injunction requiring registration under FARA (for applicable activities) or correcting a deficient registration statement.
You'd have a tough time in court with this one.
Elaborate
You'd have a hard time proving that this falls under "political activity" and that he did it because of foreign influence.
He does not do anything of this sort
Without Elon musk or SpaceX, Ukraine would have precisely zero Starlink systems. So you really should rethink that comment.
Without your ISP you wouldn't have been able to post that comment.
So if your ISP decides to disconnect your service when it feels like you're not doing the things they want you to do with it, you should still thank your ISP because you wouldn't be able to do the limited things they allow you to do otherwise.
How is that relavent?
I've rethough it, but the facts stayed the same.
Part of me thinks that, based on his conduct over the recent years, Elon Musk is exactly so stupid that he never considered that if his company supplies gear for a military, they're going to use it to do, like, military shit, and now he's having a real crisis of conscience because he just never thought that his stuff would be used for, you know, war.
But on this occasion, I'm pretty sure Hanlon's Razor won't apply. Even if he said "Yes, I've been really really stupid about this and I'm a stupid little boy and you can quote me on that, put it on a shirt, make a Netflix documentary about it while you're at it", I'd still think this is is obviously a smokescreen and he's being Putined one way or other.
He DOES like to pretend he's Tony Stark. Perhaps it's part of the cosplay.
Him being stupid and him supporting Russia aren't at all mutually exclusive since supporting Russia is a stupid thing to do in and of itself.
This whole thing has made me so angry, I'm so upset about this.
Musk doesn't have the power to to stop Russian ships attacking cargo vessels in the black sea so he shouldn't be stopping Ukrainians from fighting back - in their own territory.
Musk is partially to blame for the lack of food coming from Ukraine. He's responsiveness got higher food prices.
This is an absolute act of evil stupidity.
Don't let individuals amass the wealth of a nation state.
One can only hope that The Site Formerly Known as Twitter will bankrupt him.
I also know for a fact that elon won't hesitate to do something for Reason A and communicate Reason B as his motivation.
Internalizing that this sort of thing is going on 24/7 in so many parts of life makes me feel absolutely crazy.
Sometimes I wish I could be happily ignorant.
Said the businessman, clearly not a member of the ANP
Dear Mr. Zelenskyy,
If you decide to make Elon Musk a wanted man for interfering with communications infrastructure and wartime military goals, let me just put out there that you have my thumbs up.
~ A nameless internet user.
~ Iron Lynx
Sssshh! 🤫
Elon is such an insufferable twat.
I like to refer to him as a chodelet.
He protected militants participating in an attack. This resulted in thousands of civilian deaths by prolonging the war.
That's the only way to look at this.
He's scum.
Won't someone think of the poor ships sitting in a harbour!
A few years ago, I saw a SpaceX press conference about the state of the space launch industry. One of the questions asked, by a lady with a heavy Slavic accent, was whether Russia and second-world countries would be allowed to engage in cooperation. The answer was no for reasons of national security.
Now SpaceX has a self-declared wartime Russian agent at its head. How the fucking turntables.
either way you participated, you just made the wrong choice Mr. Musk
Is he a registered foreign agent ? This needs investigated for criminal activities.
I hate the prick too but that's not what "registered foreign agent" means. That's specifically referring to US citizens who perform govt lobbying activity in the employ of foreign interests.
Yeah, "unregistered foreign agent" works better in this instance.
My question is whether he is registered or not. If he is not, then his actions could unlawful.
It's well past time to nationalize Starlink.
I could be wrong but doesn't this boil down to how the internet as a whole is used as in it's not the fault of the isp/website what the users do
So would elon accept responsibility for terrorists organizing on his site?
Just my two cents, he's a textbook narcissist. Would he accept responsibility, no. Is his ego so big he thinks he can actually start WWIII and nuclear armageddon, absolutely. Add a dose of kompromat et vois la, Elon Musk is now sympathetic to Russia.
I mean, wasn't that the whole point of him purchasing Twitter, for domestic terrorist organizations' benefit?
That explains why you would turn it on. Now explain why you turned it off
Did you read what happened? It was literally turned off the entire time. Ukraine fired at an area that wasn't under starlinks current usage for the war (due to US contraints) and the warheads lost connection.
Your comment is literally the most wrong comment in this whole fiasco yet one of the most upvoted. Yall need to read more
Musk just opened himself up to an act of retorsion. Ukraine can go as hard as they want to after him, because the rule of proportionate response doesn't apply to acts of retorsion.
I've never heard of this. Can you explain how this works, please?
retaliatory action taken by a state whose citizens have been mistreated by a foreign power by treating the subjects of that power similarly; reprisal.
I'm waiting for an explanation too, unless I'm missing the part where SpaceX and Tesla are considered "foreign governments".
You yourself conflate foreign powers and foreign governments in this very comment. Musk is obviously not a government, but he's definitely foreign and it's hard to find a definition of the word "power" that "able to shut down comms for military in a way that completely scuttles a mission that's in progress" doesn't fit.
Touche.
Uh, the definition of a foreign power is a foreign government.
That is what the term means.
Yeah, well, when did we start using that term? Was it before billionaires? Because if you act like billionaires are normal individuals and ignore the fact that they can function as if they can force governance on others, then you're just begging for the corpo-state instead of an elected government.
Alternatively, if your governments plans hinge on one man making a decision: maybe you change your fucking plans.
Does Musk count as a foreign power? I mean I could technically see that being the case, but your reasoning here is slightly flawed. That would be like calling Boeing a foreign power outside the U.S.
I am sure that piece of shit would have had absolutely zero problems helping Putin attack the Ukranians though.
There is a difference between blocking internet and switching it back on to kill people, it's a karma debt.
Nah, I get the hate he is getting, I personally develop a serious allergic reaction towards anyone and anything with a net worth of more than a few million dollars. BUT. I don't think he is with the Russians. Why would he be, it would destroy whatever reputation he still had. This one is not a good look either, but as someone who lives not even a thousand kilometers away from the frontline, I personally don't want the Russian fleet "destroyed at anchor" as it would, as Musk has put it "escalate the conflict" and probably by a lot. I want this war to end. And I underatand that some people who probably live very far from Ukraine want to see Russia get punished (as do I to some degree), but that won't happen, at least not without potentially the entire world ending up as collateral damage, or at the very least a few countries around Ukraine, and as luck would have, those would probably include my own.
Sinking the Russian fleet would cost very few lives and have outsized benefits to Ukraine. Stop sucking Elon's dick, bro.
It seems as it doesn't matter if I start my comment by establishing whether I hate the guy or don't, so this time I won't. The thing I hate, is war. And would bombing the fleet ever prolong that wouldn't it? I know it's not very nice of me to assume that Ukraine won't win this war, not even with the advantage the bombing could have given them, but the weight classes are not too balanced, even if Russia seems to preform a lot more poorly than we assumed before the war it would.
I hate war too, but Russia started a major war for internal political points, and now is enjoying the fruits of their miscalculated aggression. Their fleet should rightly be an artificial reef for the fish of the Black Sea. Musk should be prosecuted under the Logan Act and any other applicable law.
oh, a "I just hate war" appeasement pacifist.
Pacifism is pro fascist, to placate those who could fight against fascism to inaction is to aid the fascist. the fascist cares not for moral force, the only thing a fascist understands is physical force. to stop the fascist, you must fight him.
remember Czechoslovakia, remember Poland, France and Britain both followed your logic, the results? one of the greatest losses of human life we have ever seen, the slaughter of entire ethnic groups, the destruction of Europe, completely.
you know why? because the fascist does not stop until he is stopped, or has consumed everything.
Taking out the fleet would reduce Russia the aggressors capability of continuing this war. If you hate war, you should absolutely support the defending side. It should not pay to be the aggressor.
So assuming Ukraine ultimately wins, this would have done the opposite of prolonging the war.
Even if Russia were to occupy Ukraine entirely they'd still lose in the end. They don't have the resources to successfully occupy a country of Ukraine's size and population if Ukrainians actively resist. Putin's plan depended on a quick installation of a puppet government and there being little to no resistance from the Ukrainian population. That didn't happen, Russia will ultimately lose. Whether they lose after a few years of a conventional military war or loses after decades of Ukraine conducting an asynchronous warfare campaign against an occupation, all paths lead to a Russian defeat.
Holding a country is significantly more difficult to achieve than invading a country. Russia hasn't even been successful in invading Ukraine, they haven't even gotten to the hard part yet.
So the idea that not supporting Ukraine will somehow lead to a faster resolution to the war is simply bullshit propaganda. The only way to end the war sooner is to expedite a Ukrainian victory. Anything else is promoting Russian occupation and very likely another Holodomor kind of situation.
Do you want another Holodomor?
It's not that.
There's a huge embargo on Ukrainian grains that the Russians are using to grab the world by the balls right now. They refused to renew the agreement to let ships pass last month after several months of being a pain in the ass iirc. The most affected are poor African nations on the verge of starvation and many Asian nations that gave seen skyrocketing prices. The Russians are using this as leverage, but in the meantime I don't think it's only soldiers who will be dying for this power move.
Russia has already lost the war. Even if they take the entire country, they've lost.
They've turned the entire West against them, and they're feeling the ramifications from resultant economic sanctions.
NATO has been revitalized, at a time where a lot of the West was beginning to doubt its necessity.
Sweden and Finland have decided to join NATO as a direct consequence of the invasion.
The political left and center in the West are decidedly anti Russian now. Except for the extreme far right, the right is anti Russian as well. They've left a negative impression that Zoomers and Millennials won't forget easily.
Their military is seen as an international laughingstock. They can only make empty threats now, and their ability to project power is heavily diminished. Putin is no longer seen as a mastermind strategist.
You could even argue the government is as seen as weak with the Wagner coup and how far they got with little resistance.
Population collapse may be inevitable. COVID already took some of their working population. This war has taken even more of them, and they have a draft even. The working population may not be large enough to support the aging population nor the economy.
The draft and war in general led to a good number of intellectuals fleeing the country. Their best and brightest are gone.
I think we're going to look back and see this war as the beginning of the Putin regime's collapse.
I didn't make a tactical decision, I voiced my opinion. Musk didn't really make a decision either. They asked him for a resource he can provide, as far as I know without going through the Government of the USA, he politely refused. He only had to make a tactical decision, because they presented him one. Either way he was going to decide would have influenced the outcome of the war, so the way that is staying out of it does is the way he is influencing it.
Would removing Putin's ability to effectively wage war through what would have been a modern day pearl harbour potentially up to and including the nuclear retaliation have been a good thing?
Is that the question we should be asking?
Perhaps asking why it is up to a private citizen to provide vital military infrastructure is a better question.
Just understand this headline could have just as easily read: Venture Capitalist averts Global Nuclear War.
It's all about perspective. Your opinion of Elon Musk shouldn't matter because he should have never been in this position to begin with.
Well he has used Russian talking points a lot. Including here where he argues that Ukraine defending themselves would be an escalation.
I belive so too. You know why? Because a war never ends with the weaker side bombing a military unit of the stronger. Lot of people say this would be like Pearl Harbor. Did Pearl Harbor win WW2 for the Japanese? Before you ask, Russia is nowhere as strong as we thought before the war, but if someone says Ukraine is stronger, they are clearly out of their minds.
For Ukraine to win Russia just needs to go home, Russia left Afghanistan who were way more ill equipped, and they will leave Ukraine.
The reason you have heard the tide is turning many times, is because it has happened continuously since the beginning. Russia attempted a blitz against Ukraine, but failed, and lost territories they gained already early on. They also lost Kherson, and now they are losing on the retracted fronts too, both in the east and south.
The Russian army has only lost and hasn't gained ground for a year now. The only place Russia gained a little bit, was Bakhmut, and that was Wagner and not the Russian army. Wagner is dysfunctional now, another loss for Russia due to internal disagreements.
Im surprised the DoD isnt pissed at him.
I'm sure future contracts have been canceled. Decided to go another direction or no longer interested.
NASA has been hedging all along. Unfortunately the hedge is Boeing which fucking sucks at everything. Or maybe SpaceX was a hedge against Boeing?
With DoD’s budget, I would expect their own satellite constellation. (Heck, they already have one for GPS.) Maybe they’ll sell bandwith to civilians, too?
They already funded one through starlink, maybe they will confiscate it for breach of contract and national security. Probably not, but elon is in the fuck around stage right now and I'm curious when he's going to find out.
Elon Musk isn't the sole investor in SpaceX so it may be possible he could be removed from any decision-making in the company.
SpaceX does make pretty good money from Air Force sat launches, losing that contract could be enough to compel other investors to push him out.
I hope he gets sent to a black site. Not gonna happen but a man can dream.
If they are, they aren't telling.
I have a slight inkling that someone has some serious dirt on this dude
Can we just send this pathetic traitor to Russia and be done with it
When is he going to jail again? He profited from selling overpriced stocks and colluded with enemies of the state.
Again? He was before? This is new for me.
Again meaning "remind me again" and not "it's happening again".
Switzerland were neutral in WWII and the USA were neutral until they were attacked by the Japanese, does that mean they were colluding with Nazi Germany?
Switzerland found itself culpable for helping the Nazis, and the US explicitly was helping the allies,
The one you failed to ask about was Ireland.
Swiss were colluding with nazi germany. Where do you think they kept their money?
The Swiss also provided safe passage for Jews escaping the Holocaust. The Swiss also shot down German plans that violated their air space. Where they "colluding" with Nazi Germany then too?
I honestly can't be bothered to argue this. I already know from a similar thread that I'm not going to get retorts made in good faith.
Good day to you, sir.
So is he getting investigated for aiding an enemy of America during a time of war?
Well america isn't at war with Russia and he specifically didn't aid anyone here. I hate this fucker as much as anyone but what you've said makes no sense
Do it anyway
I'm not a US citizen so my opinion doesn't count for shit. But if it were up to me, the US needs to take control of SpaceX away from the hands of this narcissistic megalomaniac ASAP, as a matter of national security.
No more should subsidies be sent to SpaceX, starship still doesn't fly without exploding, imagine if we put that money into the SLS?
Does he think starlink is an orbital cannon or something.
Putin said 1v1 him on Rust for Donbas
Knives only
It should have been "obvious what they were going to do" the moment their country was invaded and they fought back instead of rolling over.
Elon Musk is now interfering in the defense against an ongoing genocide. He offered them this infrastructural support, he was going to get paid for it, he has shot himself in the foot on that side of the equation, and he is using that "mistake" to justify interfering in policy and planning for a sovereign government trying to defend its people.
There's no acceptable way to spin this. As my high school accounting teacher used to say, "You either knew or should have known." He knows what he's doing, or he's dangerously incompetent. Either way, he should be cut off from any opportunity to fuck with Ukraine.
Meanwhile the NSA, CIA, DoD, and probably Biden himself having full access to the entire network because military industrial complex go brrrrrrr
That is not exactly true. While it is true that the military brought Starlinks over to Poland and Musk gave 1500 units to Ukraine as well. There was a lot of back and forth because technically you are not supposed to use a commercial product for actual military operations. For everday activities it was fine but when Ukraine started sending drone feeds over the systems and supplied those feeds to the US Forces, it sort of crossed a line and they had to start negotiating the terms in the contracts as well as scaling back the usage. So all along Musk has been walking a fine line with being complicit with his tech being used for war and trying to avoid it.
Let me clarify I am not a Musk apologist, I am just adding some context. I still do not like that he can seemingly over reach like this, but if the terms were not in place and negotiating was not done he is within his rights.
And this is why I’m happy to be a hillbilly with no weight on the world stage.
Fuck that noise.
I don’t care for musk, but I’d blow my brains out if I found myself in a position like this.
“Oh, hey, angryseal! Cool tech. A lot of people could be killed with this.”
No thank you.
That's not actually the MiC, that's just regular national security there's no actual industry behind it.
Not respecting an emergency government request and working in Russian favour, another brilliant move from mr. Musk!
Call him before congress to ask about this.
Take over his shitty company already. He is actively aiding US enemies.
The US government has also bought terminals for Ukraine. That makes me hopeful that they'll keep Musk from being able to make these sorts of decisions in the future so their investment will be the most useful it can be.
Yeah I was really confused because they already have starlink in Ukraine.
Musk turned off service to specific areas.
Wow, that's sucks, but not overly surprising.
His ethics might follow some business rules: cut your losses, and the winner gets it all.
Musk loves to take big Russian cock up his bum.
mm, homophobia, delicious
...
/s
The Robert House we have at home:
Did you just learn that word and you are just chomping at the bit to use it or...
Elon Musk working with the Russians. Not surprised.
Countries literally furnishing war machines: *try not to burst out laughing*
And why exactly this request was made? What did they need it for?
He's got part of Putin's front in his mouth, too.
A very small part.
Isnt interfering with such things a major crime? Lol
Russia can't do false flag attacks, can't take Kiev and can't create sleeper agents that don't out themselves.
Said people who found it ridiculous that Oppenheimer was accused of being a spy.
I'm pro-Ukraine, but I can understand someone not wanting their technology to be used for warfare. Saying "here's Starlink, it'll keep you connected even if Russia bombs your lines of communication" is different than saying "here's a technology you can strap to a bomb and guide it to it's destination."
Musk is an egotistical asshole, but there's validity for a company not wanting their technology, their communication pathways, to be used for killing people.
Does anyone have a reliable source relating to Musk talks with Putin? I'm asking seriously, I can't track it down...
I learnt the hard way in another thread that any comment not synonymous with "corporations should not be allowed to stay neutral regarding international conflicts" is not going to be received kindly.
How dare you ask for a source, sir! Downvote!!!
Musk started out not neutral. This started as putting starlink over Ukraine to help with the war. Once it looks like they'll succeed in a big strike against Russia, Musk says no. How is that neutral?
This is the sort of good judgment that made him the richest man in the world. Lots of haters here upset that he didn’t help start WW3!
I didn't know he had the ability to choose to be born to a gross and shady emerald mine owner.
Anybody can work hard and save up to buy an emerald mine, ask your parents why they didn’t do that.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or idiocy. No lemmygrad tag, so I'm assuming sarcasm?
Everyone here acting as if Elon did something wrong deserves to live in war to learn why it's a bad thing, you blood-thirsty dumbasses.
The Ukrainians definately think Elon did wrong. And they live in war. And you're saying they deserve it.
I don't recall when the American people agreed to have war. I also don't remember when congress agreed to have war.
America isn't in war with Russia. So, spare me the bullshit. What Elon did stopped an escalation that could've led to a nuclear war. And yes, you deserve what I said. You deserve to feel hunger, and see your family and children die, so that you learn how bad war is and how sometimes you have to learn how to be a real man and shove your ego up your ass to save lives.
Theatrics. The DoD can overwrite musk if they want, they have full control over starlink via spaceforce. In fact the DoD funded the whole thing, musk was just used as a front so people dont get pissed the USA installed the biggest satelite contelation in orbit that has huge military applications.
Its a sure bet starlink is still servicing ukrainian drone ships. The DoD just told musk to spread some disinformation so russia cant claim in public that ukraine is using american satelites.
Source: trust me bro
It's common knowledge that Ukraine is using Starlink. What do you mean? Russia can claim that regardless.
The other user is making the claim that since starlink is a private company, Russia can't make the claim of them being American satellites.
It's a flawed assertion but whatever
Dude, the DoD was just something the aliens made you think was real so you wouldn't know they're the ones running everything!
Source: trust no one bro.