• Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    267
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a disingenuous statement. By not agreeing to do it he is complicit in major acts of war, i.e. whatever attacks the Russians do with their fleet. What a tosser.

    • mcgravier@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      151
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Starlink was specifically agreed for civilian use only. It’s the Ukraine who tries to breach that agreement, SpaceX simply doesn’t want to be accused of exporting weapons

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        86
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a bullshit excuse used by Melon’s fan boys.

        Whether the technology is restricted by ITAR isn’t based whether it was ever used as a weapon, but whether the US government thinks it can be used as a weapon.

        • mcgravier@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          but whether the US government thinks it can be used as a weapon.

          That’s even worse because US government can change it’s stance on starlink any time - which would be disaster for SpaceX

      • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, if a much larger country was invading, shelling apartment buildings, mining the fuck out of farmland and murdering thousands of people, I’d probably breach a ToS.

        Also, that sounds a bit absurd considering he just got the US DoD to pay for Ukraine’s starlink service.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also that larger country is firing missiles from ships in the Black Sea, and many of those missiles do kill civilians.

          Also using those ships to disrupt grain shipments which is causing issues with the food supply world wide.

          • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah, but Elron saved us ALL from nuclear war. A typical grandiose and pretentious statement for him, I suppose.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Español
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it wasn’t. The Pentagon pays for the service explicitly as military aid to Ukraine. Since, you know, Russia blew up a lot of Ukrainian infrastructure.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    210
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Uber wealthy private citizens able to control the path of wars in countries they don’t live in.

    That’s some dystopian shit.

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to this degree. Musk is the richest person ever to have lived. He’s got more money than most nations on the planet have ever had, comparatively. His wealth, power, and influence are obscene.

        His wealth is currently growing at $14.75 million per hour. He could spend a million dollars every day for a thousand years and still be the richest person on earth.

        I don’t think many people can fathom how extreme his wealth hoarding actually is. It’s literally mind-boggling. He could single-handedly solve the hunger crisis planet-wide and make a huge impact on the climate crisis, but instead he uses his money to fellate himself, take credit for others’ work, and ruin things.

        In the past, kings and barons have only wished to have the money and power he wields, and this is what he’s doing with it. It’s absolutely shameful.

        • mob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think so. For example, isn’t it believed that Rothschild was a large contributing factor to The War of 1812?

          I’d imagine a lot of those “old money” families dabbled throughout history

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            isn’t it believed that Rothschild was a large contributing factor to The War of 1812?

            By anti-Semitic conspiracy circles, yes. By anyone who has looked into these claims without being a conspiracy nut, no.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Quite a few supporters for independence in America’s revolutionary war against England were quite wealthy, and stood to make very good money with an independent US. Hancock was one of them.

          I don’t know if I’d say that was the entire reason for the war of independence, but I think it was substantial enough that we can consider it an example in this case.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            no, it is not, just because there was an economic incentive for some people during the revolution doesn’t mean that it is comparable, if you want comparable, imagine if the of the richest Italians had replaced many of the American cannons with wooden fakes

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                no, because the leadership actually did the fighting, unlike musk who just shut off service when daddy Putin asked him to

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s important to note that the company, and the technology being used was not created by him, too. He just bought it… And now he’s doing evil things with it while he pretends he’s some sort of anti-war hero.

      Like… Congratulations, douchebag, you helped a defend an evil superpower during their active, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation involving countless war crimes and crimes against humanity. What a fuckin’ hero you are, Elon.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    189
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The way he phrases it is as if Ukraine asked him to enable them to make the attack. They asked him to switch it back on, because he had explicitly disabled service in the area, after giving the devices to Ukraine in the first place.

    • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      So they can Netflix and chill during the Russian invasion. That’s definitely what these devices were for. No way Elon could’ve known there was any military usage in a country desperately fighting for it’s existance.

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        He’s said as much… That’s the really fucked up part. He’s behind

        “Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes”. -Elon Musk

        Like… ‘don’t worry about the war crimes, just Netflix and chill, Ukraine.’

        Fuck Elon Musk.

  • arockinyourshoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “If I had agreed to their request, then spacex would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t SpaceX be explicitly complicit in conflict escalation by interfering with Ukraine’s ability to defend itself?

    • atempuser23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now that it’s shown he is explicitly monitoring each attach by Ukraine, it shows he is responsible for every other attack that has used starlink.

      It also shows that starlink is monitoring its traffic and use at an unexpected level.

      This action shows Elon is 100% responsible for every other attack. This is why companies don’t usually do this.

    • dsco@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Couldn’t you say the same thing about power companies and the mail system? We’re taking about shutting off utilities to help/hinder those that align with ideals.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “The best defense is a good offense”

      Looks like you’re right… I doubt the Russians agree with you though, lol.

    • halvar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well at the very least you have to agree, that he was in quite a dilemma. If he allows it, he interferes by action. If he doesn’t, he interferes by inaction.

      To him, and to me too, inaction seems more impartial, which is probably all he cares about at this point, and once again it’s what I would probably care about too.

      You can be mad at someone who is impartial, but at the end of the day, the only thing you are mad at, is them not doing jack-shit, which of course can be very annoying.

      • AJT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really since its already being used by the military, knowingly and deliberately provided.

        So he’s already active.

        • halvar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well now you got me, since I didn’t know that. So this guy then just lacks any integrity, which is not suprising at all.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Español
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        He had a choice in his hands with privileged information, then he chose the Russian side. This declarations are just justification to wash his hands, he is team Putin all the way, always has been. He has been seen partying with Russian oligarchs. The reason he bought SpaceX was because his original idea of buying dismantled ICBMs from his rusky arms dealer pals was too incredibly stupid to pull off, and it was easier to do it by way of an aerospace company.

        Starlink service was bought by Ukraine to provide internet access to civilians and the military. Technically it was provided by the US because Musk offered to, for free initially, though he later pedalled back to charge inordinate amounts of money. Which the US and UA agreed to pay anyway. Because single companies monopolizing entire control to fundamental services is a huge issue. War time or not. He is profiteering and unfortunately owns the only company that can provide this specific kind of service. But in strategic matters, he will always go to bat for his BFF Vova.

      • Pengui@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        People just don’t get it. All they want is dead Russians. I myself would prefer humiliated and defeated Russians, not necessarily dead. All they have to do is capitulate and admit they are losers and ill be happy.

    • Zengen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Elon musk is not a military entity. He is a private citizen. His taxes just like yours and mine are going into this war. But he is also providing starlink to the civilian population as a humanitarian gesture. Expecting every private citizen to get up and wield a weapon against Russia for Ukraine is not realistic, nor does refusal to do so make you complicit in helping Russia. Just like being a conscientious objector in Vietnam didn’t make you complicit in supporting the Viet Kong.

      • atempuser23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No dude, NO! Elon is being paid BILLIONS by various nato entities to provide all of Ukraine , including and especially the military, a communication networks within their territory because Russia blew theirs up.

        Crimea is Ukraine. Elon disagrees.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          According to CNBC, SpaceX is funding Starlink in Ukraine, not the government:

          “Musk reportedly told the Pentagon in October he would no longer finance the Starlink terminals in Ukraine as the country prepared to fight through the harsh winter months. However, the billionaire reversed course and did continue to fund the service.”

          https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/01/pentagon-awards-spacex-with-ukraine-contract-for-starlink-satellite-internet.html#:~:text=Musk reportedly told the Pentagon,continue to fund the service.

          • pthaloblue@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            First paragraph of the article you linked:

            The Pentagon said Thursday it has agreed to purchase Starlink satellite internet terminals from Elon Musk’s SpaceX for use in Ukraine as Kyiv continues to defend itself against a full-scale Russian invasion.

          • atempuser23@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            from the same article " We continue to work with a range of global partners to ensure Ukraine has the satellite and communication capabilities they need. Satellite communications constitute a vital layer in Ukraine’s overall communications network and the department contracts with Starlink for services of this type,” the Pentagon said in a statement to CNBC."

            Elon was claiming that the terminals were operating at a loss, so he was ‘funding’ the service. Since he owns the terminals and the satellites he is providing service, not funding. He often get confused on the details of contracts.

            • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s true, but still, those terminals cost money and SpaceX has provided free access for thousands of Starlink stations for Ukraine military access.

      • pthaloblue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh pish posh. Elon’s isn’t providing starlink as a humanitarian, he’s making the US government pay for it. That’s his whole game, subsidized capitalism that gives him plausible deniability.

  • macniel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Elon doesn’t get it. He is neck deep in it. With his denying he helps the Invaders whereas with his allowance he would have helped ukraine fighting for their freedom.

    He should be put on a list now imho.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Alternate take: Elon Musk knowingly and intentionally prolonged the war in Ukraine. Sinking the Russian fleet at anchor would have been the most expedient way to end the war with as few casualties as possible. It’s really really hard to fight a war without a navy.

    The last time we capitulated to a dictator who invaded Europe, they didn’t stop with just the first invasion. Just because Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons doesn’t mean we have to roll over for him and give him an easy win in Ukraine.

    • atempuser23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Elon Musk denied internet service in Ukraine to assist a foreign invading Navy. Star link needs to be nationalized and taken away. Pay him for it and remove him from any part.

    • archomrade [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      If anything, Ukraine having control over the Black Sea means they can prolong their effort in the war, not end it quicker.

      • Strykker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes because somehow Ukraine defeating Russia will lead to the war continuing… what the fuck is wrong with you.

        • archomrade [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not what I’m saying. Russia having control over the black sea means more for Ukraine than for Russia, as it’s essentially the only route to deliver supplies to Ukraine. Russia has plenty of other routes to continue supplying the war effort. Taking back control over those waters means Ukraine can more easily import and export supplies and it extends their ability to fight the war, but it doesn’t do much to actually push Russia out (except maybe cut Russia off from a quick retreat out of Crimea).

          Taking out the Russian fleet undoubtedly would have helped Ukraine, i don’t dispute that, I just don’t think it would have expedited any kind of end to the war because Russia has other options both for supplying their positions and in launching attacks and defenses.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If we believe Ukraine will win in the end, something that helps Ukraine should also help them win sooner. That is the opposite of prolonging as you claim.

            Seems to me that although this war is drawing out, the tides are turning to favor Ukraine more than Russia.

            • halvar@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, but I don’t belive that. Sometimes good guys lose. And as inefficient and slow the Russian army is, it has multiple times the resources, and don’t make the mistake of thinking they are stupid or something like that, because you would underestimate your opponent.

              “The tides are turning in favor of Ukraine” is something we’ve been hearing since the start of the war and I’m believing it less and less by the day.

          • atempuser23@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            This entire war is only continuing because Russia wants to protect it’s naval base. Without a navy there is no tactical reason for Russia to hold Crimea over any other part of Ukraine.

            • archomrade [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is a pretty wild claim, but if it’s true then it’s the best argument for a treaty I’ve heard. If all they want is access to the sea, no need to continue warring over Crimea or Donbas, just sign another lease to the port

              Though I’ve repeatedly heard their justifications for annexing Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, so I don’t think anyone has any reason to believe they’d leave if they were just allowed to “protect their naval base”

              I’m getting the feeling this is more of a “vibes” conversation though, sorry for throwing off the vibes

              • atempuser23@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So … sign a lease to the military that is invading them to keep a military base inside their borders. The military base Russia has been using to launch an invasion of Ukraine…

                There can’t be a treat with Russia because in 2014 Russia took crimea then after nearly a decade used it to invade the rest of Ukraine. They had exactly what you offer and Russia found it insufficient. Ukraine made no significant movement to crimea beyond diplomacy. This must be settled with a withdraw of Russia of a defeat. Anything else is just giving Russia time to invade again. Appeasement was tried by the west and fully failed

          • halvar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree. A war usually ends with one of the sides overpowering their opponent. The bombing would have made Ukraine stronger and Russia weaker relatively, but in that process it would have only made the playing field more level. Something that doesn’t happen when the end of a war is nearing.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      44
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      While I hate elon, this is a bad take. Ukraine and russia boarder each other. Most of the fighting has been over land. What good is a navy in such a battle? The most I could think of is shelling but AFAIK russia has been doing it’s shelling with traditional artillery. Further, Russia’s navy is a hot garbage mess. They only have 1 aircraft carrier and it’s been scuttled for pretty much the entire war (and has constantly caught on fire while being scuttled).

      The only wars that are hard to fight without a navy are wars where a significant portion of the warring nation and front-lines are near the water. That’s not this war.

      Not to say there aren’t advantages to Ukraine sinking the russian navy. But rather, it’s unlikely that “the war would have ended tomorrow if they did”.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The russian navy can exert control and is a threat to the hundreds of kilometrrs of black sea cost as well as the ukrainian ports being absolutely crucial to the ukranian economy.

        Also dictators like their fancy navy. Blowing it up would damage Putins image tremendously

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No disagreement, it would be a major blow to russia. I just don’t think it would have ended the war. The navy simply hasn’t played a major role in this war.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            They fire missiles from those ships. Also can prevent grain exports from Ukraine which has a major impact on the economic war.

            Significant damage to the Black Sea fleet would make it clear to many in Russia that Putin is weak which makes a coup more likely. Continuing this war is not in Russia’s best interests it’s only in Putin’s interests (admitting defeat also makes him look weak. A coup in Russia likely ends the war.

            Certainly it’s not something that would automatically end the war, but it significantly increases the probability of the war ending sooner. And there is significant strategic value to that fleet even if it’s not directly engaged in combat.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            the navy acts as mobile missile bases, they also allow Russia to move supplies by water, with there only being 2 land routes to most of the front, the ability to use shipping to bypass blockades, the sinking of the Russian fleet would also have allowed Ukrainians to more easily destroy the bridge between Russia and Crimea, this would make 80%+ of Russian positions in Ukraine untenable in terms of holding militarily, and since Putin can’t afford to lose half his army in just a few months he would be forced to pull out and negotiate.

  • digeridoo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The crazy thing is that the Air Force, Army, and just about every other branch of the military has contracted or is looking to contract with Space X to get Starlink. He doesn’t have a problem with providing the US with that capability because we’re not in direct conflict, but will deny it to ukraine when it’s in Russia’s favor.

    After this I, I would totally re-look those agreements.

    Government contracts for Starlink services

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      If he tried cutting off the US military during an active operation, his life could be made very bad very quickly.

      That would be literal treason.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Russia isn’t an “enemy” legally, and halting a service to a third government to prevent an attack on Russia isn’t the same as hindering the US military.

          It’s horrible, but it isn’t treason

        • Pengui@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          33
          ·
          1 year ago

          He has not. Get over yourself. Could you live with yourself knowing your technology would be used to kill people? I certainly could not. It’s not like he sabotaged an operation, he simply refused to get blood on his hands. Which should be admirable, right? It’s not his fault a country full of no-brain socialists is doing all it can to troll the free world. He is not part of the war yet people seem to want him to be… Somehow. Very very strange. It’s easy to point the finger at someone whose richness you envy, but put yourself in their place. Now would you comply with a request to enable your service simply so it could be used to kill actual people? Don’t get me wrong, I fucking despise Russia and socialism and totalitarianism, but it doesn’t mean I am willing to partake in murdering those who don’t.

          • AssPennies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Musks actions enabled those russian warships to launch missiles into ukranian cities with no regard to civilian casualties. So instead of the russian aggressors being sunk and killed in port, it’s innocent civilians that die. What a great trade off.

            Also, look at grandparent’s comment that started this thread you’re commenting in. Space-X now has a DoD contract to provide Ukraine access to starlink. Then go lookup starshield, the planned military focused offshoot of starlink. The point is Musk has no issue selling shit to the US gov to help participation/perpetuation of war.

            So don’t give us that russian talking point that musk’s actions were to avoid blood on his hands. That weak argument was so easy to poke holes in, and it’s insulting you’d think anyone would fall for.

          • randomperson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes I could knowing it would kill invaders and what’s most important russians. Polander here so might be biased against those mongrels more than you but I would love to provide more tools to get rid of them from Ukrainian territory.

          • chingadera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re an absolute dry dog turd. He signed up for exactly that back when everyone joined the Ukraine bandwagon. He did it for internet points then, and afterwards pussed out or was paid out. He contracted this exact blood on his hands.

    • vivadanang@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      shades of howard hughs level wacky, but no one ever thought he’d work with the russians.

      And space-x represent a host of capabilities that certainly fall in the country’s direct security interest. nationalize spacex?

      it would never ever be considered but musk is that fucking stupid.

      also, he’s lost tens of billions via twitter, so he’s ripe for compromise.

      tsk…

    • empireOfLove@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Correction. He doesn’t have a problem providing the US with service because the government pays a SHITLOAD for guaranteed access to that. Ukraine cannot afford such expenditures.

    • Usanam@lemm.eeB
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think space X shouldn’t be involved with the war. It is not a military company. I don’t know, just my opinion.

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because anything that isn’t “Ukraine rolls over and gives Russia everything,” is escalation. Obviously.

      Nevermind that Russia is the aggressor who invaded another country and has been continually escalating the level of violence they’re using. Anything other countries do to help Ukraine is seen as prolonging the war, and anything that Ukraine does to fight back is called escalation.

      • FaeDrifter
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fellas, is humanitarianism when the world’s richest capitalist says, “you can borrow my stuff, but only if you use it when and how I want”.

  • toiletwhole@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    How is he not in jail already?

    I just can’t get my head around this.

    The fuck ist happening here

    • Zengen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Name 1 thing that hes done thats against the laws of the united states of america?

      • uphillbothways@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aiding a terrorist regime by disabling this attack and losing Ukrainian assets. Acting as a foreign agent by discussing this with Putin. That’s two, right there.

        We’ve sanctioned Russia heavily for this and begun providing that money to Ukraine as relief. They’ve stolen children from Ukraine. Elon is a war criminal.

          • uphillbothways@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            First point:

            https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-16-providing-material-support-designated-terrorist-organizations

            1. PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO DESIGNATED TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS (FUNDRAISING) (18 U.S.C. 2339B)
              The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 gave the Secretary of State authority to designate foreign terrorist organizations whose terrorist activity threatens the security of United States nationals or the national defense, foreign relations or economic interests of the United States. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 302, 110 Stat. 1214, 1248. See also section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1189). The Antiterrorism Act also created 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which makes it unlawful, within the United States, or for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States anywhere, to knowingly provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 303, 110 Stat. 1214, 1250.

            Note: The HARM act hasn’t passed yet, so this might be on shaky grounds. But he may yet find himself in violation. Also, I’m not a lawyer, and I’d bet there’s better ways to prosecute this.


            Second point:

            https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/frequently-asked-questions

            What is FARA?

            FARA is an acronym for the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (“FARA” or “the Act”). FARA requires the registration of, and disclosures by, an “agent of a foreign principal” who, either directly or through another person, within the United States (1) engages in “political activities” on behalf of a foreign principal; (2) acts as a foreign principal’s public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee, or political consultant; (3) solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of a foreign principal; or (4) represents the interests of the foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government. In addition, FARA requires agents to conspicuously label “informational materials” transmitted in the United States for or in the interest of a foreign principal. There are some exemptions to FARA’s registration and labeling requirements for specified categories of agents and activities.

            What are the penalties for violating FARA?

            The penalty for a willful violation of FARA is imprisonment for not more than five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. Certain violations are considered misdemeanors, with penalties of imprisonment of not more than six months, a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. There are also civil enforcement provisions that empower the Attorney General to seek an injunction requiring registration under FARA (for applicable activities) or correcting a deficient registration statement.

                • drathvedro@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO DESIGNATED TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS (FUNDRAISING) (18 U.S.C. 2339B)

                  1. Russian federation is not in the US’s list of terrorist organization
                  2. He did not provide anything to Russian federation

                  FARA requires the registration of, and disclosures by, an “agent of a foreign principal” who, either directly or through another person, within the United States
                  (1) engages in “political activities” on behalf of a foreign principal;

                  You’d have a hard time proving that this falls under “political activity” and that he did it because of foreign influence.

                  (2) acts as a foreign principal’s public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee, or political consultant;
                  (3) solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of a foreign principal; or
                  (4) represents the interests of the foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government. In addition, FARA requires agents to conspicuously label “informational materials” transmitted in the United States for or in the interest of a foreign principal. There are some exemptions to FARA’s registration and labeling requirements for specified categories of agents and activities.

                  He does not do anything of this sort

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Without Elon musk or SpaceX, Ukraine would have precisely zero Starlink systems. So you really should rethink that comment.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Without your ISP you wouldn’t have been able to post that comment.

            So if your ISP decides to disconnect your service when it feels like you’re not doing the things they want you to do with it, you should still thank your ISP because you wouldn’t be able to do the limited things they allow you to do otherwise.

          • oldGregg@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            How is that relavent?

            I’ve rethough it, but the facts stayed the same.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think the fact that to Elon Musk the morals of this are confusing to him, says a lot about who he really is.

    Or rather confirms what many may have already expected for a while.

    Russia started an unprovoked war against a peaceful neighbor. Ukraine is defending themselves, while Russia can end this instantly, by merely going home. How can Musk doubt the Ukrainians right to defend themselves?

    As I see it, he can only do that by having no empathy or sense of morality, something he has shown in many situations now.

    Also the escalation thing is a very clear Russian and Putin talking point. Russia call it Ukrainian escalation even if Russia did the same 10 times worse. The only escalation of this conflict is 100% due to Russia being the aggressor and their continued aggression.

    • A2PKXG@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      He calls himself a free speech absolutist and uses saudi funds to buy twitter at the same time. Then the Saudis use twitter data to give the death penalty to people who don’t like them publicly on twitter and elon does - nothing.

  • letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This whole thing has made me so angry, I’m so upset about this.

    Musk doesn’t have the power to to stop Russian ships attacking cargo vessels in the black sea so he shouldn’t be stopping Ukrainians from fighting back - in their own territory.

    Musk is partially to blame for the lack of food coming from Ukraine. He’s responsiveness got higher food prices.

    This is an absolute act of evil stupidity.

  • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If I had a product, I wouldn’t want it being used for war either. Know how id handle it? By not accepting millions from the Pentagon in the first place

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      So if the country you lived it was being invaded, would you turn off the Internet in your country to prevent acts of war in the form of defensive operations?

  • umbraroze@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Part of me thinks that, based on his conduct over the recent years, Elon Musk is exactly so stupid that he never considered that if his company supplies gear for a military, they’re going to use it to do, like, military shit, and now he’s having a real crisis of conscience because he just never thought that his stuff would be used for, you know, war.

    But on this occasion, I’m pretty sure Hanlon’s Razor won’t apply. Even if he said “Yes, I’ve been really really stupid about this and I’m a stupid little boy and you can quote me on that, put it on a shirt, make a Netflix documentary about it while you’re at it”, I’d still think this is is obviously a smokescreen and he’s being Putined one way or other.