Now that Elon Musk has bought Twitter - now the Pit edition (Part 1)

[Walken_After_Midnight]

More on the Starlink Ukraine controversy:

Oliver Carroll

Jimmy Rushton

Jimmy Rushton

David Frum

We have two version of events from Walter Isaacson, let’s call them Isaacson 1.0 and Isaacson 2.0. (Thread)

Isaacson 1.0 reports that Musk actively prevented a Ukrainian attack on Russian ships in Sebastopol. This is the version printed in Isaacson’s book, excerpted in the Washington Post, and reported by CNN. Musk publicly objected to this version, at which point we got Isaacson 2.0

Isaacson 2.0 says, in effect, whoops, the most sensational story in my book is based upon my own misunderstanding - and that the truth is Musk’s denial that he did anything active to thwart the Ukrainian attack.

Version 1.0 is supported not only by Isaacson’s own reputation as a careful researcher, but also by physical evidence: the Ukrainian drones that washed ashore in October 2022 and that were photographed and reported.

Version 2.0 by contrast is supported by Musk’s own claims and Isaacson’s tweeted deference to the claims. If Version 2.0 is correct, the credibility of Isaacson’s book goes up in smoke. If he got the most sensational story in his book wrong, why rely on the rest?

The more parsimonious theory however is that Version 1.0 is correct. We got Version 2.0 because Musk was surprised by negative reaction to 1.0. He apparently expected to be acclaimed as a savior of humanity, not derided as a dupe and enabler of missile attack on Ukrianian cities.

But Version 2.0 is inherently incredible. It asks us to believe that Ukraine launched an attack of potentially war-altering strategic importance without checking whether its drones could reach their targets. That seems … unlikely.

The best way to decide whether 1.0 or 2.0 is correct is a searching DoD and congressional investigation of Musk’s actions - that would of course take the testimony of the Ukrainians themselves.