this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
732 points (94.6% liked)

World News

32321 readers
843 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Elon Musk's financial interests put him in a position of having his own personal foreign policy, but new reporting shows that whether it's manufacturing in China or the Starlink network being used in Ukraine, Musk’s decisions can run counter to stated US policy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

We are calling him a traitor for having Starlink turned off in Ukraine to protect Russia from a counter attack.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The country he lives in, and the military that paid to have the service of his business to be used ... by the military.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

At most that is breach of contract. Definitely not traitorous.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Last I heard, he simply didn't turn it on when Ukraine asked him to, before the DoD had explicitly contracted him to support Ukraine's military. The narrative of him throwing a switch mid-attack and laughing maniacally as Ukrainian drones drifted helplessly to shore has been spreading like wildfire but that seems to be based on a quote from one guy who has since walked it back.

Is there some Fediverse equivalent to /r/enoughmuskspam? My feed is starting to get flooded with these five-minute-hates of Elon Musk and it's wearying.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Nope, Starlink was already in use. Musk used his position as CEO of Starlink to cut off service to Ukraine. But only long enough to interrupt a counter attack on the Russian fleet. Once the opportunity had passed he had it turned back on.

His intentions are obvious.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Civilian space assets cannot be used for warfare or they become legitimate targets in a war. When the US commits to defending and replenishing starlink satellites lost in conflict I'll blame Musk for not enabling his network to be used for warfare.

[–] drewdarko@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Ukraine military was already using starlink. Starlink agreed to provide their service to the Ukraine military as a US military contractor with the US paying the bill.

So they can do that because they have already done that.

The US has committed to defending and replenishing Starlink because they’ve been doing that by protecting the antennas and replacing them as they get attacked.

Again. Starlink already agreed to be used in Ukraine and at the time that Musk interrupted service to the Ukrainian military it had been in use for a long time.

Musk only interrupted service long enough to prevent the counter attack on Russia. Then agreed to turn it back on after the opportunity for a counter attack had passed.

Seems pretty obvious that Musk stepped in to help Russia as a traitor to the US.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago

If Congress declared war or maybe an Authorization for Use of Force (like Iraq/Afghanistan) it would be fair to consider him a traitor. Until then not really.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In that case, he should also disable starlink for Russia.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago