OK. So what can be taken as fact is not that Starlink services were disabled, but that they had not yet been enabled in the region in which Ukraine wanted services. What is open to denial are Musk's claims, per the article:
"If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation,"
and:
"Musk had "spoken to the Russian ambassador to the United States... (who) had explicitly told him that a Ukrainian attack on Crimea would lead to a nuclear response," Isaacson wrote."
That's all there is to go on. If people are going to claim insight into Musk's mind and advance other "reasons", there is no help for them.