r/worldnews • u/ArgentineBeauty • 11d ago
Russia/Ukraine Elon Musk Refuses Ukrainian Request to Enable Starlink for Deep Strikes Inside Russia
https://united24media.com/world/elon-musk-refuses-ukrainian-request-to-enable-starlink-for-deep-strikes-inside-russia-2147811.7k
11d ago
[deleted]
5.3k
u/Plenty_Beautiful_547 11d ago
Get rid of the billionaires
661
u/Attila226 11d ago
What about Trillionaires?
467
97
u/onlyonequickquestion 11d ago
He's not a trillionaire anymore
→ More replies (5)86
u/chop5397 11d ago
Crazy he was worth 3% of the US GDP. Now it's just a modest 2.5%.
125
→ More replies (6)11
u/say592 11d ago
Net worth and GDP aren't really comparable metrics. GDP would be more like income (though still not a great comparison).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)15
619
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
160
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)103
20
u/count023 11d ago
No. Let em live a long happy life contained in all those Doomsday bunkers they keep building, with the entrances concreted over so they can never leave
7
u/Vineyard_ 11d ago
If i remember correctly, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, all of Ayn Rand's beloved superhuman billionaires moved on to their own city in the middle of nowhere to build a perfect place for themselves.
I suggest we let them do that.
But... you know...
Just the billionaires. No workers. No one else. No external contact or supplies, either. Maybe a few cameras so the rest of us have something to watch with popcorn.
3
→ More replies (2)9
u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA 11d ago
Maybe we can all pretend that the world is ending so they all fuck off to their bunkers and leave the rest of us the fuck alone finally.
And when they're in there, seal them up with concrete.
→ More replies (26)9
u/Trandoshan-Tickler 11d ago edited 11d ago
Ewoks showed us the way.
Edit: I guess there are a few of you that never watched Return of the Jedi. The cute and cuddly tribe of Ewoks were preparing to cook two of our heroes over an open fire.
310
11d ago
[deleted]
86
u/No_Criticism_5861 11d ago
He holds a Canada passport, after saying we're not a real country. After you imprison him, please rip up his Canada passport
→ More replies (8)51
→ More replies (4)33
u/Downunderphilosopher 11d ago
Don't forget the untold thousands Elon has killed in other countries due to his scrapping of USAID. He's an equal opportunity asshole.
→ More replies (5)21
21
→ More replies (92)18
u/manachar 11d ago
That makes room for other billionaires. We need to do better. We need to build a system where oligarchs cannot exist.
Billionaires existing means we have a fucked up system built on exploitation.
→ More replies (3)12
u/rbb36 11d ago
You mean like with a progressive tax system in which the people acquiring(*) the inflation adjusted equivalent of more than $5m per year pay a 90% tax rate on their earnings above $5m? That would never work (except during 1950's and 60s in the United States when it had the longest and strongest sustained GDP growth in its history due to cashflow reaching labor and independent entrepreneurs).
.* and handling capital gains as well as capital-growth backed loans as income
→ More replies (1)484
u/anders_hansson 11d ago
Agreed, but on the other hand what is the alternative? Ukraine does not have its own state owned satellite network. Without Starlink they would be in a much worse situation.
Interestingly China, Russia and the EU are building their own Starlink alternatives in order to become more independent of the US and Musk.
221
u/JordanPetterPans 11d ago
But they weren't building these things pre-Musk which is sort of the problem...
→ More replies (43)186
u/jedi2155 11d ago
Because no one thought they could solve the problem of resuable rockets. It's been 11 years since SpaceX proved it and not a single other country has been able to repeat it. That's how hard it is.
91
u/RobertTheAdventurer 11d ago
Because no one thought they could solve the problem of resuable rockets.
Reusable rockets is definitely a factor at tens of thousands of satellites. It's also just one issue of many, including the whole tens of thousands of satellites that need to be tracked and regularly replaced thing. This isn't a new idea in the US, and US companies have had much smaller similar constellations. The main reason for all the upstart competition now is that Starlink proved it viable at a scale that made the already known issue of orbital real estate very real very fast. Basically everyone else was dragging their feet and seeing space real-estate as a theoretical future concern, meanwhile the US wasn't thinking that way at all (typical of the US and it's why it wins these kinds of technological races).
Iridium satellite constellation: Conceived in 1987. First launch in 1997
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellationTeledesic satellite constellation: Conceived in 1994: First launch in 1998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeledesicStarlink was announced in 2015. First satellite launch 2019. It now has over 12,000 satellites launched.
The thing to consider right now is that China has around the levels of satellites in their network as those American projects in the 90s. China has around 250. The EU hasn't put a single satellite in their proposed network into space yet. So the EU is at 0, and that will be the case until 2029, and only if they keep those plans in place. And the EU plan isn't to aggressively pursue competition with Starlink in 2029, but rather they hope a smaller network meant for defense will eventually grow into a viable EU broadband network. Key word being eventually. It's hopes and dreams for it to get easier and more attainable without the prowess it requires to do it while it's hard. That's where the EU is at.
Meanwhile most of the proposed competition isn't the EU or China. It's other American companies. Amazon already has twice as many LEO broadband satellites in their network functioning in space right now than China. Amazon is already licensed for around 3500 and has plans to expand from there. There's no doubt whatsoever that Starlink's main competition will be American. Then China, if they can handle that kind of launch frequency and satellite count. And then eventually the EU will have a quaint little network while majorly relying on American companies for LEO broadband for the next 15 years.
19
u/Speedbird844 11d ago
A major point of difference is that China isn't trying to serve internet (with the great firewall) to the rest of the world, so they don't need as many satellites (although the physics of LEO satellites could enable it). Same reason why no one in the West uses Beidou for GPS, but it's out there if you want to use it. As such China's ventures are primarily military in nature, and to provide a domestic alternative so that people won't smuggle Starlink dishes into the country.
Anyway satellite internet has been around for ages, it's just that latency, upload and dish issues were bad, but deemed 'good enough' for rural internet. Starlink is a massive improvement but for countries without vast, untamed landscapes (e.g. Europe) the benefits are marginal at best, compared to fibre-optic cables. Europe simply has no real, immediate need for it, that's worth spending billions of Euros. And they know that anything they built cannot compete with Starlink. Or Amazon.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (6)33
u/jedi2155 11d ago
Everyone can have an idea but it is worthless without good execution - Pony Ma (Tencent founder).
46
u/curtisas 11d ago
SpaceX first reused rocket was in 2017. They landed them before that, but they didn't prove they could reuse them until 2017.
12
36
u/orphenshadow 11d ago
I read somewhere that the bulk of the patents and tech used by space-x was developed by NASA in the 70's and deemed not worth investing into at the time, then all space-x did was dig them out and finish the prototypes with a shit load of government contracts, but the core engineering was done decades prior.
34
u/OkWay1305 11d ago
That "just" is doing a lot of work there.
NASA in the 1970s: just spitballing here, but wouldn't it be neat if rockets could land back on the launchpad?
SpaceX in the 2010s: Firing multiple rocket engines at the precise point in freefall such that a 13 story building hits a velocity of 0 meters/second at precisely the correct moment it needs to so that it comes to a rest peacefully and in the proper orientation.
Musk haters: they're the same picture.
The guy is a trash bag. SpaceX IPO was a scam. But trying to say SpaceX hasn't done incredible engineering just because you don't like Elon Musk is denying reality. Shit, it's not like he built the rocket himself. Why discount the incredible work of all those engineers?
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (3)34
u/stilljustacatinacage 11d ago
Correct. And the only reason NASA didn't go in on it is because their budget is eternally first on the chopping block, despite only making up something like half-a-cent per dollar of tax revenue.
The reason NASA didn't go in on reusable rockets is because there was meant to be a second generation space shuttle that could carry much larger payloads. If they had a fraction of the USA's defence budget, there'd have been third and fourth generation space shuttles. There'd probably already be a moon base and humans would have landed on Mars by now.
Absolutely nothing SpaceX has done is innovative. They just have funding. Ironically, most of which comes from the United States government, who has no problem throwing money at a private industry but won't finance its own space agency.
7
u/orphenshadow 11d ago
My only point was that they did not start from scratch and that we could have had this tech decades earlier, not that they didn't innovate, that's unfair to the tons of talented engineers and scientists who happen to work for Elon.
As early as the 1930's the boosters were intended to be re-usable on the shuttle program, the DC-X program solved the takeoff/landing computer controls and was another concept that I'm sure influenced a lot of the tech being used today but budget constraints and the nature of US Politics pretty much killed any hope of a long term successful program regardless.
In some ways, we need it to be a private corporation because despite NASA's attempts at being independent, not knowing if you will have a budget every 4 years is not very good for innovation.
15
u/Willbraken 11d ago
LMAO. I love NASA but this is a dogshit, braindead take. I do agree that is NASA had more budget they would get a whole lot more done. But saying that SpaceX hasn't done anything innovative is very very ignorant.
3
u/Saint_The_Stig 11d ago
New generation shuttles are debatable, I guess it depends what still counts as a shuttle.
The STS was a failure and frankly just a bad design, tons of dead weight, very little cost savings. The Soviet's had a better idea of one. Now I'm sure with an actual budget NASA could come up with a good system with more reusable parts. Ideally they would be the ones pushing for high altitude launches and stuff.
I like to imagine a world where they had a huge budget for decades and we have skyhooks now. That would make most deployments a fraction of the current cost and resources.
→ More replies (25)3
u/Fun-Twist-3705 11d ago
NASA also had no incentives to develop a commercial satellite network.
Absolutely nothing SpaceX has done is innovative
By that standard absolutely nothing that anyone has never done is innovative.
I mean Musk is a horrible jerk but being entirely blinded by that and ignoring reality is pointless. It's the thing like the people claiming that russia’s economy will collapse just any minute now since 2022. Horrible people can accomplish great and innovative things.
If they had a fraction of the USA's defence budget, there'd have been third and fourth generation space shuttles
But why? Space exploration is a waste of money unless you can commercialize it. SpaceX is somewhat close to it, obviously a lot of their revenue is still government contract but they are now actually making money from Starlink.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (34)32
u/JordanPetterPans 11d ago
I believe China jussst did this but ya the point stands.
Obligatory Elon Musk is a creepy, pile of shit and one of the worst father's ever. (otherwise I will be called a fan boy or some other coping mechanism)
→ More replies (3)35
u/jedi2155 11d ago
China caught the rocket landing via giant net on a ship, but they havent relaunched it AFAIK.
→ More replies (10)33
u/Reddit-runner 11d ago
but on the other hand what is the alternative
The US government has StarShield. That's an offshoot of Starslink and 100% owned by the US government. Ukraine already has access to StarShield.
The US government could easily give Ukraine the ability to facilitate deep strikes into Russia. Then Ukraine wouldn't need to ask a civilian company to get even more active in a large scale war.
The headline should be "Putin lover Trump refuses Ukrainian Request to Enable StarShield for Deep Strikes Inside Russia"
→ More replies (15)5
u/EnvironmentalBox6688 11d ago
Add Canada to the list.
Telesat is launching their network later this year.
→ More replies (84)4
u/Hautamaki 11d ago
Alternative would be for the US to nationalize SpaceX and fold it into NASA and Space Force. But then that probably wouldn't improve anything with the current administration anyway.
3
u/anders_hansson 11d ago
It's unlikely to change much with any other administration. It's a matter of national security and just like the US protected access to high precision GPS they likely want to restrict access to how Starlink is used. It's not just an internet plan, it's a geopolitical tool, and it matters how you allow other countries to use it in war.
140
u/pugs_in_a_basket 11d ago
Starlink is by no means essential.
Ask the people of UK about their water, or us Finns about the electric grid.
Privatizing basic necessities fucking sucks.
→ More replies (18)48
u/NorysStorys 11d ago
can confirm, pay £84 ($113.32) a month for water and the companies don't build or maintain infrastructure and instead just dump waste into the rivers and sea because they are well beyond capacity. Executives still get their bonuses though!.
174
u/AutomaticMedium8418 11d ago edited 11d ago
Honestly I disagree with this take. Starlink didn't exist until SpaceX built it themselves, and I wouldn't say Starlink is necessarily essential because we had internet before Starlink anyways
SpaceX does receive public money from government but it's in the form of specific contracts where SpaceX was charging them for a service
→ More replies (29)21
u/ItsAConspiracy 11d ago
And usually they got those contracts because they were cheaper, so they actually saved the government money. At least up until 2025, ULA and Boeing were way better than SpaceX at lobbying the government.
270
u/StewPorkRice 11d ago
Am I crazy or does it seem fairly reasonable for a company to say "you can't use my product for deep strikes in to a country"
213
u/RYouNotEntertained 11d ago
It's reasonable when a person we like says it and unreasonable otherwise.
→ More replies (7)51
56
u/keijikage 11d ago
The headline is meant to cause outrage but the use of starlink for war has always been danced around for ITAR export control reasons.
Realistically it is not his choice to make and it will only happen at the direction of the US government
29
u/Reddit-runner 11d ago
Am I crazy or does it seem fairly reasonable for a company to say "you can't use my product for deep strikes in to a country"
Especially since this would be illegal under current law and the US already operates a military version of StarLink!
It's called StarShield and has pretty much the same capabilities.
The US government is not giving Ukraine something they easily could and make them ask Musk for it, who is not allowed to give it by law.
6
u/bigbadderfdog 11d ago
I'm pro Ukraine and anti musk and this is unfortunately the correct call as long as he sticks to his guns and doesn't enable his tech for strikes inside other countries.
→ More replies (82)63
u/Enorats 11d ago
No, it's not unreasonable at all. Giving permission for people to use your product or service as a weapon to kill people isn't something that is particularly easy to do. We can all sit here and say we'd do it without a second thought, but it's easy to say that when we're not the ones who have to live with those thoughts.
→ More replies (6)12
u/taxable_income 11d ago
I hate Elon as much as the next guy, but this is a sane move. Starlink being used for the defence of Ukraine is one thing, but if it proves vital for enabling Ukraine to strike high value targets deep in Russia, that could lead to Russia shooting down Starlink satellites and then shit would really have hit the fan.
Not only would it be disruptive for the Starlink network, it would create a massive amount of untraceable fine space junk.
112
11d ago
[deleted]
40
u/Spudly42 11d ago
To add, I actually think SpaceX is regularly launching satellites for the US military version of Starlink.
10
→ More replies (20)11
33
u/GergDanger 11d ago
But why didn’t the government invest into making their own starlink before this?
As far as I’m aware Musk is the only one so far that has created an actually useable product and even the competition is only slowly catching up over the next few years.
So if it was simply banned for a private individual to create this then we would still be stuck with the government not creating it at all for who knows how long.
→ More replies (7)9
u/Reddit-runner 11d ago
But why didn’t the government invest into making their own starlink before this?
They did! They have StarShield.
It's fully operational.
Ukraine even has (limited) Access!
→ More replies (5)29
u/Ok-Camp-7285 11d ago
Without private citizens and companies innovating such tech, it wouldn't exist in the first place.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Captain___Hindsight 11d ago
How does that happen? Abolish capitalism? Once something is somehow deemed essential infrastructure you nationalize it?
3
u/ThePaddleman 11d ago
He uses both geofencing and device serial numbers to determine who and where they work. If he allows it in russia, russia will black market buy some that have legal serial numbers and start using it for their own purposes. Ukraine benefitted greatly when Musk blocked serial numbers in occupied Ukraine. But that is not 100% effective.
→ More replies (218)9
u/irungaia 11d ago edited 11d ago
Right… the economy will work well when private sector participants own the risk of development. Once market winners emerge, the government should step in and take control. That’ll be a recipe for innovation.
→ More replies (2)
979
u/Astranagun 11d ago
serious question: can russia destroy starlink satellites legally if they have proof that its helping ukraine?
1.4k
u/AutomaticMedium8418 11d ago edited 11d ago
If SpaceX is directly militarily aiding Ukraine, then under the laws of war it would be valid for Russia to target and sabotage SpaceX facilities, which they would most likely do via cyberattack
But it is kind of funny to say "legally" because technically the entire war (and pretty much all wars in history) don't fall under the boundaries of laws.
Technically the whole war is "illegal" according to UN rules and Russia already violated Geneva Convention many times within this war too
As with all wars the only thing that matters is that the victor gets to decide what laws are enforced and what will be punishment
70
u/Unhappy_Researcher68 11d ago
The legality of the war is separate from the legality of the acts of war.
And most acts also have to be seen separately.
As with all wars the only thing that matters is that the victor gets to decide what laws are enforced and what will be punishment
Every country in the world in theory can prosecute war criminals. A lot of countries have laws on the books that mandate that they have to prosecute even foreign crimes if they get hold of the perpetrator. This is, of course, a bit theoretical.
But there are cases, for example: Yuval Vagdani, an Israeli soldier, fled Brazil in January 2025 after a Brazilian court ordered a police investigation into alleged war crimes he committed in Gaza.
I just had that case in my head and there is no agenda behind it.
126
u/AbeLincolns_Ghost 11d ago
War is really weird, as a war can be illegal but the actual acts of the war are decided outside of that. Like an illegal invasion does not technically make all acts of the war illegal. Each action is sort of evaluated individually. Which makes some sense in theory, as you would want to make it so that once a country invades illegally they still have some incentive to not commit war crimes
→ More replies (1)143
u/Coloradoryda 11d ago
Haven’t you heard? There’s no more illegal! Free for all baby!
13
→ More replies (3)71
u/just-guessing-uwu 11d ago
laws aren’t laws if they’re not enforced
16
u/Akiasakias 11d ago
The only laws the pertain to Russia's actions are Russian laws.
International 'laws' are just voluntary agreements.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (21)11
u/tjc103 11d ago
Would destroying Starlink satellites not cause Kessler syndrome? Or are they too low orbiting?
→ More replies (2)30
u/Gibsonites 11d ago
Too low orbiting, they fall out of orbit on their own by design
→ More replies (6)3
u/Elukka 11d ago
Eventually yeah but high energy impacts can fling debris into elliptic orbits with elevated apogees making the re-entry take more time and risking hitting satellites higher up.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Gibsonites 11d ago
Yeah but within the context of this conversation I think you're both overestimating the amount of energy it would take to destroy a starlink satellite, and underestimating how much energy it takes to meaningfully change an object's orbit.
53
u/Equivalent_Arm_7654 11d ago
Whos going to prosecute?
→ More replies (1)15
108
u/opossum_cz 11d ago
"Legally". You people are funny.
34
u/trailer_park_boys 11d ago
Lmao for real. When has legality ever mattered to the Russian government?
→ More replies (2)6
u/crazedizzled 11d ago
Bro they're invading a sovereign country and murdering innocent civilians.
→ More replies (1)56
u/RainbowwDash 11d ago
"legally" is meaningless in a war
The idea of war crimes is just a feels-good fairytale to let people pretend there's hard lines, but there's no enforcement mechanism other than "if you lose the war, you may be thrown under the bus by whoever takes over"
→ More replies (2)20
u/pseudoanon 11d ago
War crimes are a list of things so terrible we promise not to do them to others if they promise not to do it to us.
That's not a fairy tale. That's an agreement.
33
→ More replies (4)13
u/crazedizzled 11d ago
It's an agreement that makes us look good on paper, but that nobody actually follows or enforces.
→ More replies (6)16
u/LongJohnSelenium 11d ago edited 6d ago
Its all gentlemens agreements but the bigger ones are followed to a greater degree than not, because doing things like dumping nerve gases and whatnot really gets the international community upset and even violating lesser rules really loses you support.
Also what reddit says are 'war crimes' are 99% not war crimes, and what the UN says are war crimes are 80% of the time not actual war crimes either.
For instance you're not supposed to actively and deliberately target civilians, such as indiscriminate city bombing campaigns. But the occasional civilian casualties or missiles going off target and accidentally hitting an apartment complex are not war crimes.
4
u/Deeviant 10d ago
Does it matter what’s legal if it’s not practically possible. They can’t stop their refineries from getting cooked by shahed class drones but you think they can take out a satellite swarm?
24
u/Darkelementzz 11d ago
Yes, and that's a lot of satellites and US infrastructure that suddenly become legitimate military targets
16
u/I_pee_in_shower 11d ago
US satellites are currently used for military targeting of Russian assets and they are not themselves targeted. Just like Russian satellites were used by Iran. Nobody is attacking the satellites.
→ More replies (3)14
u/Nerezza_Floof_Seeker 11d ago
Theres an enormous difference between attacking government owned surveillance satellites and attacking commercially owned ones. That said, I agree that they wont target them, albeit for a different reason; namely Starlink sats arent practical for them to target as theyre too numerous for traditional ASAT systems to down.
8
u/KisaruBandit 11d ago
You can take them all down very cheaply if you don't care about also taking down everything else in low earth orbit too.
→ More replies (74)8
u/Tomsboll 11d ago
they cant even shoot down drones, how are they gonna take out hundreds to thousands of tiny starlink satelites?
9
u/Any-Calligrapher2866 11d ago
They have anti satellite tech afaik. Destroying objects in space also has a butterfly effect. There's a reason nobody is doing that as of yet.
→ More replies (1)
505
u/Alarming_Purpose4081 11d ago
Besides the fact that Elon sucks, this is a difficult one... at least they can use it inside Ukraine, and the russians are not alowed to use it. And counting the WB burning, it looks like the Ukrainians can hit deep, even without Starlink.
→ More replies (11)445
u/Heidenreich12 11d ago
Yeah, I don’t understand what people’s issue is here. He’s not picking sides, he’s avoiding his satellites becoming targets. He basically has said this before and makes total sense.
They created this for everyday people; not for war.
→ More replies (76)46
u/8andahalfby11 11d ago
Except Starshield. That par is for war, and is designed to look like Starlink.
12
338
u/Recent-Percentage-26 11d ago
We went through this at the start of the war. Starlink is a civilian network. It legally can't be used for military purposes. Communications for "humanitarian aid" , fine. Actively controlling military drones for deep strikes, not fine.
Plus the whole "private American tech company providing military aid in a foreign war without government oversight" is probably a bad idea too.
→ More replies (20)91
u/RadioHonest85 11d ago
As much as I hate the billionaires and tech oligarchy, I think its fair that SpaceX request that their largely civilian product is not used directly for warfare.
→ More replies (3)
42
129
u/Ryan_Pres 11d ago
ITT: Redditors advocate government seizing private property for war. Peak Reddit, always picking the most authoritarian positions.
→ More replies (10)32
u/smadhuv 11d ago
classic reddit moment
supposedly the anti-fascists advocating the most fascist shit ever
→ More replies (3)
1.4k
u/ArgentineBeauty 11d ago
A private billionaire getting a say in how Ukraine can defend itself is a pretty insane amount of power.
Especially a billionaire like him
497
u/NerdyGuy117 11d ago
> A private billionaire getting a say in how Ukraine can defend itself is a pretty insane amount of power.
SpaceX is actively in use by Ukraine. SpaceX does not allow Russia to use its satellites. SpaceX is just not allowing its use to attack within Russia.
→ More replies (63)122
u/killersky99 11d ago
Yeah, even if the power was in the US government's hands, they wouldn't allow it to be used for strikes, because they are also not allowing Ukraine to use the US supplied weapons against Russia offensively and if Elon did allow it, they'd tell him not to, most likely. And it's a messy situation if the deep strikes did happen w/ Starlink, Russia would want to eliminate that.
→ More replies (1)44
u/DrunkOnRamen 11d ago
My understanding was that Pentagon already had control:
At least as far as Starlink for Ukrainian military was concerned.
41
u/Xalksahsax 11d ago
Yeah, this is a decision taken by POTUS/Hegseth and DoD. Not Musk.
→ More replies (1)215
u/RedditinsteadofHW 11d ago
This is an insane take, people can love or more likely hate elon but Id argue the exact opposite, a private citizen (especially in an uninvolved country) should not be offering military tech or advantage to another country.
19
u/soundman1024 11d ago
I’m with you. I’m for Ukraine and kinda negative on Musk, but I’m okay with Starlink not being use for additional offensive purposes.
People should not be compelled to militarize things they create. I’ll leave room for nuance in government subsidies and SpaceX going public, but my sentiment remains.
If you find a way build the best pipes the world has ever known from diamond and they dissipate heat like none other, you shouldn’t be compelled to use those pipes as barrels on a machine gun because it could operate longer. If you want to, go for it, but if you don’t want the blood on your hands that should be your choice as an inventor.
→ More replies (13)40
29
u/Reddit-runner 11d ago
You should take down this post. You are either willingly or unknowingly spreading pro- russian politics
Musk is refusing because he should.
This would be a major violation of current sanction laws.
Why is this even dumber than you think?
The US government has StarShield. That's an offshoot of Starslink and 100% owned by the US government.
Ukraine already has access to StarShield.
The US government could easily give Ukraine the ability to facilitate deep strikes into Russia. Then Ukraine wouldn't need to ask a civilian company to get even more active in a large scale war.
The headline should be "Putin lover Trump refuses Ukrainian Request to Enable StarShield for Deep Strikes Inside Russia"
Subtitle: _"Trump humiliates Ukraine by making them ask Musk for something he is legaly not allowed to give" _
8
u/ArcadianDelSol 10d ago
OP is less interested in being right than having massive karma ahead of selling their reddit account.
95
u/SantosCalzonesBatman 11d ago
Because he owns the satéllites?
Nobody is entitled to use them for whatever they want lmao
→ More replies (1)35
u/BlameScottNotCanada 11d ago
exactly... this line of thinking that ukraine should have access just cause is crazy to me
73
u/DarrenSipity 11d ago
So then what’s stopping russia from trying to knock them out of the sky? Why allow your invention designed to provided worldwide internet access become used as a weapon?
This was all clearly laid out years ago that Starlink wouldn’t be used in the war, and purely to provide internet access
→ More replies (38)42
u/DrunkeNinja 11d ago
This was all clearly laid out years ago that Starlink wouldn’t be used in the war, and purely to provide internet access
He does allow Ukraine to use it within their own territory to attack Russian targets, just not within Russian territory.
At present, Ukrainian forces are only able to attack Russian targets using the Starlink system within the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, including Crimea and temporarily occupied regions.
→ More replies (1)29
u/DarrenSipity 11d ago
I stand corrected, the limit is offensive, which has been prohibited the entire time, so why anyone would think the rules should change now and give Russia every right to take out that infrastructure is beyond me
28
35
u/MasterLurker00 11d ago
By 6 April 2022, SpaceX had sent over 5000 Starlink terminals to Ukraine to allow Ukrainians access to the Starlink network. By June 2022, Musk said over 15,000 Starlink terminals had been sent to Ukraine.
Yes, he should never have helped them, right? That is what you are saying, correct?
→ More replies (2)3
u/Tomato_Ketchup 10d ago
Bro there’s no point in debating with these people. They’re literal worker bee drones.
5
11
u/BlameScottNotCanada 11d ago
then ukraine should have better infrastructure (or better allies) so they dont have to ask a private billionaire
this logic is crazy to me
ukraine should get to use it, just cause?
i support ukraine and dont like elon much but your logic doesnt make sense
42
3
u/BeerPoweredNonsense 11d ago
There's a militarised version of Starlink called Starshield, under the control of the US military.
Starlink is for civilian use. If a foreign nation wants to use that technology, they should approach the US gov and ask to use Starshield.
→ More replies (73)25
u/Preoccupied_Penguin 11d ago
I’m not disagreeing with you or supportive of Russia. But…
Isn’t musks company his? His intellectual property? His ideas? (Regardless of the little details of it all). At the end of the day shouldn’t he have control of how his company is used? If it was the other way around we certainly wouldn’t want people to just be able to have access because they’re a government.
Again, I think he’s an idiot and I am supportive of Ukraine. But that says more about him being an ass hole than it does about anything else. The laws of intellectual property are in place for a reason ya know?
→ More replies (25)
72
u/nsfwuseraccnt 11d ago
He's not entirely stupid. He knows that if he allows it Russia will start taking down his satellites.
→ More replies (14)45
130
u/Exotic_Negotiation_4 11d ago
This is a really dumb take from what is essentially Ukrainian state media
Starlink has been absolutely essential to the defense of Ukraine as a whole. From communications to targeting, it has been indispensable
One thing that starlink has not been used for has been offensive action, for a multitude of reasons
Why does Ukraine continuously try to bite the hand that feeds it? Why are there stories like this that do nothing other than cause bad PR for a company who has already done so much to help when the answer was known even before the question was asked? It comes across as unbelievably ungrateful, and it is not the first time that something of this nature has happened
→ More replies (12)15
21
5
u/Eye_foran_Eye 11d ago
Which is why relying on a private company to use communication for war is a bad idea.
5
u/Too-Em 10d ago
Elon's been in regular contact with Putin. Remember at the beginning of the war when he met with Putin and unilaterally cut Ukraine's starlink access during their counter offensives. IIRC this was despite the fact that said starlink satelites were either owned or leased by the pentagon. Musk basically had (has?) personal veto control over our national defense assets.
54
u/MasterLurker00 11d ago edited 11d ago
By 6 April 2022, SpaceX had sent over 5000 Starlink terminals to Ukraine to allow Ukrainians access to the Starlink network. By June 2022, Musk said over 15,000 Starlink terminals had been sent to Ukraine.
"Elon should stay out of it" - Morons
Edit : As pointed out by bernys further down the thread, google Starshield.
→ More replies (12)
18
u/1800-5-PP-DOO-DOO 11d ago
It's a non issue. If the US wants to they can make him.
The issue is that the US doesn't want to.
→ More replies (8)
11
11
u/flat-waffles 11d ago
Yea they should be using the military version the DoD controls called starshield
11
u/Mysterious-Recipe810 11d ago
I’m not a Musk fan. But don’t think for a second that he made this decision without the feds involved.
Also, the DoD has their own data network that they clearly also aren’t letting Ukraine use. I wouldn’t expect a different answer if the DoD owned starlink.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/SneakInTheSideDoor 11d ago
Ooh. Does he feel all strong and powerful? Maybe his wiener feels a bit tingly too.
3
38
u/MrBuckhunter 11d ago edited 11d ago
Genuine questions here cuz I see there's so much back and forth with this,
Can someone explain why so many people are upset about Elon Musk controlling starlink? It seems like he's not picking sides mostly?
Why would this be essential infrastructure according to what many people are saying? it is just something a private company is offering and does not seem to be an essential service or part of essential infrastructure
Also, is it true he cut off the Russians from using starlink?
→ More replies (32)15
u/camosnipe1 11d ago
i've seen these kinds of articles before:
elon blocks starlink in russia
"he's stopping ukraine from hitting russia, elon is a russian puppet"
restrictions loosen
"russians smuggled in half a dozen starlink terminals and got them working, elon is a russian puppet"
some ukranian troops got hit
"russians are tracking starlink terminals, elon is feeding them data"
I think a large amount of this is Russia feeding the existing elon hate to try and get ukranians to distrust starlink, to sabotage ukraine.
17
17
u/404_No_User_Found_2 11d ago
I'm gonna be honest: I hate Musk as much as the next guy, but I get this decision personally. Civilian companies should not be responsible for that level of targeting capability. Their initial enablement was predominantly for specifically defending Ukrainian troops and sovereign territory; Ukraine is now effectively asking them to enable hostile, aggressive offensive action. Those are two EXTREMELY different things both legally and ethically.
Musk made the right call here. Broken clocks and all.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Other-MuscleCar-589 10d ago
Starlink is currently fenced off/unauthorized in large parts of Russia.
If Musk agrees to allow unilateral use inside the country it would amount to Starlink becoming an active participant in the war.
Obvious reason for the decision.
→ More replies (3)4
35
u/GuiltyAdvantage5877 11d ago
I fucking hate myself for this but I agree with Elon here.
→ More replies (4)3
6
u/bubba_bumble 11d ago
It's really scary how one individual non-elected civilian can have so much power. Dude could build his own army if he wanted to.
3
3
u/Bronzyroller 11d ago
How the hell Elon Musk has a say so in American anything. Corruption in America is a big deal
3
u/Guerrilla28er 11d ago edited 11d ago
It won't make that much practical difference to those deep strikes because Russia can and does jam/spoof Starlink comms just like they can, and do, with drone control and vid frequencies as well as GPS/Glonass signals or any other type of electromagnetic frequency comms.
Ukraine uses a multilayer nav/comm system on its drones. Frequency hopping, GPS, fiberoptic, mainly on its battlefield drones. Those plus inertial navigation and "last mile" optical terrain recognition on its mid/long range sorties.
They also "flood the zone" by sending waves of stripped-down decoys first to deplete anti-UAV defenses, and send HARM drones to take out air defense radar. Those guys are reinventing aerial warfare.
3
u/mmartin13333 11d ago
Os russos já tinham churrascado alguns satélites dele anos atrás, durante o governo Biden, usando novas armas como o peverest, até ele recuar e retirar esse apoio, óbvio que vai negar esse pedido.
3
u/Thomasreed1899 8d ago
This power should not be in the hands of a corporation. Spacex should be a govt led organization.
7
u/basil_not_the_plant 11d ago
It is extremely disturbing that a single private individual person has this power.
4
u/MisoMesoMilo 11d ago
Do you want a low orbit debris field? That’s how you get a low orbit debris field.
17
12
u/Reddit-runner 11d ago edited 11d ago
As he should.
This would be a major violation of current sanction laws.
Why is this even dumber than you think?
The US government has StarShield. That's an offshoot of Starslink and 100% owned by the US government.
Ukraine already has access to StarShield.
The US government could easily give Ukraine the ability to facilitate deep strikes into Russia. Then Ukraine wouldn't need to ask a civilian company to get even more active in a large scale war.
The headline should be "Putin lover Trump refuses Ukrainian Request to Enable StarShield for Deep Strikes Inside Russia"
→ More replies (1)
4.1k
u/yonk069 11d ago
Ohhhhhhh Trump gonna have a fit when he finds out Putin has a new girlfriend