News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Server Rules
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
Is any of this new information?
Ukraine tried for the first time to use uncrewed surface vessels against Russian vessels in Sevastopol Bay in September 2022, but 70 kilometres from the target, the connection with billionaire Elon Musk's Starlinks was lost. It was not possible to persuade Musk to turn back on the connection, so Ukraine modified the drones.
Details: The first attempt to attack Russian targets in Sevastopol took place on the night of 16-17 September 2022.
No I have heard all that before. I saw at least one news report that it was not known by the Ukrainian that starlink had geofences. They had not been informed/had a misunderstanding to the extent of their access to starlink. It was not a thing of Musk hearing about the attack and turning the system off, but one of that it was never on in that area and Musk refusing to change that in the moment.
I've heard a couple versions of this story. One is the story in the post, the other is that Crimea was not covered by Starlink, and Ukraine tried to get it covered and Musk wouldn't.
Do we have a definitive source that can speak to which occurred?
From what I can gather from various sources (most detailed one here: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9?op=1)
I'm not sure which to believe. Isaacson's account is detailed and I doubt it's made up, but perhaps he misunderstood something. At the same time, turning it off seems to require Elon to have foreknowledge of the attack which seems unlikely, though plausible.
Issac corrected the story and said he was wrong. His stance is it was never on. Musk refused to turn it on.
So either Issac got it wrong and the correction is legit. Or Issac is now covering his ass and willing to lie, and lying would be bad for his credibility.
Ah yes, let's ask the most vain man on earth if he did a highly newsworthy thing. I hope he doesn't lie about this like he does pretty much everything else.
Eh... In this case that lie could (should) have put him in major trouble considering he got in the way of an attack by an ally of the country he resides in.
Not helping your countries ally bomb someone is in no way illegal. In fact, it's a lot more likely that the reverse will be true. Bombing people is bad, as it turns out.
Musk's official biographer explained that there was a point where he had to take a decision of either allow it or not, and a Russian official discouraged it on the basis that there would be a nuclear escalation.
Allegedly, someone in a 5 point building got super pissed by the fact that a rich guy got to call it off, jumping over them and the Prez himself.
The DoD has since signed contracts with Starlink for service. But they hadn't at the time yet so I don't see why the Pentagon or American president would be involved in the decision.
The thing I don’t think many people are aware of, is that if something is exported from the US (like starlink) and is used for military purposes (like a surface attack vessel) it is subject to ITAR restrictions and regulations. Starlink does not have ITAR clearance. A breach of this means your company can be seized and shut down by the US government. I would expect this behavior from any US based company that does not have ITAR clearance.
Except it was cleared for military use so it doesn't add up, it also wasn't the reasoning given by the guy who refused to provide connection.
He's a crook and a snake.
This doesn't make much sense...starlink was already available for military use by the Ukrainians. That was the whole reason Musk was "donating" use of the system to them.
Even if this were the underlying reason, the behavior I would expect from any US company that doesn't have ITAR clearance would be to cite said lack of clearance for the decision instead of the CEO coming out and saying he did it for war strategy reasons (like being worried about a nuclear response).
At this point it makes the most sense for the US government to sieze Starlink as a military asset. Cut out the little man.
It makes perfect sense if you consider two things:
Consider the reality of ITAR and the value assessment of actually breaking it versus being able to say whatever you want in a post truth society.
The CEO in this particular instance is, to put it charitably, not an example to be held and compared against if seeking a baseline "reasonable person"-esque standards in the self-serving (and self-editing) annals of corporate history.
No it wasn't. There was never US government dispensation for direct UA military use. The original provisioning was for civilian usage. Starlink is definitely approved for US military, and a blind eye was turned to backend logistics use by UA, but as soon as your equipment is guiding bombs onto targets you're running straight into ITAR. It's being used for a weapon and that's a major no no.
Edit You're vs your
Their first mistake? Not being able to identify a lying fucking narcissist.
No, their first mistake was launching a military operation that depended on Starlink connectivity to a region that they knew was already cut off from Starlink due to sanctions on Russia on the assumption that they'd be able to convince an American company to turn it on for them in the middle of the attack, thus violating some very serious American laws preventing that sort of thing from happening.
I know the overwhelming narrative on the Internet is "Ukraine good, Elon bad", but in this case it really seems to me like the screwup was on Ukraine's side here.
I always got the sense from the story that Ukraine didn't know it wasn't going to work in Crimea. When they realized, they begged him to turn it back on, because they thought he turned it off.
But it was never on and he refused to turn it on.
They also knew they weren't allowed to use it that way and tried anyway.
If they hadn't known that it wasn't on then that would be a pretty big part of the screwup, I'm sure Starlink wasn't keeping it a secret that there was no service there.
Given the urgency of the request makes me think they didn't know.
I don't think we've ever gotten a reliable answer on if they knew or didn't though
Edit: E.g they've never admitted to a successful use in the region prior to that event to indicate it was actually on or attempted before.
Edit: I think they were also told it'd work in Ukraine, but maybe unknown to them that didn't include Russia controlled areas. I can see the mistake happening
I'm trying to think how to word this so I don't get banned.
We need to turn off his connection.
Why would you get banned? You still got Reddit mod PTSD?
Because of the virtual certainty the comment's true intent violates Rule 1. It is, however, worded cleverly enough that a naive reader would likely interpret it mainly as 'connection to funds, or internet backbone' which is just inside the line.
;tldr because the moderation here aren't bots and understand metaphor.
I've already gotten a ban from all of .world for saying I'm too fat to run in the running group. Another mod came along and reversed it though.
The moderation here can be just as bad as reddit.
This is a sopuli.xyz thread, lemmy.world mods don't have much authority here.
But yeah, the answer to bad moderation is the same as it was on reddit: make your own community, with blackjack and hookers.
The problem with that is I would like to be in a populated community full of people shitposting in ways that amuse me
Maybe it's the sentiment that's the problem, not the wording?
oopsie doodle!
A badly misrepresented year old story suddenly back in the news again on multiple platforms. Sigh.
I guess it helps that the Internet is so conditioned to hate Musk that any headline that says something bad about him gets an instant upvote.