Political impacts of Ukraine war

[The Bread Guy]

Give it a rest. People who want to use utilitarian calculations cannot expect those calculations to be respected unless they include all the Ukrainian lives saved by Musk's rapid provision of Starlink services and the years' worth of services provided in total. Put a number on it. If you nominate "dozens", I'm just going to laugh.

If he did it, past behaviour may go to sentencing, not to reducing guilt.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If he did it, past behaviour may go to sentencing, not to reducing guilt.

Sure. Guilty of what? Interfering with a contracted service? There's no practical way of proving anything he did was the single thing that caused a death or failed to prevent one. As for treason, the US has an admirably narrow definition, and the US isn't at war with Russia.

All the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion is just side-stepping what's really going on: people want to punish Musk because he interrupted some of streams in which they were wetting their beaks. They're behaving like a gang that thinks he took some of their money. The way people talk and write is not dispassionate debate over whether this is even a matter that rises to a level of some kind of humanitarian crime; they're bitter and envious, and bitter and envious people are often vindictive and petty. It shows.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sure. Guilty of what? Interfering with a contracted service? There's no practical way of proving anything he did was the single thing that caused a death or failed to prevent one. As for treason, the US has an admirably narrow definition, and the US isn't at war with Russia.

All the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion is just side-stepping what's really going on: people want to punish Musk because he interrupted some of streams in which they were wetting their beaks. They're behaving like a gang that thinks he took some of their money. The way people talk and write is not dispassionate debate over whether this is even a matter that rises to a level of some kind of humanitarian crime; they're bitter and envious, and bitter and envious people are often vindictive and petty. It shows.

That's why I said "if" he did anything wrong.

Musk admitted to bottlenecking things when UKR wanted to work on Crimea in the initial "invasion that dared not speak its name" in 2014. That tells me it's not outside the arcs of his MO.

I wouldn't go as far as treason myself, but I'm sure there's lawyers out there willing to take a go at, at least, contract fuckery or, depending on the terms and who did what, interfering with a government service (depending on who initiated the interference).

We'll see what unfolds.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Musk admitted to bottlenecking things when UKR wanted to work on Crimea in the initial "invasion that dared not speak its name" in 2014. That tells me it's not outside the arcs of his MO.

And what were his reasons?

 

[The Bread Guy]

And what were his reasons?

Commercial? Ethical? Political? Ideological? Wanting to flex power as a big businessman because he could? Good question.

I don't claim to read his heart, just looking at some of his actions, and I'm happy to let others smarter than me figure it out.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Commercial? Ethical? Political? Ideological? Wanting to flex power as a big businessman because he could? Good question.

I don't claim to read his heart, just looking at some of his actions, and I'm happy to let others smarter than me figure it out.

What services were "bottlenecked" in 2014? That's well before Starlink became operational.

 

[The Bread Guy]

What services were "bottlenecked" in 2014? That's well before Starlink became operational.

My bad - typed too fast. 2022, not '14.

Elon Musk's refusal to provide Starlink support for Ukraine attack in Crimea raises questions for Pentagon

SpaceX founder Elon Musk's refusal to allow Ukraine to use Starlink internet services to launch a surprise attack on Russian forces in Crimea last September has raised questions for the Pentagon.

www.pbs.org

"Musk says Starlink stopped a Ukraine drone attack on Russian fleet"

 

[Brad Sallows]

My bad - typed too fast. 2022, not '14.
"Musk says Starlink stopped a Ukraine drone attack on Russian fleet"

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.

 

[The Bread Guy]

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.

Agreed re: the mind reading. That said, given he says one thing about the latest satellite shenanigans, and the U.S. government says another, worth a look.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Agreed re: the mind reading. That said, given he says one thing about the latest satellite shenanigans, and the U.S. government says another, worth a look.

Perhaps. He basically advanced reasons along the same theme, although obviously without a direct reference to nuclear escalation. I don't know what to make of the required assumption that what the Trump administration says is suddenly reliable, or at least more reliable than Musk, particularly when Musk's story is consistent with his earlier position.

 

[KevinB]

If the US government nationalizes anything, it's going to run approximately as well as NASA - bloated, expensive, slow, lacking focus. Engineers who want to work on his projects don't have to work in their home countries if the projects are domiciled somewhere else. If Musk simply stops doing what he does, everyone loses whatever he might have done. (A few people are fond of "he didn't actually build all of that himself" rhetoric. No, he didn't, but he put it all together, whereas no-one else had done so.) If Musk keeps on doing what he does in spite of confiscation and, possibly, criminal prosecution, I doubt he's going to roll over and accept what Democrats do to him; he'll move.

[Add: "SpaceX is on US government dole" is one frame. "US government is critically dependent on SpaceX" is another.]

As mentioned below your post it is StarShield, a separate aspect for DoD than StarLink.
He can move all he wants, but the USG will keep everything.
Realistically he’s not going anywhere - as even if the House and/or Senate go after him, all that will happen is a slap on the wrist.

I think its entirely fair to personally punish the private citizen who personally ordered events that led to the deaths of dozens of Ukrainians and contravened the foreign policy of the USA. If William Boeing pulled the same shit in WW2 there would be treason charges by now.

I think you are looking at it incorrectly.
1) I do agree that anyone who is hampering Ukraine and/or adding Russia is a deplorable human being but
2) NATO, nor the USA is in a declared war with Russia, and the Trump 2.0 Administration hasn’t exactly been hostile to Russia, and actually has emboldened them in many cases.
3) There where a number of American corporate leaders who openly supported Hitler up until Dec 7 1941, and even after a few still supported him until the Invasion of North Africa, Sicily, Italy and then Normandy brought American troops into direct combat, as at least 1 didn’t seem to care about the Air War in Europe and the Army Air Corps losses.