Elon Musk - SpaceX version

[Grendal]

Shotwell articulated it very well: "Providing humanitarian help is fine, but private companies should not be financing a foreign country’s war."

As a USA company, unless the US military allows and coordinates the use of their satellites for an ally then SpaceX should not be involved in the conflict. So Elon (and Shotwell) effectively did the right thing by not allowing Starlink to be used in a battle until the military approves and supports the action.

This is intentionally inflammatory and an intentional misinterpretation to make it more controversial: Frum "Musk has confirmed the story that he turned off Starlink to thwart a Ukrainian military operation in fall 2022." The same is true for the excerpt from WaPo. That said, that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way but the implication that Elon himself flipped a switch at the behest of a foreign general does not make much logical sense. It would need a LOT more evidence.

Again, JMHO.
I just finished watching this and I think it applies to this discussion. (And ignore the inflammatory title!)

 

[DarkandStormy]

Shotwell articulated it very well: "Providing humanitarian help is fine, but private companies should not be financing a foreign country’s war."

As a USA company, unless the US military allows and coordinates the use of their satellites for an ally then SpaceX should not be involved in the conflict. So Elon (and Shotwell) effectively did the right thing by not allowing Starlink to be used in a battle until the military approves and supports the action.

This is intentionally inflammatory and an intentional misinterpretation to make it more controversial: Frum "Musk has confirmed the story that he turned off Starlink to thwart a Ukrainian military operation in fall 2022." The same is true for the excerpt from WaPo. That said, that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way but the implication that Elon himself flipped a switch at the behest of a foreign general does not make much logical sense. It would need a LOT more evidence.

Again, JMHO.
I just finished watching this and I think it applies to this discussion. (And ignore the inflammatory title!)

U.S. was supporting Ukraine in that mission. Basically your second paragraph is exactly what happened.

 

[Electroman]

Biden administration is supporting Ukraine

 

[Grendal]

Biden administration is supporting Ukraine

Yes. However, Lockheed Martin is not going to sell a couple fighter jets loaded with missiles to Ukraine without the tacit approval of the government. Lockheed cannot just say that it was okay because we're supporting Ukraine. They would have to go through a number of bureaucratic steps to get approval to do so. Lockheed saying that they were just giving them to Ukraine out of the goodness of their heart would also not be acceptable. There are way too many political implications involved. If the government comes to SpaceX and tells them that they want them to allow Ukraine to use their system for a military campaign, then that is an entirely different matter.

 

[JB47394]

They would have to go through a number of bureaucratic steps to get approval to do so.

U.S. Arms Sales and Defense Trade - United States Department of State

The United States is committed to strengthening allies and partners worldwide to meet their sovereign self-defense needs and to improve their capabilities to operate with U.S. forces to address shared security challenges. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs...

www.state.gov

"Each proposed transfer we review is carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis, and approved if found to further U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. In addition, major defense transfers and sales may be subject to Congressional notification."

 

[Electroman]

Yes. However, Lockheed Martin is not going to sell a couple fighter jets loaded with missiles to Ukraine without the tacit approval of the government. Lockheed cannot just say that it was okay because we're supporting Ukraine. They would have to go through a number of bureaucratic steps to get approval to do so. Lockheed saying that they were just giving them to Ukraine out of the goodness of their heart would also not be acceptable. There are way too many political implications involved. If the government comes to SpaceX and tells them that they want them to allow Ukraine to use their system for a military campaign, then that is an entirely different matter.

agreed !!

 

[Grendal]

And now we have clarification that Elon did not "thwart" Ukraine, nor did he "turn off Starlink." The media did choose to misinterpret some information and spin it into something controversial for the clicks.

Hat tip to Cosmacelf.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700345943105638636

 

[spacerfc]

So basically all Putin or the CCP or whoever has to do to get Elon to do what they want is tell him there will be nukes used if he doesnt comply.
Then he’ll say well, this is for the good of humanity… and act without discussing it with the US national security officials, Ukraine ..,whoever.

Well for starters, if Russia or China threatens to use nuclear weapons, you have a way bigger problem than what Elon Musk may or may not do.

Secondly, Elon Musk is not the only one who believe Russia may use nukes, Biden believes it too: Biden says threat of Putin using tactical nuclear weapons is 'real'

Finally, the entire reason he can act in this case is because DoD did not sign a contract for Starlink service in Ukraine. If you want US national security officials to control the service, you should ask them to buy the service more promptly next time.

 

[DarkandStormy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700502001732182027

Looks like someone got told to change the narrative in the last couple days. That or he's just been inconsistent on his views

 

[JB47394]

Looks like someone got told to change the narrative in the last couple days. That or he's just been inconsistent on his views

What was the inconsistency? I can't read the Washington Post article.

 

[Grendal]

Looks like someone got told to change the narrative in the last couple days. That or he's just been inconsistent on his views

"To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a major war."

This statement fits with what Shotwell told the press. It also fits with the government's rules (posted on this thread) for such things.

Or are you trying to create a conspiracy theory? Because your interpretation is pure speculation.

Or did the media spin what Isaacson said to make the whole thing more controversial and get more coverage? We do have vast amounts of evidence that occurs a lot in the media.

I've personally already stated that Elon can "go with his gut" on X/Twitter to his detriment. This is business/company situation, which is typically much better thought out. So IMO, this comes under the KISS principle and that the simplest, most sensible, explanation is the most likely.

 

[DarkandStormy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700845764644098197

 

[DarkandStormy]

"To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a major war."

This statement fits with what Shotwell told the press. It also fits with the government's rules (posted on this thread) for such things.

Or are you trying to create a conspiracy theory? Because your interpretation is pure speculation.

Or did the media spin what Isaacson said to make the whole thing more controversial and get more coverage? We do have vast amounts of evidence that occurs a lot in the media.

I've personally already stated that Elon can "go with his gut" on X/Twitter to his detriment. This is business/company situation, which is typically much better thought out. So IMO, this comes under the KISS principle and that the simplest, most sensible, explanation is the most likely.

Not a conspiracy theory when multiple journalists and outlets previously reported exactly what Isaacson's first version of events were.

Only after Musk received more public backlash did Isaacson change his story (btw, is Isaacson going to have to issue a retraction of his book?).

 

[advocate8]

Make no mistake, the US is running this war at one remove and has been since day one when a 24-hour command HQ was set up by the California National Guard, which had long been training the Ukrainian military in everything from logistics to force structure, and even dogfighting and the use of javelins. Within days there was a handover to a pentagon shadow HQ complete with liaisons from the various intelligence agencies etc to help with command and control, and a sub office set up to grease the skids for the flow of required munitions and supplies.
The Ukrainian military attaché has his own office at the pentagon.
The DoD has a liason assigned to deal with musk.
The US not only knew about the plans for the attack but helped craft them. The idea they didn’t support use of starlink for this is naive.
Regardless of the details - and I believe musk’s version — this is a troubling position for us to have a private citizen in, even one less volatile. Especially one whose business depends greatly on the good graces of the CCP.

 

[Electroman]

As a private citizen he should dance to the tunes of whatever the war mongers want him to do. Failure to adhere 110% means he is a Putin stooge, Russian spy, anti U.S., anti humanity.

 

[Nikxice]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700502001732182027

Looks like someone got told to change the narrative in the last couple days. That or he's just been inconsistent on his views

Anyone clicking on this WaPo article will now see a correction at the top that reads,

"CORRECTION
After publication of this adaptation, the author learned that his book mischaracterized the attempted attack by Ukrainian drones on the Russian fleet in Crimea. Musk had already disabled (“geofenced”) coverage within 100 km of the Crimean coast before the attack began, and when the Ukrainians discovered this, they asked him to activate the coverage, and he refused. This version reflects that change."

When gathering facts biographers are not always perfect. I don't see anything nefarious going on. Upon learning of his misunderstanding, Isaacson was quick to correct the error. Would imagine that with a second book printing or eventual paperback, this confusion will dry up. The audio book will likely be first to see a corrected narrative.

This previously taped segment with Isaacson was featured on today's CBS Sunday Morning. It also clarifies the issue, starting around minute 5.

 

[Electroman]

Not a conspiracy theory when multiple journalists

jOurNAlisTs !!

aka Presstitutes

 

[ecarfan]

CNN report: Starlink use on ‘all front lines,’ Ukraine spy chief says, but wasn’t active ‘for time’ over Crimea

“They have proven themselves on the front lines. You can say what you want about whether [Starlink systems] are good or bad, but facts are facts. Absolutely all front lines are using them,” Kyrylo Budanov, head of the Main Ukrainian Intelligence Directorate, said Saturday, according to Interfax Ukraine. “They have played and continue to play a significant role, because so many systems use the antennas, use the Starlink systems themselves, for communications, for drone transmissions, especially in terms of a remote command post and so on.”

Budanov also said Starlink coverage “did not work for some time” in Russian-occupied Crimea, without elaborating.
“I can absolutely confirm that Starlink systems did not work for a certain period of time near Crimea. We immediately realized that there was simply no coverage there. That’s probably all I can tell you,” Budanov said.

[Musk responded] late Thursday on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter that he owns, by asserting that the Starlink service provided by his company SpaceX was never active over Crimea and that the Ukrainian government made an “emergency request” to him to turn on service.

“There was an emergency request from government authorities to activate Starlink all the way to Sevastopol,” Musk posted on X. Sevastopol is a port city in Crimea. “The obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor. If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.”

 

[spacerfc]

Not a conspiracy theory when multiple journalists and outlets previously reported exactly what Isaacson's first version of events were.

Only after Musk received more public backlash did Isaacson change his story (btw, is Isaacson going to have to issue a retraction of his book?).

So Isaacson made a mistake in his book, big deal. He's an author writing a biography, not a lawyer writing a testimony, not surprising there're some errors made. Elon also corrected the book's description of Gen 3 vehicle, is that a conspiracy too?

Besides, whether he turned off Starlink near Crimea or didn't turn it on in the first place does not matter either morally or legally (or it matters legally, but not in the way haters think). Musk may care about this distinction due to "bullsh1t on twitter" as Shotwell puts it, but in reality it makes no difference. Even if he turned it off after learning the attack plan, it's a decision that is morally defensible and legally very prudent.

 

[Grendal]

Only after Musk received more public backlash did Isaacson change his story (btw, is Isaacson going to have to issue a retraction of his book?).

Not a retraction, but as he is doing now: a more lengthy clarification of a misinterpretation. He was a little too vague and this, hopefully, clears it up.