It would be nice if it was made clear whether this was something known at the time, or something learned after-the-fact.
The Isaacson article is worth a read, I was going to post it myself. I’m not a fan of how Musk is sometimes currently blaming others for his troubles, but he seems to have done a lot for Ukraine, even if the article is only mostly accurate.
If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
… just like gun and bullet producers are explicitly complicit in school shootings … is that what he is saying???
The number of Ukrainian soldiers listed as killed is also bullshit and a Russian propaganda figure. (Actually, all the numbers listed - tank, howitzer losses etc - are all complete propaganda fabrication)
Did he really though? Call me a cynic when it comes to Elmo, but the only thing he’s done for Ukraine was to donate 20,000 Starlink units to the Ukrainian military, making them dependent on them only for him to start making noises about how he can’t afford to continue doing it for free - must be all the money he pissed down the drain buying Twitter, and it’s not like he’s the wealthiest man in the world or anything. So having conveniently grabbed the Pentagon by the balls, he presents them with a bill for half a billion dollars, and coincidentally the Ukrainians start noticing they’re having service outage problems.
If he was really only concerned with doing ‘so much’ for Ukraine while keeping his hands clean from any of that nastiness that comes with warfare, he is the wealthiest man in the world and there are literally millions of Ukrainian war refugees he could help out without strongarming his way into half billion-dollar defense contracts. Oh, and he could not spread Russian state propaganda. That would help Ukraine too.
Did you read the Isaacson article in the Washington Post? I am sure Musk had mixed motivations. No doubt he could have done more. But to imply he did nothing, not merely donating Starlinks when there were few alternatives, but also stopping them from being jammed, despite strong attempts, which seems to have made other networks ineffective. No doubt he showed self-interest. Was he wrong or naïve in worrying about the possibility of nuclear war? You may disagree with his conclusions but these questions were worth considering.
Obviously some of his previous interventions have been awkward, and I don’t really know the high-level discussions involved. I don’t doubt biographies include plenty of burnishing. But it seems wrong to say he did nothing or consider difficult moral questions, with regard to Ukraine at least. I’m not sure I would have reached the same conclusions about drones Musk did, but reasonable people understand there is a difference between humanitarian actions and aggressive actions.
This is a commentary on previous actions, and not on current dramas possibly designed to deflect impulsive business decisions. I’ve never been on Twitter, and it seems a particularly poor time to start.
Musk replies to his favorite content creator on X and makes a new friend:
Musk is a massive stan of Tucker Carlson, who has this week been promoting on X his interview with a man who claimed to have had sex with and smoked crack with Barack Obama. (The guy has a long history as a known fraudster - the interviewee, I mean, not just the interviewer).
Milei is an Argentinean far-right populist politician.
Musk constantly criticizes the “far left”, but doesn’t seem to acknowledge that he hobnobs with the far-right and lives in an echo chamber composed largely of far-right people.
That’s an interesting way to describe turning a ‘donation’ of Starlink into a $500 million paycheck.
There are probably a lot of distasteful things involved with defence contracts and industry realpolitik. There certainly is a great deal distasteful about Russia’s involvement in the Ukraine in the first place, which would seem to involve war crimes. But Musk is likely not the only one to realize profits, not the last. I am not Musk’s apologist. He has done some questionable things, to say the least, but his legacy is more nuanced than many would prefer.
That’s an interesting way to describe straight up genocide.
Musk feeding off the far-right conspiracy world:
I believe it involves war crimes and said so, should you care to include my quote in context.
…”a great deal distasteful about Russia’s involvement in the Ukraine in the first place, which would seem to involve war crimes.“
“The” Ukraine?
I was watching Seinfeld recently and this episode came up. It seems funnier somehow. “Ukraine is game to you?”
Again, 'seem’? Unprovoked attack, mass murder of civilians in Bucha and other places, reports of torture of both civilians and POWs to numerous to list, routine shelling of civilian housing in cities that aren’t militarily contested at the moment, and it seems like it might involve war crimes?
I’m on your side here. I think war crimes were committed. The evidence should go before international bodies, which should prosecute. I have personally donated considerable money in support of humanitarian efforts regarding Ukraine. If people want to get upset over words like “the”, whatever. The word “seem” was only meant to imply this legal process is incomplete, not that I dispute the existence of war crimes in Ukraine by the Russians who started this conflict for improper reasons.
Funny, I don’t recall Elmo working in the defense industry. As a matter of fact, he says he only wanted Starlink to be used so that people in “the” Ukraine could fuck each other more easily and do homework assignments, not for fighting the umm, you know, war that’s going on.
Besides, weren’t we supposed to be discussing him having “done a lot for Ukraine”, not him making a profit off of the war? Apart from spreading the Kremlin’s propaganda and making a cool half billion dollars off of his ‘donation’ (which I’d be fairly confidant he used as a tax write-off at the same time) of Starlink, what exactly is the “a lot” that he’s done for Ukraine?
Could someone explain to me, as I appear to be either clueless or naive, what could starlink possibly have to do with sex?
You’d have to ask Musk. But the Washington Post article cited by Buck Godot, approximately fifteen posts above, claims:
“We initially gave the Ukrainians free service for humanitarian and defense purposes, such as keeping up their hospitals and banking systems,” she says. “But then they started putting them on f—ing drones trying to blow up Russian ships. I’m happy to donate services for ambulances and hospitals and mothers. That’s what companies and people should do. But it’s wrong to pay for military drone strikes.”
Shotwell [the CEO of SpaceX] began negotiating a contract with the Pentagon. SpaceX would continue to provide another six months of free service to the terminals that were being used for humanitarian purposes, but it would no longer provide free service to ones used by the military; the Pentagon should pay for that. An agreement was struck that the Pentagon would pay SpaceX $145 million to cover the service.
But then the story leaked, igniting a backlash against Musk in the press. He decided to withdraw his request for funding. SpaceX would provide free service indefinitely for the terminals that were already in Ukraine. “The hell with it,” [he tweeted]. “Even though Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $, we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free.”
Shotwell thought that was ridiculous. “The Pentagon had a $145 million check ready to hand to me, literally. Then Elon succumbed to the bullshit on Twitter and to the haters at the Pentagon who leaked the story.”
Fedorov tried to smooth things over by sending Musk encrypted text messages lavishing him with thanks. “Not everyone understands your contribution to Ukraine. I am confident that without Starlinks, we would be unable to function successfully. Thanks again.”
Fedorov said he understood Musk’s position of not allowing Starlink service to be used for attacks in Crimea. But he pushed Musk to allow Ukraine to use the service to fight in the Russian-controlled regions in the south and east.
I’m not saying this is complete, unburnished or completely accurate. Which parts aren’t, though? If he kept banking and hospitals afloat, is this nothing?