America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 months ago by RayR. 15 replies replies.
ELONMUSK AND THE WAR IN UKRAINE
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
Ukraine official: Musk’s help enabled Russian aggression


NYT

A top adviser to Ukraine’s president accused Elon Musk of enabling Russian aggression, after the billionaire entrepreneur acknowledged denying satellite internet service in order to prevent a Ukrainian drone attack on a Russian naval fleet last year.

The Starlink satellite internet service, operated by Musk’s rocket company SpaceX, has been a digital lifeline in Ukraine since the early days of the war for both civilians and soldiers in areas where digital infrastructure has been wiped out.

On Thursday, CNN reported that an excerpt from Walter Isaacson’s upcoming biography, “Elon Musk,” to be published by The Washington Post, said the billionaire had ordered the deactivation of Starlink satellite service near the coast of Crimea last September to thwart the Ukrainian attack. The excerpt said that Musk had conversations with a Russian official that led him to worry that an attack on Crimea could spiral into a nuclear conflict.

Later Thursday, Musk responded on his social media platform to say that he hadn’t disabled the service but had rather refused to comply with an emergency request from Ukrainian officials to enable Starlink connections to Sevastopol on the occupied Crimean Peninsula. That was in effect an acknowledgment that he had made the decision to prevent a Ukrainian attack.

“The obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor,” he wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. “If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.”

That drew an angry response from Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine. Musk’s “interference,” he said, had allowed Russia’s naval fleet to continue firing cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities. “As a result, civilians, children are being killed. This is the price of a cocktail of ignorance and big ego,” he wrote on X.

The account in the biography further confirms the ways in which Musk’s control over Starlink appears to be affecting Ukraine’s military. In July, The New York Times reported on Musk’s refusal to allow the service to work near Crimea, and the broader challenges Ukrainian officials were facing because of the country’s huge dependence on Starlink.

Within days of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Musk sent Starlink terminals to the country in response to public pleas from Ukrainian officials. Throughout the war, the connectivity provided by Starlink has been pivotal for Ukraine to coordinate drone strikes and gather intelligence.

The more than 42,000 Starlink terminals are also in use by hospitals, businesses and aid organizations across Ukraine.
But Musk has repeatedly stoked controversy about access to Starlink, saying last October that he could not “indefinitely” finance Ukraine’s use of Starlink, then abruptly reversing course. The nearly total control that he wields over connectivity in the war zone has prompted concern about his influence.

In February, Ukrainian officials were angered after a SpaceX executive said that Starlink had taken steps to curtail the Ukrainian military’s use of the technology to control drones, a week after Musk said the company was “not allowing Starlink to be used for long-range drone strikes.” SpaceX has also used a process called geofencing to restrict where Starlink is available on the front lines.

Because Starlink is a commercial product rather than a traditional defense contractor, Musk is able to make decisions that may not be aligned with U.S. interests, analysts have said.

Ukraine, concerned about overdependence on Starlink, has consulted other satellite internet providers, but no other services come close to its reach, officials have said.



Should a U.S. Citizen who uses NASA to launch satelites be alowwed to contradict U.S. policy on the Ukraine war?
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,142
rfenst wrote:



Should a U.S. Citizen who uses NASA to launch satelites be alowwed to contradict U.S. policy on the Ukraine war?


No. He should be arrested, transported to a re-education camp, and his means of production should be nationalized.

There also should be an inquiry as to whether you received the proper government approval before posting this because it could be interpreted as contradicting US policy on the Ukraine war for global freedom. You should immediately clarify your stance of unwavering support.


Hold on…On second thought maybe maybe we should just be helping Ukraine use US military satellites. We probably aren’t doing that just like we have done with other military equipment that we send or do not send to the Ukrainian war for global freedom.
RayR Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
So, Musk is a non-interventionist and doesn't want Starlink used by belligerent governments to kill people? TRAITOR!
rfenst Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
RayR wrote:
So, Musk is a non-interventionist and doesn't want Starlink used by belligerent governments to kill people? TRAITOR!

Ukraine is belligerant?
RayR Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
rfenst wrote:
Ukraine is belligerent?


belligerent: a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law

Geez...do I have to teach you everything?
rfenst Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
That is a negative conotation of the word.

Was the U.S. "beligerant" when it attacked Japan after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and declared war on the U.S.?
Was the U.S. Revolution "beligerant"?

How in the hell can you sincerely attribute common english terminology with a negative conotation a country that is protecting its borders, people and peacefull interests like free trade, "beligerant"?
Brewha Online
#7 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
Uh, because Ray is a Russian shrill or bot?
HockeyDad Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,142
rfenst wrote:
That is a negative conotation of the word.

Was the U.S. "beligerant" when it attacked Japan after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and declared war on the U.S.?
Was the U.S. Revolution "beligerant"?

How in the hell can you sincerely attribute common english terminology with a negative conotation a country that is protecting its borders, people and peacefull interests like free trade, "beligerant"?


Yes, the US was a belligerent to Japan and England. (Noun)

Yes, we acted as an extreme belligerent to them. (Adjective)

We beligerated the s$&t out of them. (Made up verb)
RayR Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
Thank you HD.

I guess some of us have to teach wurds around here.
Gene363 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,824
rfenst wrote:
Ukraine official: Musk’s help enabled Russian aggression


NYT

A top adviser to Ukraine’s president accused Elon Musk of enabling Russian aggression, after the billionaire entrepreneur acknowledged denying satellite internet service in order to prevent a Ukrainian drone attack on a Russian naval fleet last year.

The Starlink satellite internet service, operated by Musk’s rocket company SpaceX, has been a digital lifeline in Ukraine since the early days of the war for both civilians and soldiers in areas where digital infrastructure has been wiped out.

On Thursday, CNN reported that an excerpt from Walter Isaacson’s upcoming biography, “Elon Musk,” to be published by The Washington Post, said the billionaire had ordered the deactivation of Starlink satellite service near the coast of Crimea last September to thwart the Ukrainian attack. The excerpt said that Musk had conversations with a Russian official that led him to worry that an attack on Crimea could spiral into a nuclear conflict.

Later Thursday, Musk responded on his social media platform to say that he hadn’t disabled the service but had rather refused to comply with an emergency request from Ukrainian officials to enable Starlink connections to Sevastopol on the occupied Crimean Peninsula. That was in effect an acknowledgment that he had made the decision to prevent a Ukrainian attack.

“The obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor,” he wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. “If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.”

That drew an angry response from Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine. Musk’s “interference,” he said, had allowed Russia’s naval fleet to continue firing cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities. “As a result, civilians, children are being killed. This is the price of a cocktail of ignorance and big ego,” he wrote on X.

The account in the biography further confirms the ways in which Musk’s control over Starlink appears to be affecting Ukraine’s military. In July, The New York Times reported on Musk’s refusal to allow the service to work near Crimea, and the broader challenges Ukrainian officials were facing because of the country’s huge dependence on Starlink.

Within days of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Musk sent Starlink terminals to the country in response to public pleas from Ukrainian officials. Throughout the war, the connectivity provided by Starlink has been pivotal for Ukraine to coordinate drone strikes and gather intelligence.

The more than 42,000 Starlink terminals are also in use by hospitals, businesses and aid organizations across Ukraine.
But Musk has repeatedly stoked controversy about access to Starlink, saying last October that he could not “indefinitely” finance Ukraine’s use of Starlink, then abruptly reversing course. The nearly total control that he wields over connectivity in the war zone has prompted concern about his influence.

In February, Ukrainian officials were angered after a SpaceX executive said that Starlink had taken steps to curtail the Ukrainian military’s use of the technology to control drones, a week after Musk said the company was “not allowing Starlink to be used for long-range drone strikes.” SpaceX has also used a process called geofencing to restrict where Starlink is available on the front lines.

Because Starlink is a commercial product rather than a traditional defense contractor, Musk is able to make decisions that may not be aligned with U.S. interests, analysts have said.

Ukraine, concerned about overdependence on Starlink, has consulted other satellite internet providers, but no other services come close to its reach, officials have said.



Should a U.S. Citizen who uses NASA to launch satelites be alowwed to contradict U.S. policy on the Ukraine war?


If Musk was on the Russian side, he would have turned off the Starlink system used by the Ukrainians, oh and not launched the additional Starlink satellite that specifically supported the Ukrainians.

Funny, before he bought Twitter, AKA X, he was lauded for helping out the Ukrainians with internet access, I guess his obstinate belief in the freedom of speech and his exposure of the propaganda collusion between the FBI, CIA, and US media companies, including Twitter makes him a target for negative propaganda and canceling.

Maybe Musk wants a share all those US taxpayer billions Sniffy Joe is throwing to the Ukrainians.
ZRX1200 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,617
This is a great distraction from a $6.2 billion discrepancy…..you know fraud n stuff Mellow
RayR Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
Speaking of the belligerent Sniffy Joe and the gang...

US To Arm Ukraine With Toxic Depleted Uranium Munitions

by Tyler Durden
Sunday, Sep 03, 2023 - 07:35 AM

Quote:
In the latest manifestation of the War State's depraved indifference to human suffering in Ukraine, the United States will soon pour depleted-uranium munitions into its proxy war against Russia, according to an exclusive report from Reuters.

The shells, which are designed to penetrate enemy armored vehicles, will be used by US M-1 Abrams tanks that will begin arriving in Ukraine within the next several weeks. In March, the United Kingdom was first to announce it would give the controversial rounds to Ukraine, for use in British Challenger 2 tanks.

The ammunition is made from the byproduct of uranium that's been processed for nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. In anti-tank use, depleted uranium is valued for its density, which is 1.7 times the density of lead. It's used to manufacture dart-like sabot rounds that penetrate armor and then ignite when they contact the oxygen inside the targeted vehicle.

While the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) says the risk posed to civilians by the residue of depleted uranium (DU) rounds "was not significant," a different study points to potential links between the ammunition and a variety of genuinely horrifying birth defects in Iraq. That study centered on the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah, which was attacked by the US military in the early 90s and again in 2003.

More...

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-arm-ukraine-toxic-depleted-uranium-munitions
Mr. Jones Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,431
I could use two or tree million from that
$6.2 B.I.L.L.I.O.N. diScRePanCy...

I sure could....

Somebody is robbing us BLIND...

IM GUESSING ITS SOME UKRAINIANS....
ZRX1200 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,617
As long as the Big Guy gets his 10% everything is cool.

Otherwise your gut gets nicked.
RayR Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
Gubmint says that if you feel we are robbing you, rest assured we are robbing you for a good cause, it's for the children. 👶
Users browsing this topic
Guest