Bombshell biography: Fearing nuclear war, Musk blocked Starlink to stymie Ukraine attack on Russia Elon Musk personally ordered SpaceX’s Starlink to hold back its satellite broadband service in parts of Ukraine, scuttling a major offensive operation by the nation against Russia, according to a biography about the billionaire tycoon. An excerpt from the forthcoming tome by Walter Isaacson, titled Elon Musk and shared with …
Ukraine’s explosive-laden submarine drones approached Russia's warships, they lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly
how does blood get on Musk's hand if he indeed achieved that explosive-laden submarines washed ashore harmlessly ? If Ukraine wants to fight a war with Russia it's fine (I suppose, or they wouldn't do it) but that doesn't mean we must take sides.
A third party unilaterally taking action that sabotages an attack by one side in a war? How is that not "taking sides"?
The war will not be over until Russia is willing to admit defeat. Not that it ever will actually "admit defeat", but it needs to get its collective head and spirit into a space where it can admit that as a possibility. Then it might be possible to offer the Ukrainians some terms that they'll accept.
Really, this story is about the risks of anchoring your national defence on a third-party system. And the sheer absurdity of random industrialists being able to conduct their own foreign policy without reference to their own government.
There were serious talks in, shortly after the war started, which were making progress, but the West pulled the plug.
And before I get shouted down. This is no fringe, Putin-apologist conspiracy theory.
The Israeli PM Naftali Bennett, who was a mediator at these talks, has confirmed it as fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs&t=10774s
Yeah you haven’t been paying attention to the latest developments in this have you
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett discussed his efforts to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia.
Pro-Russia commentators have focused on his saying that a peace deal was "blocked" by the West.
But Bennett has clarified that no such deal existed — and said talks broke down because of apparent Russian war crimes.
So what's your alternative?? Let the Russians take whatever bits of Ukraine they want? Committing war crimes and killing unarmed civilians as they please (as they have done in the parts of Ukraine that they have captured? Russia can end this conflict whenever they want. Ukraine can't, they'd lose everything.
Russia has no chance of winning, they just don't have the capacity to keep their troops armed. meanwhile, the west can just keep production going as long as they like.
Besides, it should be obvious by now that the Russian military is completely incompetent, they really aren't good at this war thing.
Does it? The Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 tanks are supposed to be some of the best tanks out there. The roosians are using old shitty tanks.
The very first operational loss of a challenger 2 has been in Ukraine in the last month.
None were lost during the various conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan against rooskie tanks.
So this indicates to me that either the Ukrainian crews are useless and/or the rooskies have got some good anti-tank weapons.
Similarly, the most effective AT weapon is not another tank. The door-knocker round for the PaK 36 ATG (the first ever hollow-charge shell) set the way forward for the next 80 years of lightweight AT development.
The tanks role on the battlefield is now in a strange place where faced with infinite recon capability. It's major role is now in defeating small arms, and maybe, in supporting engineering activities in clearance of fixed defences.
Both sides losses on offensive operations are a function of the lack of air superiority over hostile territory. The same situation can be found in the Arab/Israeli wars of the 1960's and 70's. The coverage of the SA3 SAM (which only got to Vietnam very, very late in that war) more or less denied the IAF the ability operate with impunity over hostile territory that it had enjoyed in earlier conflicts; just as the Phantom/Sparrow combination denied the Arab coalition's ability to operate over Israeli territory - resulting in an attritional stalemate on the ground.
It's far too early to call the outcome in Ukraine; but if that supply line via Melitopol can be severed along with the Kerch Bridge; it seems somewhat unlikely that Crimea can be held without a functioning supply line over the coming Winter.
In Iraq and Afghanistan the coalition forces had total air superiority and provided full air cover. Tanks were not usually deployed to settings where they were actually facing well prepared anti-tank positions with infantry portable high-grade anti-tank weapons. Iraqi tanks were far from fully functional and sometimes not even fully loaded, using very old ammunition. They were also rather ineffectually deployed in very open positions and most were lost to allied air attacks. Allied troops quickly learned how to avoid getting into positions where they could be ambushed and to destroy any potential ambush position or sweep it with infantry. The enemy "troops" they were facing were rag-tag and usually badly organised/coordinated. Enemy tanks weren't a threat after the fist week of the invasion. I don't think enemy tanks were even a problem in Afghanistan. Enemies were using very old RPG-2 and RPG-7 weapons with old/outdated warheads. Russians are now using far more advanced weapons and even if they are using old RPG-7s they'll have more modern warheads to put on them that will be more effective.
The battlefield in Ukraine is probably the closest to peer-to-peer combat we've seen since the Vietnam war. It takes time (even with good crews who've trained with their vehicle for years instead of months) to figure out how to deploy tanks and combat units at the company level in a way that keeps these valuable assets alive and functional. Ukraine has been doing OK, but has been doing a lot of learning. I also don't think anyone here is claiming the Russians don't have good anti-tank weapons. We knew that already.
The Abrams from the Americans will also lose a few here and there.
The most important vfigures are not whether one got lost, its that in the end far more Russian losses will happen for every one from the west.
Why do peple have such a bad concept of comparing raw absolue numbers ?
Cant you tell the difference between 1 and 100 ?
The smouldering hulks of German and British tanks say otherwise
What about the far greater number of Russkie tanks that have been destroyed or captured? Looking at OSINT for values for tanks on both sides of this war from some people called Oryx who I only discovered yesterday after the Musky revelations and a mate tipping me off.
Ukrainian Tanks: 647,
of which destroyed: 420,
damaged: 53,
abandoned: 31,
captured: 143.
————————————
Russkie Tanks: 2301
of which destroyed: 1491,
damaged: 130,
abandoned: 132,
captured: 550,
So the Russkies have had three and a half times as many tanks destroyed as the Ukrainians.The total losses for stuff are even worse for the invading Russkies at 12,058 vs 4,392 for the Ukrainians defenders. Oh and the best part is they’ve got pictures of each one to back up these figures.
Oryx has photos of all the assets they count so it would be easy to eliminate decoys. But yes, both sides are using them; albeit cardboard isn't AFAIK used for that. (They're wooden or inflatable; cardboard is used for drones, however.)
Pity the story from WWII about the UK dropping a wooden bomb on a group of wooden German decoys is likely fake.
There are stories from the Franco-Prussian war of Prussian artillery units bombarding advancing French reinforcements... Only for said reinforcements to actually be small woodlands.
Even in the ACW there were documented cases of logs being dressed up as artillery to draw fire.
Maskirovka is a useful tactic, especially versus expensive (arguably irreplaceable for the Ruzzkis) guided weapons.
We are tech guys. If you planned it, would you only have one connection?
How about sat phones? Cellular modem, A 5g antenna on the shore ….
I could think of a lot of ways.
I think the musk issue is a smoke screen to split us.
How many of these post are AI generated? Vultures, get it together and come up with a way tag AI post.
Again you might want to look at actual reality and not what exists in your fever dreams.
2014, Putin annexes Crimea and two regions declare themselves to be not part of Ukraine any more. Obama blithers on about 'red lines' and does NOTHING! Macron, Merkle and other world leaders basically appease Putin with the Minsk agreements.
2017 to 2020, NOTHING HAPPENS.
2022 under the reign of president potato brain, Putin invades.
So, Putin did things while Obama and Sleepy Joe were in the White House but nothing with Trump. That really does look like Trump just rolled over and gave him what he wanted... NOT.
Trump won't actually pull out, he'll just posture and make it sound like he did. Most of the "aid" the Americans are giving Ukraine are also not actually directly "aid". They're paying (underpaying actually) a lot of European countries that have stockpiles of Soviet era weaponry to "gift" that arsenal to Ukraine, under the very strict condition that they then buy new weapons only from US suppliers. Germany and France are understandably miffed about this but it's being kept mostly out of the media. It's this sort of underhand shit that makes the world hate the US and it's exactly the sort of shit that the US would continue to pull under Trump. Only he wouldn't be quiet about it probably.
Russia is already defeated. Ukraine is on the offensive, and has been for months. Russia is hiding behind minefields and barriers.
Indeed. If you zoom in on the maps from Nuland/Kagan's Institute for the Promotion of War, you'll see that after months of Ukraine's lightning offensive, they've gained a couple of kms around Robotyne. And they're almost up to Russia's first line of defence.
They've pushed their remaining brigades into this cauldron, and Russia's responded by redeploying 3 divisions to counter them. Victory is so close for Ukraine that they've lowered their fitness standards and are drafting more women.
Alternatively, Ukraine's failed to punch through, split the land bridge and isn't sitting on the beaches sipping cocktails. But Milley is retiring, so it's all good. There's a lot of scrap on the battlefield, a lot of dead and wounded Ukrainians, but that's all good because they aren't us and it's a small price for someone else to pay to defeat Russia. So now, because Russia is defeated, our glorious leaders are talking about a 'pause'. We're pretty much out of stuff to send them, and Russia is unlikely to agree to any pause, so Ukrainians are likely to continue to die for our leader's egos and vanity.
So it is indeed as I say.
The oh so powerful "superpower" ruzzia, the nation that started this war, that tricked the rest of the world into believing it still was a military powerhouse scarcely a year ago, now has to cower behind their defences against an army with ad hoc volunteers and dependent on weapon deliveries from other nations. By the way, that's the same "superpower" who thought they would take Kiev within 3-4 days.
By every measure of military strategy and logic, that is defeat.
What is going on now, is the not-so-superpower bleeding out, driven by a leadership incapable of realizing they lost. They can no longer mount meaningful offensive action. Their war chest is depleted. They can no longer produce quality weaponry. The international backlash of their actions has wiped out decades of economic buildup, and paved the way for an accelerated decline of their country. When the war in Ukraine is over, ruzzia will be incapable of projecting power in any meaningful way. Their nuclear bluff has been called and found hollow. As have their threats about Europes "energy dependency". Their leadership is weakened by infighting. Their country, already in steep demographic decline even before the war, lost a generation of it's best and brightest to emigration fleeing the "partial mobilization" (aka. draft), or as casualties in a pointless war. Their former trade partners in the west now have no illusions about them any more, and the interests of their remaining "friends" are cheap resources. Their geopolitical adversaries have come closer together in their opposition than they have been in decades.
There is no comeback from this. Ruzzia is done.
So please do explain how this is anything other than a shattering defeat.
> Victory is so close for Ukraine that they've lowered their fitness standards and are drafting more women.
Ruzzia has drafted unwilling people in their "partial mobilization" since September 2022.
Oh dear god, we have Rasputin here.
Why did you go to Afganistan, Vietnam, Middle East, Jugoslavia etc to "help" them then???
When you get the answer, then you will or might know that you are talking nonsense.
We/I do not want to see bloody USSR and red cross in half Europe ever again. This is why who have brain supports Ukrain. I guess you are not there to suffer, so you don't care.
We/I do not want to see bloody USSR and red cross in half Europe ever again. This is why who have brain supports Ukrain. I guess you are not there to suffer, so you don't care.
I don't want to see Ukraine's red & black flag in Europe ever again, and I suspect many who remember Poland or Romania's history don't either. I don't want to see the 2nd SS Panzer Division's insignia across Europe ever again, and yet we do. I don't want to see Himmler and Landig's Black Sun symbol either, and yet we do. Games Workshop's lawyers probably don't want to see Khorne's logo being used without a licence, but there must be blood for the blood god, and skulls for his throne. I don't want to see weapons that have been poured into Ukraine appearing in the hands of neo-nazi groups in Scandanavia, and yet we do.
I don't want to see a country that's being held up as a shining beacon of democracy against the darkness beyond the wall arresting or executing journalists, jailing opposition parties and leaders, and yet we do. It simplifies elections, if Zelensky will be the only candidate I guess, but it isn't exactly democratic. But then democracy isn't what it used to be. Recently in the US, New Mexico's governor suspended the Constitution because criminals use guns. Governors are supposed to defend the Constitution, not tear it up.
But you're right. I'm not there to suffer. You're wrong, and I do care. I cared about the civilians in and around Donbas being killed and maimed during Ukraine's civil war. I care about the civilians massacred during the Maidan uprising, who's deaths have never really been investigated, or the perpetrators prosecuted. I care about the people massacred in Odessa and burned alive. Ukraine doesn't, those weren't investigated or prosecuted either. I care about the Ukrainians being grabbed off the street, given a couple of days training, and then sent to the front. Many of those are from Ukraine's ethnic minorities. They are not Ukraine's 'Fortunate Sons'.
I also care about repeating the mistakes of the Afghan-Russia conflict. There, we trained and armed a bunch of proxies to fight against Russia there. They became Al Qaeda, ISIL, Taliban. We're doing the same in Ukraine, and our 'leaders' still don't care. As long as the conflic is constrained to dead Ukrainians and Russians, it's all good. If various factions start using the weapons and training we've given them for gang conflicts, political assassinations or armed robberies across Europe, maybe more people will start to care.
Ok, so what do we propose?? We let Russia finish it's "denazification"? By which I mean of course it's indiscriminate killing, burning, looting, raping, torturing and all around massacring of Ukrainian civilians like they've been doing in their occupied territories? Your cure isn't any better than the disease. Ukraine certainly has a Nazi problem, most of the former eastern-bloc countries do, but that is no excuse to just let Russia do it's thing either, because if you haven't noticed, they're not any better with their Nazi adoration and possibly even worse.
You sound an awful lot like a Russian bot, and you might want to check your sources for bias. The Ukranians aren't the "good guys", but they're far from the bad guys in this conflict!
Ok, so what do we propose?? We let Russia finish it's "denazification"? By which I mean of course it's indiscriminate killing, burning, looting, raping, torturing and all around massacring of Ukrainian civilians like they've been doing in their occupied territories?
Ukraine has been doing that since it's civil war began in 2014. Few in the West really seemed to care though about indiscriminate shelling in Donbas, dropping of PFM-1 anti-personnel mines in the DPR & LPR, cutting off Crimea's water suppy etc etc. Our 'leaders' are also just fine with massacring civilians. We generally call it 'collateral damage' and have killed, maimed and displaced millions during conflicts in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan etc etc. It's just one of those things that happens during armed conflicts.
But like Musk said, we could get serious about peace deals instead. Zelensky isn't serious because he knows his life depends on keeping this going. At the start of the SMO, there was a potential for peace in exchange for autonomy in the DPR & LPR and neutrality. But then BoJo went to Kiev, and that was off the table. Now, 'peace' is supplying more weapons. Ukraine might get ATACMS with it's 220kg warhead so more civilians might die. But Russia just demonstrated it's glide version of it's FAB-1500, or a 1,500kg bomb. AFAIK, it's only been using it's smaller glide bombs, so far.
Downside is we've not been very honest. We lied about Minsk, we didn't bother honoring the grain deal, so why should Russia take any new peace proposal seriously? Especially when other nations are noticing how impotent our 'leaders' really are. In only a very short time, they've managed to create a 'new world order', except it's not the one they were hoping for. Which is probably why Russia is prepared to play the long game. The longer the conflict drags on, the weaker the West looks.
Ukraine has been doing very sketchy shit in Donbass and other regions, I won't deny that, but the reality is that BOTH sides of that conflict have been doing VERY sketchy shit. Something something Russian BUK missile launcher, something something MH-17, to name a thing. That conflict isn't entirely on Ukraine, Russia has been stirring shit in those regions for a long time even before 2014. It's also the reason I for one voted against the treaty the EU made with Ukraine when it came up for referendum in the Netherlands (It was of course still promptly ratified by the Dutch government with some bullshit placation clauses stapled on that didn't mean anything).
We didn't lie about Minsk, Russia decided to wipe it's ass with the accords before "we" (who is this "we" exactly in the first place? I certainly didn't get a say in the matter!) got a chance to say anything about it. You'll have to provide some evidence on what "we" didn't honor about the grain deal and if you look more closely you'll fine Russia didn't stick to it's end all that much ether. In general, Russia's not been willing to talk about any peace proposal that doesn't include Ukraine giving up substantial (far more substantial than Russia is no occupying) portions of sovereign territory. Territory that Russia has no logical, legal or historical claim over and territory that Russia itself has signed treaties over belonging to Ukraine.
There is no negotiating with Russia, because Russia does not offer any reasonable or acceptable compromises.
Ukraine has been doing very sketchy shit in Donbass and other regions, I won't deny that, but the reality is that BOTH sides of that conflict have been doing VERY sketchy shit. Something something Russian BUK missile launcher, something something MH-17, to name a thing.
Yep. That one incident was problematic for many reasons. It was a 'Russian' Buk launcher! Sure, Russia manufactured those, then sold them to a lot of nations, including Ukraine. They've still been using them during this phase of the conflict. There were pictures of a Ukrainian base not far from the ruins of Donetsk International Airport where a Ukrainian air defence unit was based. When the civil war broke out, many Ukrainian soldiers who disagreed with Kiev joined the DPR and LPR forces and helped themselves to equipment. Some military aircraft had previously been shot down over Ukraine, so Ukraine knew medium/long range GBAD was operating in the region. Yet Ukraine didn't close the airspace, even though their was a clear and present danger to civilian aircraft transiting Ukraine's airspace. And then an elaborate "Where's Wally?" campaign to 'prove' the launcher and missiles came from Russia, not that they were already there, and in use.
That conflict isn't entirely on Ukraine, Russia has been stirring shit in those regions for a long time even before 2014.
So have we. That's the way the world and geopolitics works. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if we do it, why complain when other nations with their own interests do the same thing?
We didn't lie about Minsk, Russia decided to wipe it's ass with the accords before "we" (who is this "we" exactly in the first place? I certainly didn't get a say in the matter!) got a chance to say anything about it
We did. Merkel admitted it was a pretext to allow Ukraine to be rearmed and retrained. The OSCE reported repeated cease-fire violations. To be fair, Zelensky did try to get the nutjobs doing most of the violations to stop-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgkPpsyUFcM&
But they ignored him and later threatened to kill him. But that's always been Zelensky's problem, he's not really a politician, or a diplomat and isn't really in control of his forces. As for 'we', I'm assuming we're both members of the collective West. As for the grain deal, that was supposed to 'feed the hungry', yet most of the grain shipments headed to the EU. In exchange for permitting grain, we were supposed to allow Russian fertiliser exports. We didn't. Then there was using the 'grain corridor' to launch attacks. We did nothing to stop those either.
In general, Russia's not been willing to talk about any peace proposal that doesn't include Ukraine giving up substantial (far more substantial than Russia is no occupying) portions of sovereign territory. Territory that Russia has no logical, legal or historical claim over and territory that Russia itself has signed treaties over belonging to Ukraine.
Again you ignore history. Russia's made various offers, ie autonomy for DPR and LPR. For much of Ukraine's existence, it's effectively been a federation. From 2014, the new regime decided everything must be ruled from Kiev, and removed autonomy from the regions, including the Crimea and it's parliament. That autonomy and respect for each other's culture and traditions were part of the original 'Friendship' Treaty between Ukraine and Russia when it gained independence. Poroshenko finally completely abandoned that Treaty in 2017. It's a bit like the UK deciding to abandon the idea of Welsh, Scottish and N.Ireland assemblies and deciding everything will henceforth be decided by Westminster. English will be the only official language, so suck it up, buttercups.
You think the Welsh, Scottish, and N.Irish would be happy about that?
"Russia's made various offers, ie autonomy for DPR and LPR." ---> Russia's version of "autonomy". Clearly worded in a way that would then let them stage some "independant" referendum and have them join Russia anyway. That's not a believable offer.
The shit "we" stirred was mostly words and politics. Russian shit stirring involved copious amounts of ammunition, explosives and heavier weaponry.
As to the BUK rockets, there's plenty of evidence any remaining BUK systems in separatist territory were INOP and/or FUBAR. Ukrainian forces had disabled them before retreating and no operational systems in Ukrainian control were known to be operation in the area. The timeline for a BUK TELAR being transported from the Russian border towards Luhanks, then transported back in a hurry, covered in a tarp, missing one missile immediately after the downing of MH-17. IIRC the missile that downed MH-17 was also of a newer design than that operation with Ukrainian forced, immediately discounting them too. The timeline of where the TELAR was spotted works out, the launch location was within Russian separatist controlled territory. It's EXTREMELY unlikely that it was a Ukrainian controlled launcher. The fact that no-one was smart enough to close the airspace or avoid it is certainly a black mark against the Ukrainian government and Malaysian Airlines, but it does not mean that it ultimately wasn't the fault of Russian separatists and Russia supplying the TELAR for actually shooting down a civilian aircraft flying well above the altitude any military aircraft was to be expected.
"From 2014, the new regime decided everything must be ruled from Kiev, and removed autonomy from the regions, including the Crimea and it's parliament.". More accurately Kiev decided that the only way to stop the rampant corruption problems in the regions under some sort of control, it needed to have some level of oversight and control to enforce against that corruption. The "DPR and LPR" (Nice Russian shilling there btw, both are self-proclaimed separatist and Russian supported "governments" and there is no legal reason why the Kiev/central Ukrainian government would have to acknowledge their existence or independance) and the Crimean regions decided they didn't much like that because they LIKE their corruption dangnamit. It's more akin to Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland being absolutely corrupt shitholes doing whatever they wanted within the UK structure and London going, "Right, that's enough, either the corruption ends or we're making it end". The government officials certainly wouldn't like it. There might be some grumbling of the populace. As with Ukraine it might well be for the better in the long term (we'll never find out now). The Kiev government certainly isn't a shining beacon of non-corruption and open and honest democratic governing, but it was from what I can see a damn sight better than whatever was in place in the Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea regions.
The shit "we" stirred was mostly words and politics. Russian shit stirring involved copious amounts of ammunition, explosives and heavier weaponry.
Alternatively, they didn't need to. When the Soviet Union broke up, countries like Ukraine were left with copious amounts of ammunition, explosives, heavy weaponry. Including tanks. Some of which it got a little embarrassed about when pirates hijacked a bunch that were heading for S.Sudan. Like a lot of former Soviet states, corrupt officials made easy money exporting surplus weapons.
Ukrainian forces had disabled them before retreating and no operational systems in Ukrainian control were known to be operation in the area.
So they claim, and yet there were videos of them mobile in the DPR & LPR after they'd been seized. Plus it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they were repaired. They certainly weren't disabled properly, ie DIP'd because there was no wreckage.
IIRC the missile that downed MH-17 was also of a newer design than that operation with Ukrainian forced, immediately discounting them too.
You have that back-to-front. The manufacturer did some test firings to show the difference in fragmentation patterns between the old missiles Ukraine had, and the newer ones in Russian service. The patterns matched the Ukrainian version. It still doesn't alter the fact that Ukraine was responsible for the airspace, knew that there was an active missile threat after it's own aircraft had been shot down yet did not issue a NOTAM informing airlines that avoiding the area would be a good idea. Ukraine had shot down civilian aircraft before, accidents can happen.
More accurately Kiev decided that the only way to stop the rampant corruption problems in the regions under some sort of control, it needed to have some level of oversight and control to enforce against that corruption.
Soo.. you think it's easier to monitor and prevent corruption by moving governance further away? OK, Ukraine has taken this to extremes sometimes. Like giving Mikheil Saakashvili Odessa to play with. He's never been accused or charged with corruption, in either Georgia or Ukraine. But it's also why the USSR had devolved government in the first place. Lots to manage, and if you can trust (or hold enough threats over) your governors, it kinda works, sometimes. So Kiev seized more power following the coup, removed governors who may have been disloyal, appointed friends & family instead and abolished Crimea's parliament, thus clearly violating the Friendship Treaty, and annoying the Crimeans. Something like 70% identified as Russian pre-2013, the results of their independence election showed more that didn't want to be ruled by Kiev. So in accordance with the UN Principles of Self-Determination, they waved goodbye.
Naturally, this annoyed the West because they'd been rather looking forward to a new NATO base and luxury apartments on Crimean's waterfront. The UN supports Scottish independence, it doesn't support Crimean independence. Funny how the world works sometimes.
As with Ukraine it might well be for the better in the long term (we'll never find out now). The Kiev government certainly isn't a shining beacon of non-corruption and open and honest democratic governing, but it was from what I can see a damn sight better than whatever was in place in the Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea regions.
Oh we will find out, and probably quite soon. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or it'll be like the Greek's discovered after their economic problems. Congratulations! Ukraine is now a wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock. A different bunch of oligarchs will begin picking over the scraps, and life for ordinary Ukrainians will change for the worse. Zelensky probably won't survive the experience to be asked how a 2-bit actor, comedian and low-payed public official somehow amassed such a large property portfolio.
But people are making a lot of money already. Billions being poured into Ukraine with little to no accountability. Thousands more Ukrainians will be killed or maimed to feed our 'leaders' egos and vanity. Elections are coming up, the counter offensive has failed, Macron was recently given a heroe's welcome at the Five Nations opening match. So maybe, just maybe they'll decide to give peace a chance and stop the bloodshed? Zelensky could try fleeing to exile or asylum in one of his homes in Israel, but then thanks to non-extradition and banking secrecy laws in Israel, there are already plenty of Ukrainian (and Russians) running much of the organised crime there who could solve a problem like Zelensky.
Keep on defending russia.
I'm not. I'm defending peace & democracy, and attacking the damage this conflict has caused everyone. Not just the dead, maimed and injured in the conflict area. Our 'leaders' have shown zero interest in peace negotiations and instead keep pouring weapons in to keep the blood flowing. Their 'whatever it takes' approach has caused, and will continue to cause immense harm to the West, but our 'leaders' don't care because they're insulated from the effects of their policies. At least until election time, but then when they're unceremoniously booted out of office, can go get another high paying job with an NGO somewhere.
More nonsense from people who actually thing Ukraine (without direct US/NATO intervention) could ever defeat Russia!
Your comment reminds me of a scene in Layer Cake where Daniel Craig's character is driving a hard bargain on a drug deal.
Duke: You wouldn't be so ****ing flashy if you didn't have him standing behind you would you?
Gene: Yeah, but he does though don't he.
"And the sheer absurdity of random industrialists being able to conduct their own foreign policy without reference to their own government."
I seem to recollect that a couple of nascent multi-nationals did just that in the lead up to ww2.
Now, what happened to commandeering?
Thankfully, satellite internet is pretty useless without ground stations. You can send radio waves around above the planet all you like, if someone wants to google something using it, it still needs to have a route to google's servers.
Ground stations can be commandeered. I don't know where Musk has these, and I suspect there may be multiple ones in multiple jurisdictions, but I'm willing to bet that the majority, if not all, of them are in Western countries, or countries "friendly" to the west, because as far as I know, Starlink is a US based company.
edit - Looks like the majority are in the US and Europe, with some in Aus, various South American countries, SE Asia and a couple in Nigeria. Certainly the infrastructure in the US could be seized by US companies, and the others commandeered by friendly governments, or, presumably, cut off centrally
"The war will not be over until Russia is willing to admit defeat. Not that it ever will actually 'admit defeat', but it needs to get its collective head and spirit into a space where it can admit that as a possibility."
May I suggest ... up its own anus, where it is dark enough to allow for a thorough self-examination.
No, it definitely does not have anything to do with the USA and its chums. Putin had publicly stated that he considered Ukraine to be an integral part of Russia and not an independent country, so he decided to enforce that view in way that would have brought tears of joy to Stalin's eyes.
"Putin had publicly stated that he considered Ukraine to be an integral part of Russia"
And if Putin later decides that he considers Alaska to be an integral part of Russia, y'all be happy to accept that?
"and not an independent country"
Most of the populace would strongly disagree with that. The fact that we're still having a conflict, 562 days later, is because enough people disagree strongly enough that they're fighting back.
In the end, it doesn't matter what one glorious leader thinks. They may cause a shitstorm, but ultimately it's the people that change history. From Vive La Revolution to Mao to American Independence, it's the blood of citizens that gets shit done, not delusional halfwits in their ivory towers.
Glad we've cleared that up then! There's absolutely no evidence that the USA engages in proxy wars, influences client states, promotes regime change in countries which are of geographical signifiance, or anything like that...
Well, some people clearly believe all that...
"There's absolutely no evidence that the USA engages in proxy wars, influences client states, promotes regime change in countries which are of geographical signifiance, or anything like that..."
This has what do with a third party, non governmental entity, influencing the conduct and course of a War?
.
What really gets me is the level of cunning dupliticy involved.
The USA clearly understood that by pretending they were refusing to let Ukraine join NATO in order to avoid war with Russia, they were going to precipitate war with Russia. It was a tactical masterstroke!
</sarcasm>
It was not genius it was cowardly. This entire war could have been avoided if Ukraine was allowed into Nato 10 years ago when they were asking and trying.
Unfortunatley it can be argued that the west is using NATO to bleed Russia today, unfortunately this means Ukraine is also bleeding and being destroyed.
Ukraine wasn't ready to join NATO 10 years ago, it isn't ready to join NATO today (even if there wasn't a war on) and it won't be ready to join NATO for some time. It's corruption and "nazi" problems are real (but that's of course not something Russia should get involved with and certainly not a reason for them to invade). They were making great strides in getting on top of the problems but they weren't there yet, and they've probably lost progress due to this war so it'll take them a while to get there after this whole thing is over.
It's worth adding that Putin only really started to get uppity when the actual democratic system in Ukraine meant that his puppet candidate didn't get elected as president, and some upstart who wanted to root out corruption get elected instead. Compare with Belarus, where Lukashenko has Putin's hand so far up his arse, you can see his fingertips when he speaks.
As for Nazis, well, yes, apparently there is a problem with the far right and antisemitism in a lot of Eastern European countries. That doesn't mean that they are running the government, especially not when the guy actually in charge is Jewish. It did look like these problems were being tackled, but it seems Putin (and his far right cronies) didn't like this, as it basically meant neutralising Russian state antagonists in the East of the country. The invasion was largely an attempt to "blitzkrieg" Kyiv, and topple, or drive out the legitimate government, so a puppet government could be installed in its place. This failed spectacularly, leading to images of traffic jams of tanks being picked off as they sat outside the city, and quickly turned into a land grab of what Putin could take, and a refusal to admit he'd made a massive tactical blunder, followed by a situation where he is throwing more and more of his citizens into a meat grinder just to maintain the "gains" he has made. Russia probably has the resources to maintain this situation for a long time, but they clearly don't have the resources to advance, and it will be becoming harder and harder to replace well trained and experienced soldiers by widening the conscription net.
Russia is going to, at some point, have to confront a demographic emergency, once all the young men in the country have been killed in a fruitless and utterly pointless war started as a vanity project by a dictator who probably wanted to have one last "glorious victory" before the cancer gets him. (He also was probably hoping to take Kyiv because it is the "birthplace" of Russian Orthodox Christianity, and he wants to have himself buried there as a "saint")
Dude, in case you haven't noticed, for Ukraine and Russia this is not a proxy war. It's a war war.
Sure, geopolitics is complex and ugly and uniformly immoral and there are proxy wars and undue influences and regime changes and all that shit - but this is nothing of that.
This is a straight, old school war of annexation by a country against another, in blatant violation of previously agreed borders. It's one of the simplest situations you can possibly have in international relationships. There is nothing in either international law, or philosophy of ethics, or plain old common sense, that can provide a justification for that. The USA could be whatever bad guy you want to paint them as, Mordor, the Empire from Star Wars, the fucking devil himself if you want, and Russia would still be the obvious bad guy in this.
Dragging in the USA's shit in this is just an attempt to muddle waters that are actually extremely clear. You want to crap on NATO, by all means crap on NATO, but we're talking about Ukraine and Russia here.
This is a straight, old school war of annexation by a country against another, in blatant violation of previously agreed borders. It's one of the simplest situations you can possibly have in international relationships.
So is the West's occupation of a large part of Syria. So was our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there was our assistance in having Gaddafi murdered in Libya, leaving that country a shining beacon of democracy, peace and freedom. And then of course there was Yugoslavia. Emphasis on was because that country is no more. Again people really should compare NATO's justification for invadiing Yugoslavia to Russia's justification for the SMO. They're practically identical, and again this was deliberate by Russia to draw that comparison.
It's one of those leading by example things. If it's OK for us to invade or destabilise small defenceless countries, why do we get so upset when other countries do what we've been doing for the last few decades? And why do we blindly support a fratricidal conflict that's going to leave Ukraine in far, far worse shape than it would have been, if peace & diplomacy had been given a chance. But that's the problem with proxy wars. We can fight them to the last Ukrainian, then make billions from the reconstruction, redevelopment and asset stripping after the dust settles.
Here is an interesting related Q. We were told about how much $$ the US spent on 'infrastructure' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Supposedly a lot of this was 'destroyed' but how much ever actually made it to where it was supposed to be? If no-one can actually go back and check that the work was done how do we know that the money given by the US govt to companies such as Halliburton was actually used correctly and not just 'moved' elsewhere?
If no-one can actually go back and check that the work was done how do we know that the money given by the US govt to companies such as Halliburton was actually used correctly and not just 'moved' elsewhere?
But this is why wars can be so very good for business. Richard Morgan wrote a good book about this called 'Market Forces', where finance execs encourage small wars for massive profits. Ukraine was already one of the world's most corrupt nations. I've known people who've done business there, and told me of things like being told to 'hire' a list of names and bank accounts for no-show jobs. One refused, and a small bomb went off in his office. It makes doing business in places like that interesting given you know it's bribery and corruption, but giving into it is often illegal in the West under our own anti-bribery laws.
But Ukraine's recently fired (or protected) some individuals under it's own anti-corruption laws. Reznikov was dismissed recently, with rumors of corruption swirling, but there have also been rumors he'll be appointed as Ambassador to London. His replacement, Umierov may have had something of a colorful career and has occupied positions where there could have been conflicts of interest. But it being what it is, these claims could just be propaganda. Biggest problem is money is being poured into Ukraine with little accountability.
Meanwhile, life for the ordinary Ukrainian is very tough-
https://twitter.com/DeanoBeano1/status/1699164390178635776
That is a really rather good book. A bit JG Ballard in places. Probably not far from the truth in some parts of the world although London isn't far off :) The altered carbon series is also very good. Not seen the TV series though. Getting off topic.
The likes of Halliburton got paid ungodly amount of money by the US govt and the owners (mostly US politicians, family members of politicians and friends of) all made a very pretty penny. It would not come as a surprise to me if the money took a more direct route to their pockets and the 'infrastructure' was mostly bogus.
It was rather funny how the MSM did a complete 180 in early 2022 about the corruption and other issues in Ukraine. It is all as bent as a six bob note.
Putin does need to bugger off back home but we need to drop this pretend bullshit that somehow we are defending some bastion of democracy and lawfulness. He should have been given the heave-ho in 2014 but Macron and co buggered that up. And lets not forget Obama and his constantly moving red lines.
Not seen the TV series though. Getting off topic.
First series was good, second.. Got the Hollywood treatment and was terrible. Also recommend Peter F. Hamilton's "Fallen Dragon", which has some interesting takes on interstellar commerce.
Putin does need to bugger off back home but we need to drop this pretend bullshit that somehow we are defending some bastion of democracy and lawfulness. He should have been given the heave-ho in 2014 but Macron and co buggered that up. And lets not forget Obama and his constantly moving red lines.
This is the problem with proxy wars. Ukrainians are just the paws in a bigger game, and most Ukrainians and Russians aren't the "Fortunate Sons" that Creedence sang about. The worst aspect for me is the way the media did the 180 on Ukraine's domestic politics. Most of the downvotes I get are from people who have absolutely no idea of Ukraine's history, it's OUN, the history of it's red & black flag, it's "Slava" greeting, or why Banderas shouldn't really be regarded as a hero.
Or perhaps they do, and are happy to be part of that piece of history, and in which case I'll carry on treating them with the contempt they deserve. It suprises me Poland is so keen to support them, but then Poland probably knows the likely outcome is the restoration of it's borders and is just playing the long game.
He signed my copy of the reality dysfunction. All these people with stacks of pristine hardbacks and I rock up with a dogeared paperback. I just could not get into the salvation sequence. Something just seemed off with his writing style on that series. I may have to re-read fallen dragon as it has been a long time.
The polish people I know are not that enthusiastic about Ukraine as a country but they hate the russians more and have LONG memories of what things were like pre-1991. They want to keep as much buffer between themselves and their old masters as possible.
The 'merkins are yet again far away from the front line. Heck even in WWII only one person died in mainland USA after poking a balloon bomb a little too hard. I think this is partly why they have a very distorted take on world history. The last proper war on their soil was the civil war. The enemy planes were not flying over their houses. And then in the 70s/80s they sent money to the IRA and just saw the pictures when something went kaboom. Probably why 9/11 was such a shock to the system. The death and destruction is far enough away for them not to care. And of course the military industrial complex is making an f-ing mint along with exports of LNG to Europe.
You forgot Kiska and Attu not to mention Oahu. Also the second happy times (Donitz) off the Atlantic coast. No troops had landed in the mainland but then the only foreign troops in the British Islands Canadian, US arrived and settled in with it being said of the US personal 'over fed, over paid and over here. This it sounds like the invasion was from the west. Of course the width of the water between the continent, the British Isle and the Americas made a difference from occupation, bombing, and spies.
I haven't forgot the Channel Islands just omitted them.
Dude, pick a camp and stick with it. Is it OK for bigger nations to screw over smaller nations, just because they're stronger? Or not?
If you think it's OK, then I see your support for Russia, but you can't coherently blame the West for Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yugoslavia, not even the bloody Crusades, because in the ethics system you've declared for, might makes right and all of that is fine.
If you don't think it's OK, then you get to berate the West for all of that crap, and I'll even cheer for you - but you can't coherently defend Russia's invasion, or the West supporting the defenders.
If what you're trying to say is that it's bad if NATO does it, but it's fine if Russia does it, then, hey, whatever floats your boat, everyone gets their own opinion, we're not in Russia after all - just don't expect to convince anyone with that kind of "logic".
If you don't think it's OK, then you get to berate the West for all of that crap, and I'll even cheer for you - but you can't coherently defend Russia's invasion, or the West supporting the defenders.
The problem is I think I can coherently defend Russia's actions. Again why I keep drawing comparisons with what we did to Yugoslavia. There, the pretext for invasion and massive bombing was 'to prevent ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide'. Russia used the same justification for it's SMO, and for much the same reasons. Ukraine has had a civil war since 2014, thousands of Ukrainians were killed and injured, millions were displaced. We used Minsk to cover Ukraine's build-up of forces that were preparing to recapture Donbas and Crimea, which would have resulted in more civilian deaths. So Russia intervened to prevent the ethnic cleansing, just as we did with Yugoslavia.
Then of course there's Syria. We interferred in that nation because Assad became one of the members of the 'Axis of Evil', is bad, and must be removed. Oh, and obstructing a pipeline route. We now occupy the main oil and agricultural regions of Syria because.. well, we can. Russia's there at the invitation of the Syrian goverment, we most certainly are not. We are illegally occupying a big chunk of another sovereign nation.
So two wrongs don't make a right, but it's rather hypocritical when our 'leaders' bleat that it's just NOT FAIR! when Putin & Russia do what we've been doing for decades. We took on the role of the world's cop, yet that role has become mired in corruption and self-interest.
...everyone gets their own opinion, we're not in Russia after all - just don't expect to convince anyone with that kind of "logic".
Not really. You can be arrested in the EU for being 'anti-Ukrainian'. You can be de-platformed. All those things that you'd expect in a fascist, authoritarian regime, but perhaps not in one that claims to value and respect free speech. You won't see this-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeMXclQiNr0
On the Bbc, because although they used to report both sides of the conflict during Ukraine's civil war, now, they do not.. Even though they have a legal responsibility under their Charter to some form of neutrality. Or there's an article in the Economist praising Ukraines assassination efforts. Or, as I said before, many people with angry thumbs who have no clue about Ukraine's history, or why the resurgence of their Red & Black flag and 'Slava' slogan is bad news. That flag flew over this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
and the same greetings were exchanged by it's perpetrators. Many people are totally unaware of that brutal period of history and just assume it was all done by the Germans. I cannot support that ideology, even if the angry thumbs can and do. But our media glosses over the 'Never Again' happening again because, well, they're killing Russians, aren't they?
"Again why I keep drawing comparisons with what we did to Yugoslavia. There, the pretext for invasion and massive bombing was 'to prevent ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide'."
I'd be with you if Russia didn't then immediately start doing a of ethnic cleansing of it's own (and hadn't done so before inside and outside Russia/the USSR). The West actually achieved it's goal without unnecessarily killing thousands or millions of civilians.
"Not really. You can be arrested in the EU for being 'anti-Ukrainian'. You can be de-platformed. All those things that you'd expect in a fascist, authoritarian regime, but perhaps not in one that claims to value and respect free speech. You won't see this-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeMXclQiNr0"
And for that one I'll give you 4 words: "Fuck off Russian troll"
I missed the bit where the US claimed that Iraq and Afghanistan were historically part of the US, and therefore they were fine to annex them.
Geopolitical reasons for the invasions aside (along with arguments about their legitimacy), you are making an obviously false comparison.
Not everyone who lives in the West agrees with those actions, by the way, but in the same breath, I'm pretty sure none of us would like to live under the regimes of Saddam Hussein, or the Taliban. It's also worth noting that those particular governments were in position prior to those wards due to the previous "foreign policy" of the US. We don't have to agree with those actions, either. How far back do you want to go? Because all of human history is pretty much one of one group of people displacing another in a violent manner, and these days we have internation agreements in order to try to stop that sort of thing.
Putin had publicly stated that he considered Ukraine to be an integral part of Russia and not an independent country
More importantly:
1. Sevastopol is the only good deep-water port in the eastern Black Sea. Russia has to control Sevastopol if they want to be able to project naval power effectively into the Mediterranean and through the Suez into the Arabian Sea, and on to Africa, India, etc.
2. Controlling Sevastopol requires a friendly nation control Crimea. When Ukraine pivoted toward Western Europe and the USA, it became unfriendly, so the only remaining candidate was Russia itself. (Crimea also contains a bunch of Russian-identifying people, of course, but despite public rhetoric I can't see this being a major factor in Putin's calculus, aside from making holding the peninsula somewhat easier.)
3. Crimea is poor land. Potable water and arable land are in short supply. It has to be supplied from the mainland. Russia's bridge to it was vulnerable, and indeed was successfully bombed. To secure Crimea, Russia needs a land bridge, and the only one is through eastern Ukraine (which also has a lot of Russian-identified inhabitants, but parenthetical from #2 continues to apply).
4. Russia has now made the situation worse for itself, because the war pushed Finland to join NATO. Hostile Nordic countries, particularly Finland, severely imperil Russia's Arctic naval bases and ability to project naval power through the Arctic and the Baltic.
5. Also, polls (to the extent they're reliable) show that Russian citizens overwhelmingly approve of the war, so it's important for shoring up Putin's power and the cult of personality that feeds his ego.
Russia really, really needs Sevastopol if it's going to continue to regard itself as a superpower. Let me be clear – that in no way excuses either the invasion and annexation of Crimea, nor its behavior in the current conflict. But this war is not about Putin's personal beliefs or his tenderheartedness toward ethnic-Russian people living in Crimea and the eastern Ukranian provinces.
Is it possible ( by dredging or whatever ) to construct a deepwater port? If so, would that be cheaper than invading another country to nick a natural deepwater port?
Sure. It could be done pretty quickly as well-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
But that had.. quite the environmental impact. But Russia's problem/issue is it really doesn't want a major NATO naval base right on it's doorstep. Maintaining the happy balance in the Black Sea has always been an issue, and obviously there are national security and economic concerns, if NATO could effectively deny Russia access to the Med and beyond.
You've gotta love how people think Ukraine doesn't have its own agency and everything must be because of the USA. If you had any knowledge of the history between Russia and Ukraine you'd know that long before the US even existed, Ukraine has been trying to get out from under Russia's boot. It's been the same going all the way back to the Russo-Polish War in 1654.
As the second largest country in Europe (second only to Russia), Ukraine has the right and the ability to make its own decisions. Just because they choose to ally with the West, doesn't mean the West is deciding everything for them. Ukraine could have chosen to ally with Russia, but they didn't, and after hundreds of years of oppression by Russia, who can blame them? It was their choice.
But no, of course, it's just the USA and its chums. They definitely made Russia invade Ukraine...
And if you think the invasion of Ukraine had anything to do with Russia defending itself against the West and NATO and not about Putin wanting to secure his position and legacy by rebuilding the Russian Empire (among a myriad of other idealist, nationalist rubbish), then you are a useful idiot for the Putin regime.
Definitely nothing to do with increasing USA and NATO activity in Ukraine, then? Or treatment of ethnic Russians in the disputed regions? No, not at all.
The idea that it's all down to totally unprovoked Russian aggression is very naive.There have been tensions in that area for centuries, borders have shifted a number of times, and the USA has been trying to provoke the situation for the past decade.
Likewise the idea that countries have the right and ability to make their own decisions is all very well in theory, but it takes no account of the realities of global politics. How do you reckon the USA would respond if Mexico or Canada formed a strong alliance with Russia or China?
Here we go again...
I am married to a Russian woman who grew up in Ukraine until she was 9 and has relatives who are ethnic Russian Ukrainians who live in the Eastern part of Ukraine. They tell me that Russian speakers were not being targeted in the their everyday lives pre-2014, when Russia used political instability to launch a land-grab (obviously I can't speak for all Russian speakers, but I'm just sharing what they have told me). I have no reason to question them because they are Russian speaking Ukrainians who live in eastern Ukraine.
It may be worth mentioning that a 2015 poll of residents of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions showed that 75% wanted the entire Donbas region to remain fully Ukrainian. Also, when asked if Russian-speaking citizens are under pressure or threat, 82% said 'no'. Only 7% 'somewhat' supported Russia helping rebels in the east and 71% did not. Note that these result are after Russia had already supported rebels in the east and many ethnic Ukrainians had fled the area. So the ethnic makeup of these areas had shifted markedly towards ethnic Russians, and still the results of this poll don't support your assertions.
I have spent a lot of time in Russia over the past 15 years and I have seen first hand the propaganda that is broadcast to the nation on a daily basis. I have a lot of first hand experience of Russia and Russian culture and have spoken extensively to ethnic Russian Ukrainians over the years and have been told their opinions on Russia, Ukraine and how their lives have changed since 2014. So I don't think I'm particularly naive.
I'd be interested to know where you are getting your information from about how life was and is for ethnic Russian Ukrainians. Is it the Kremlin, because you are parroting Putin's talking points pretty well.
And if you want to talk about outside interference in Ukraine, you may want to look up Putin's favourite trick he used on a progression of Ukrainian presidents. If a president was beginning to look favourably to the West, he would threaten to push the price of oil and gas up to an astronomical level. Then he would force them to sign a new deal, using a shady front company (often through Kazakstan), that would be run by one of Putin's goons (with the appropriate back-handers). This shady deal would then be used as leverage over the president any time they stepped out of line. It was a deal very like this that partly caused the sudden change in direction of the Ukrainian Government and directly led to the 2014 revolution. This is just one of the myriad ways in which Russia has been interfering in Ukraine over the years.
That however is all whataboutism. Bottom line is Russia invaded a sovereign nation.
Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has agency and can make its own decisions. It decided to look West.
The invasion has more to do with Putin's desire to leave a legacy and bolster his hold on power than it does with anything that the West is doing (he often likens himself to Peter the Great). It's rooted in idealistic and nationalistic nonsense, and a desire to rebuild the Russian empire and take back lands that Russia sees as theirs. NATO is just an excuse and if you think otherwise I'd suggest that you are either naive or ignorant to the history and culture of the region.
Ironically, if Russia had managed to take the whole of Ukraine, they would have multiplied their border with NATO enormously, not lessened it. Kinda goes against the whole 'buffer zone' thing.
Anyway, I promised myself I'd stop arguing with Putin shills online, so I'm out.
A "Putin shill" appears to be anyone who thinks the situation is all rather more complicated than Ukraine = 100% good and Russia = 100% bad...
"Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has agency and can make its own decisions. It decided to look West."
And I repeat the question - how do you think the USA would respond if Mexico or Canada formed increasingly close alliances with Russia or China? The idea that all countries are fully independent and can do whatever they want is simply untrue as it ignores global politics. This didn't ought to be the case, but the reality is that is is, and there's no point in pretending otherwise.
>Sigh<
The world does not revolve around an axis running through Russia and the USA. Ukraine has been moving towards *Europe*, and Russia doesn't like that. The USA's been losing relevance ever since they the USSR fell and the USA lost its main reason for international relevance.
The nonsense of "USA vs Russia" is a throwbadk to a bygone era.
That was the whole point of the Minsk accords. the Donbas region has always thought of itself as somewhat independent, its sort-of Russia but not really Ukraine, so fitting it into a Federal structure of some sort would have solved the problem to everyone's satisfaction. Being neutral -- non-NATO -- would have made Russia happy and wouldn't have threatened Ukraine because there's no logic to Russia occupying the area as a hostile power (there's no upside to them actually occupying Ukraine).
Crimea is a bit different. The area has hosted major Russian military bases for 300 years or so and when the peninsula as incorporated into the Ukraine SSR in the 1960s the base regions were left out as Federal reservations. The fiction that was peddled here after Maidan was that the Russians would just up and leave, handing the keys to NATO, was a joke. This area is the key to the Black Sea, its a prize that's coveted by Europeans (the British and French in the mid 19th Century, the Germans and their Eastern European allies in the mid 20th) and is likely to be very strongly defended by Russia. (...and it won't have been invaded by the Russian military because they were already there in considerable strength)
That was the whole point of the Minsk accords. the Donbas region has always thought of itself as somewhat independent, its sort-of Russia but not really Ukraine, so fitting it into a Federal structure of some sort would have solved the problem to everyone's satisfaction.
That was the problem. Crimea had autonomy, then that autonomy was removed. Ukraine had it's civil war due to historic ethnic divisions, Ukraine's armed forces lost badly and used Minsk as a pretext to train, re-arm and prepare to re-occupy the territories that it lost. Minsk was supposed to have been a cease-fire to allow dialog to allow peace talks and discussion around restoring autonomy or a more formalised federation, but this was a sham. There seems to be no real desire for peace now from Ukraine or the West, so the killing will continue until some version of democracy is restored. Meanwhile-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66750202
Ukrainian officials have said any Ukrainian citizens involved in organising the elections can expect to be punished in the future.
But then the idea of democracy is changing in the West as well. 'Interfere' with elections by asking questions and get thrown in jail.
Being neutral -- non-NATO -- would have made Russia happy and wouldn't have threatened Ukraine because there's no logic to Russia occupying the area as a hostile power (there's no upside to them actually occupying Ukraine).
Yep, we should have already known this having restored peace & stability to Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc.
I married a Ukrainian, have a Russian father in law and lived in Ukraine for many years and I agree with all of this.
It's quite funny in a sad sort of way watching westerners insisting Ukraine and Russia's invasion of it is all America's or, if we're being generous, Europe's fault. How it must hurt to know that your whole country is no longer relevant!
With your background I curious if the lands taken from the Mennonites by Stalin and given to his chosen ones, if so it might add to Vlad's panic to recover Stalin's true believers. After reading about Saint Helga or Olga which came from Ukrainian sources the war is becoming a holy battle against the good and the forces of V.
"Russian speaking nationals"
What does that even fucking mean? A huge number of people all over the Eastern Bloc speak Russian that have absolutely fuck all to do with Russia...they speak Russian because it was once all Soviet and Russian was the common language.
"Liberating Russian speaking Ukranians" makes as much sense as "Liberating English Speaking Australians".
Especially since Zelenskiy himself is a "Russian-speaking national." I'm pretty sure he doesn't identify as Russian, in the same way that French-speaking Canadians don't typically identify as French, and English-speaking ones don't identify as USans.
And, not to mention, the drones in question and the warships in question were within Ukraine's internationally recognised waters... This isn't as if Ukraine was out to blow up random ships of another country, they were defending their country and Putin's Puppet intentionally scuppered that.
"they were defending their country and Putin's Puppet intentionally scuppered that"
Musk stated that he was concerned that a successful sinking of a chunk of the Russian fleet would have given Putin an excuse for a (possibly nuclear) escalation. That at least is plausible even if you don't want to believe it.
Musk was worried they'd tried to sink Russian ships AT ANCHOR at Sevastopol. That certainly wouldn't have gone over well. No matter what you think one of the main drivers of this conflict is Russia's desire to maintain absolute control of it's Sevastopol naval base and the black sea fleet.
"how does blood get on Musk's hand if he indeed achieved that explosive-laden submarines washed ashore harmlessly ? If Ukraine wants to fight a war with Russia it's fine (I suppose, or they wouldn't do it) but that doesn't mean we must take sides."
You seem to miss the point about the US and its allies picking an actual side (and most peeps are comfortable with that).
This, again?
If you operate any vehicle, regardless of automation level, you are ultimately responsible for the safety of that operation. Full Stop.
Airliners have advanced automation capable of navigating and even landing and braking to a stop on the runway. The pilots are still fully responsible for the aircraft from brake release to parking at the gate.
The same is even more true of cars. FSD does not absolve the driver of responsibility. Idiots who assume that FSD means they can take a nap, and then crashed have learned this lesson at a high cost.
"Airliners have advanced automation capable of navigating and even landing and braking to a stop on the runway. The pilots are still fully responsible for the aircraft from brake release to parking at the gate."
And before around October 2021 if that airliner was a Boeing 737 MAX the automation was quite capable of killing everyone on board - and did several times - despite the actions of the pilots to stop it.
>” The pilots are still fully responsible”
Pilots are more highly trained than you typical car driver. Additionally, pilots have to get type approval to fly different planes - ie. They are formally taught and so learn the real capabilities of the “auto pilot”, not just what the marketeer and salesperson lead them to believe.
Normally yes. For the Max that didn't matter, the systems could fail AND override the pilots ability to control the aircraft.
There's no 3rd pair of hands in the cockpit any more to disable/override broken things when the two pilots are fully occupied trying keep the thing from nosediving vertically into the landscape, the locked cockpit door (after 911) also prevents any help from the main cabin.
>How many people have been injured, mainmed or killed by Tesla's supposedly working years ago "Full Self Driving" package?
Not that many at all compared to the current rate of deaths on US highways. I've always maintained that any kind of automation should be evaluated against human operators in similar conditions. My guess is that the machine will give the humans a run for its money if not be better at it.
Incidentally, "Full Self Driving" isn't a new concept. Out a horse in front of a cart and the resulting vehicle will drive itself. There are some issues here if the horse gets spooked or bolts but we humans lived with this FSD mode for centuries and somehow made it work.
As a horse guy, a car guy, and a computer guy, I'll take the horse every time.
The concept of computers, with all their faults, taking control of a mechanical contraption such as a car with all of THAT that can go wrong, and then subjecting the combination to the vagaries of the planet scares the shit out of me. Far, far too many things to go wrong ... and the more safety checks they put in, the more the problems compound.
Now, if the cars were on "computer controlled" roads only, maybe. But I still wouldn't buy one as long as critters and weather might be involved.
Me too. The horse is unlikely to be suicidal. The computer, on the other hand, has no concept of dying, and could get itself muddled in a state where it ceases responding with the vehicle still moving.
I've yet to see a horse manage that (as the horse is the propulsion, so if it dies it stops - see, built in safety!).
but that doesn't mean we must take sides
I can sympathy with the sentiment, but at the end of the day Russia has shown aggression towards several neighbours.
The pattern is <some country> is contemplating EU and/or NATO membership. Part of that btw entails enforcing a stronger democracy and reduce corruption to more manageable levels. E.g. Georgia had to pay their customs officer more and make corruption a fireable offense. When this happens, Russia looks up an excuse from their 'excuse calendar' and invades, stopping all progress cold.
With Georgia we in the west couldn't do much. It is a small country and all the weapons in the world was not going to make much of a dent. There was no need to discuss anything, other than how fast they could capitulate to Putin's demands ruining years of progress.
Ukraine is different. It is a big country with a big population. To get them on our side will strengthen our own democracies and freedom. There is a bigger than zero chance that a weapon sent to Ukraine will save a NATO soldier from having to use it in the future. We can draw a line in the sand without risking our own lives.
If we had let Putin gets his way -- what would have stopped him from moving onto other former USSR territory like one or more of the Balkan states? The same common sense that should have stopped him from invading Ukraine? Can NATO stand down while a member country is being invaded?
We are in this thing no matter what. I understand you dislike the situation, but there is no way around it.
Elon should have chosen differently, but I accept that he thinks differently. Either way he is doing more to help the Ukrainians than most others.
USA picked sides the minute they founded NATO. Each member country picked sides the minute they joined.
I agree with all this of course.
But just a quick note en passant to mention that the US did not actually found NATO. They joined in 1949 the just created "Western Union" (nothing to do with remittance here), also referred to as the Brussels Treaty Organisation made of the UK, France and the Benelux. At that point, the name was changed to NATO and the terms of the alliance were rewritten.
So, it's not like the Warsaw Pact that was instigated by Russia, partly to control its vassal states.
Maybe so but the US is the defacto force, driving and military, behind NATO now.
Countries join NATO to get access to the US military. This was something Trump was quite vocal about as the other members were not really paying their fair share. It is legitimate to question why the US military budget should go to defending a wealthy foreign nation when that nation is not prepared to spend their own money.
Obviously the neocon and neolib warmongers LOVE the spending as they are generally balls deep in the military industrial complex.
> how does blood get on Musk's hand if he indeed achieved that explosive-laden submarines washed ashore harmlessly ?
Because the targets of these submarines are war infrastructure and troops, used by a genocidal dictatorship to commit war crimes against civilians.
> If Ukraine wants to fight a war with Russia it's fine
Ukraine was attacked. Ukraine is defending itself. No one in Ukraine wants to fight this war. They are doing what every sentient lifeform does, they fight for their survival.
That’s a pretty explosive claim (pun not intended) and sad if true.
Yes, how sad it is that a potential nuclear exchange was averted!
It's simply incredible to me how jingoistic the prevailing attitude is to this conflict in the West. In contrast, throughout the Cold War, the focus was always on deescalation. If we had a Cuban Missile Crisis today then I guess it would be automatic Armageddon!
Remember, at the fall of the Berlin wall NATO promised not to step an inch further east. Take a look at where NATO's borders lie today? Ukraine's entry into NATO has been on the cards since the 2008 Bucharest summit. For the Russians, the prospect of nukes sited less than 300 miles from Moscow is just as unacceptable as it would be for the US, were the situation reversed. Not to mention the fact that every major historical invading army has transited through the Ukrainian steppes on its way to Russia.
"Remember, at the fall of the Berlin wall NATO promised not to step an inch further east."
No.
At the fall of the Berlin wall, a promise was made to President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union that no non-German NATO troops would be stationed in the territory of the former East Germany.
Since that time, no non-German NATO troops have been stationed in the territory of the former East Germany.
So a promise made circa 34 years ago to the now-dead president of a now non-existent country has been and continues to be kept.
And please explain how refusing to provide Internet access to the military is interfering into external affairs ? I rather see it as opposite: he didn't want to interfere in a war that is not his. As for Ukraine being a sovereign state ... living from IMF and NATO funds doesn't seem very "sovereign" to me. It rather looks like a puppet regime of the CIA
Except that it made no difference to the possibility of nuclear war.
It just allowed the Russians to continue having weapons that they are using to kill Ukrainians. If they did not have those weapons, they could kill fewer people, blow up fewer blocks of flats, fire less cruise missiles into burger bars and schools.
Theirs is the blood on Musks hands!
The nuclear war "justification" is just as credible as a kid claiming that he did not "steal" the cookie from the jar but instead "prevented it from rotting inside".
Musk has shown repeatedly on Twitter he's leaning towards Trump, the pro-Russian rhetoric and fringe Weltanschauung.
This piece of news is totally consistent with the rest of the picture.
Even if it were not in the book, any acute observer could have suspected it.
This place has become so tedious. Musk bad. We get it.
For a supposedly tech savvy readership, you people are all idiots.
I'm pretty sure that using the Starlink Service to commit violence or an act of war is against the TOS. Service cancelled. If it's not against the Starlink TOS, I may need to open an account.
cheers
How does armies using Internet differ from armies using mobile phones?
And yes, tech and business savvy me thinks "Musk bad".
Look at how he wrecked Twitter in one year only for ideological reasons and to expose his lunacy. This is what a troll with 250 BUSD asset can do.
If he were addicted to GT4, you can bet he would raid Polyphony Digital and Sony Entertainment in order to tweak the algorithm so that he would always win.
Since starlink satellites use beamforming strategies to talk to terminals, getting location info on a terminal is a given.
I'm sure Starlink / Elon had a vested interest in seeing where all the kit they sent to Ukraine ended up, and would have easily spotted a bunch of them heading out to sea in a beeline towards a Russian port.
“Help us Elon, or the Ukranians might win actually beat us and reclaim their country”
“Shit - we can’t have that, Vee-vee. Gimme a minute to open Slack here... [HOLD MUSIC].. Hey, yeah, I got the guys to make a fix, so now you can put anything you want in Crimea”
“Splendid. I owe you one, I owe you one, big guy”
“Any time for my Uncle Volodya...”
The Starlink terminal sits on dry land with an IP link across a switch with a submersible-capable doodad plugged into another port? Perhaps using a longer wavelength picked up by a simple wire antenna poking out of the water - or any other means by which a remote-control submersible receives its signals.
Much as any IoT setup can have local traffic and a connection to the Internet via a separate medium.
I am still trying to figure out how a starlink signal would even REACH a submersible drone traveling underwater. It isn't as though 11 or 40 GHz have much penetration in water.
They weren't submersible drones. A couple got washed up, one detonated, one was recovered. The pics looked like kind of kayak-bombs. Later attacks showed the same type of drone. But recovering one would have given Russia some idea how they were controlled and how they might counter them. I'm also somewhat sceptical how integral Starlink would have been in these attacks, ie if there were terminals inside the drones or they were being used to control from onshore, or offshore vessels. I'm pretty sure guiding bombs with Starlink is against their AUP and ToS though.
"...seems he is on he Russian side"
Absolutely not my take on this... he could be happy to provide Starlink services to help Ukraine defend it's territory, but not with them attacking targets outside of that territory. Whether that is actually justified is debatable, but certainly not "on he Russian side".
Similairly with the claim that the Russians threatened the use of nuclear weapons... one might think that the Russians were bluffing and wouldn't really use nukes, but it's one thing to be reading an article and typing a comment on a forum, and quite another thing to be facing Putin across a real live poker table with potentially millions of lives at stake. Although such fears seem to have now subsided, back last year there was genuine concern in NATO circles that Russia might use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Again, one might argue as to whether backing down vs calling the bluff* was the right decision, but "on he Russian side" is a bit too far.
*and, (possibly luckily) we don't actually know if it was a bluff - that's part of the risk-reward balance to strike when folding on an opponent's raise.
WAS part and in reality not for very long in terms of history.
For a while in the 90's it was actually the 'Republic of Crimea' after spending most of the 20th century as a Soviet Oblast. Prior to that it has been part of the Russian empire, ruled by the Ottomans and invaded by the Mongols.
You could equally say that Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1996 when it abolished the republic.
"after spending most of the 20th century as a Soviet Oblast"
It spent 46 years as a Soviet Oblast, of which 9 years as part of Russia SSR (1945-54), and 37 years as part of Ukraine SSR, then 4 years as a Republic before being integrated into Ukraine (1995 - present). At the point of the Russian annexation in 2014, Crimea had spent 56 of the previous 60 years as part of Ukraine, 4 of the previous 60 years as independent, and 0 of the previous 60 years as part of Russia.
Given the amount of genocides and forcible population relocations that have happened in the last 100+ years and continue to happen it's a mug's game to play "rightful owner" - when the history is so murky and blood-stained, there really is no way to come to a 'fair' settlement, whatever 'fair' may mean to you. The fact that Crimea is, de jure, part of Ukraine is enough for me without diving into rabbit holes where even people far far more knowledgeable than me about the subject would get lost.
Ukraine SSR != Ukraine as it is today. Also remember that post WWII Ukraine was extended into areas that were previously part of Poland and Romania.
Unless you are an island your borders are often defined by a 'higher authority' and sometimes in an undesirable way to those that live in the affected region.
If Crimea IS part of Ukraine then you could equally say that Northern Ireland IS part of the UK and that is that. Historically the area known as Northern Ireland has been part of the UK longer than Crimea has been part of Ukraine. And the argument used is that Northern Ireland is largely ethnically Irish and should be reunified with Ireland as that is what the people want equally applies to the mostly ethnically Russian inhabitants of Crimea who were probably unhappy at some far away government suddenly deciding 'you are now part of X and no longer your own republic'.
Other historically crappy line drawing decisions include the partition of India and specifically 'East Pakistan' and how well that worked out. And of course Sykes Picot and the legacy of carving up the middle east into chunks that most benefitted the UK and France.
Stop talking crap and blaming the middle easts on Sykes PIcot.
Just because theres a line in the ground over here in the wrong place doesnt mean anyone should or must go and rape and kill anyone. Whats next - you dont like where the zip code line is in our part of America so that gives you the right to kill your neighbours ? Stop falling for the old game of blaming other people and take responsibilty for being a decent human.
The problem is they are stuck living with old and barbaric values, the leaders treat the people like shit, and the only thing the dumb masses can blame are the British and French who are now gone.
The middle east has always had wars and fights, what we see today is actually significant better than basically all human history, sad but true.
Interesting take, was not expecting defence of Sykes Picot.
Yes, the middle east has had a lot of wars and fighting. Would you say that the 1948 decision that changed the ownership of a chunk of land and forcibly expelled the previous occupants was a good idea? I get the feeling that the people who used to live there are still a bit upset about it.
Any line on a map only has relevance while those on both sides are willing to leave it there, history shows (put simply), area 'A' belongs to country 'X' until either (1) they can't prevent country 'Y'1 from taking over or (2) they decide it's not worth the cost to keep.
Sykes/Picot carving up the middle east after the fall of the Ottoman empire was the best outcome the region was going to get. The formation of a single large new nation covering the most important shipping lanes for the British & French empires just wasn't going to be allowed, West was the Suez canal, East was Persia & India, North was the new nation of Turkey. Turkey was providing a 'just big enough' threat to keep the new USSR honest in it's dealing around the Black sea, so having a bunch of small countries administered by UK/France right next door helped make sure the Turkish sat quietly avoiding becoming a bigger Belgium. As the middle east was reasonably quiet (by local standards) until Israel decided to pop into existence it can be argued that Sykes/Picot was a good result for the local goat herders who didn't give a flying one about whoever was in charge.
After almost every war there are boundary changes, prior to WWI Poland as a nation hadn't existed for over a century after it's was carved up by the neighbours. Post WWI, Poland was carved out of Russia by the locals. Post WWII a lot of lines were changed in central Europe, Poland was extended into previous German territory as the Soviets were not going to give up the eastern half they'd invaded in 1939 (became part of the Belarusian & Ukrainian SSRs)
After Russia successfully captured Crimea in 2014, Ukraine went from a small defensive military capability (because Russia had signed a bit of paper2 promising to protect their borders) to a force capable of putting any invaders knee deep in their own blood3 as Russia is now finding as it tries to create a land bridge across the Ukraine to Crimea4.
For a bit more What-about-ism, is Russia going to hand back the Finnish territory they invaded in 1939 or the Japanese islands captured in 1945, No, because they won those wars and kept the land, when the shooting eventually stops in Ukraine new borders will be drawn somewhere and they'll last until the next leader who thinks they can win.
1 Country 'Y' also includes uppity locals.
2 This one lasted a lot longer than the one from 1938 Germany given to the UK.
3 Arguably the minimum force needed to deter potential aggressors, hello to all our swiss readers :)
4 Having failed to take the entire country last year Ukraine may well feel justified in retaking all of Crimea once the 2014-22 borders are re-established.
"If Crimea IS part of Ukraine then you could equally say that Northern Ireland IS part of the UK"
Well, you know what, NI IS part of the UK. And a large number of people from NI would like to join Ireland because that is their ethnic and cultural heritage. Equally, a number of people from NI would like to stay with the UK, because that is THEIR heritage.
There is no equivalent to Crimea, where the closest thing to 'native' (ie at least lived there a long time) were the Tatars who were ethnically cleansed out. What Russia has been doing since 2014 in Crimea, and also since last year in other occupied parts of Ukraine, is scare away, kill or kidnap any of the local population that aren't pro-Russian, and encourage Russians to move in by promising cheap land and property.
Yes, historically crappy line drawing by colonial powers has given rise to a multitude of conflicts, but I don't see this as relevant, Crimea is a peninsula and no line-drawing has taken place. What has happened is much worse - evicting or killing people inside the line so people from outside the line could move in.
"Tatars who were ethnically cleansed out"
By the Russians I believe.
"evicting or killing people inside the line so people from outside the line could move in"
Indeed, this has happened in a few places across the world and generally does not go down too well.
Just how far back in history do we go to determine who owns a chunk of land? As I said earlier, unless you are an island nation your borders have likely moved many times over recorded history. Crimea has been Greek, Turkish, Russian, its own republic and lately Ukrainian. Do we pick the first recorded one? The longest running one? The most recent? The one that reflects who live there?
... is also ethnic cleansing. People who are not Russian, or willing to accept Russian subjugation, are being killed or driven out; their children taken away and indoctrinated to think of themselves as Russian; their land seized and given to Russians. Just because the eradication of the local culture isn't as explicit as open genocide doesn't mean the goal isn't the same.
The borders of the former Ukraine SSR are what, in 1994, Russia pledged to respect and uphold. That was the price for them taking possession of the Soviet nuclear weapons previously stationed in Ukraine.
Incidentally, as part of the same settlement, Russia also pledged in very specific terms, that it would never use or threaten to use those or any other nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Yes, but pushing NATO to the Russian border is extremely stupid and intentional at the same time.
The west wants Russia to return to the "corrupt" state is was under Yeltzin so they can return to the practice of draining it dry. Like they've been doing in Ukraine.
They despise Putin because he put an end to their ill gotten income!
In the end, it is "All about the money!"
In case you hadn't noticed: by invading Ukraine and seeking to incorporate it into Russia, Putin is attempting to push Russia to the NATO border. Ukraine made no attempt to join NATO until after Putin illegally annexed Crimea, and NATO made no offer of membership until after he invaded the country as a whole.
So, could you please explain how NATO offering protection to an invaded country is "extremely stupid" and provocative, while Putin's warmongering is sensible and good? Words of one syllable are fine, I don't imagine they teach you more at the FSB.
NATOs borders have never been "pushed" anywhere.
They have been pulled in by the people in much of the former Soviet Empire - Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary and even Czechoslovakia as was. Those countries asked to join. This was not a case of some special forces pushing into a country and setting up airfields.
This is in comparison with how all those countries above formerly ended up in what became the "Warsaw Pact". Russian soldiers would have come in in the process of kicking Nazis out - fair enough. They would send in their spooks (like Putin) to make sure that their supporters got into power and anyone against them ended up dead or abroad.
What happened if they wanted out? Hungary in 1956 is a good example. If Hungary freely decides to leave NATO, we will move our tanks out of the country, not reinforce them!
As a direct result of Putin’s Puttering, Sweden and Finland are part of NATO. NATO is already on Russia’s border, and it's all his fault. Conquering Ukraine would have put Poland on the border… and Poland has been a member of NATO for a while now.
And, if Russia kept its little behind quiet and didn't invade other countries (hmm… Georgia…) it wouldn’t matter where NATO was. NATO is a defensive alliance, it’s there to stand against Soviet/Russian bullshit.
Hmm... not sure history agrees.
US Secretary of State James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev that Nato would not move one inch closer after the reunification of Germany.
This was discussed at the Malta conference between Bush and Gorbachev.
Also the German foreign minister in 1990 assured the Soviets that NATO won't move east.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16112-document-01-u-s-embassy-bonn-confidential-cable
And a US Secretary of State has no business speaking on behalf of the entire of NATO. You'll note that although he did say that, no such provision was included in the final treaty, so his words are legally worth nothing. If Russia thought this was important, they should have negotiated it into the treaty.
The Budapest Memorandum on the other hand specifically says that the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States are prohibited from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations", and also that they must respect the independence and sovereignty of the existing borders. Russia signed that.
What about it? As far as I recall, countries bordering Russia weren't that interested in joining NATO because nobody wanted to stir up trouble.
When the Russians started to march in, and lob shells at fucking maternity units, this was when it was clear that one cannot reason with, or trust, Russia. And this was when NATO started to have a purpose again.
Shall we talk about how many Ukrainian children have been abducted? Shall we talk about them intentionally aiming at civilian targets?
Putin shits his load over a hole in a building. Wah-bloody-wah. I'll take your little hole and raise you entire cities. Let's start with Mariupol, eh?
So… When was this alleged pledge made? Date, please.
And… Where was this alleged pledge made? The location it was signed.
And… Who signed it? The names, and the positions in NATO/member countries and Russia.
And, finally, how about a link to said pledge? If it was, in fact, agreed to by someone in NATO, there should be at least two copies (Russian and English ) possibly three (French), and maybe others. This should be a public document, available from official NATO/Russian sources.
Do try to supply the requested information. There's a good lad/lass/whatever.
"And what about the pledge by NATO to leave a buffer zone between it and Russia?"
Name that treaty, ratified by all parliaments of the NATO members of the time.
NATO is club. Anyone can apply. Putin even wanted Russia "to be invited". NATO did not look that evil at the time, apparently.
NATO members cannot agree in advance to deny membership ad vitam eternam to country A, just to please country B which has its greedy eyes, precisely, on county A but is not strong enough at the moment to invade it.
It's like saying "don't you dare marry Ms A, even if you two love each other, because I'm going to force her to marry me in the end, or worse. I'm just too weak to have things my way for the time being".
This is preposterous.
The borders of the former Ukraine SSR are what, in 1994, Russia pledged to respect and uphold. That was the price for them taking possession of the Soviet nuclear weapons previously stationed in Ukraine.
That was a nuclear treaty that didn't really promise anything, but the world wanted because it didn't want Ukraine having nuclear weapons. More relevant treaty was The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation signed in 1997, which amongst other things assured the autonomy of Crimea, and non-discrimination of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. The rest is still sadly becoming history.
Stop the whataboutery. Post-WW II borders are recognised by international treaties and there is at least one, of which Russia is a signatory which specifies that Crimea is part of Ukraine.
Prettty sure those Post-WW II borders included a country called Yugoslavia. Where is it now? But treaties can be torn up, borders redrawn as many have been since WW II.
I didn't say post-1945 borders were unalterable but that they were respected by treaty, including the one that Russia signed when Ukraine gained independence. You could point out that, of course, Kosovo was effectively given independence due to NATO intervention. There were exentuating circumstances, which would never have been necessary if the West had taken Putin Mk I, Slobodan Milosevic seriously in his dreams of a Greater Serbia. Croatia was forced to resolve border dispute before it could join the EU. Cyprus was supposed to do the same but was allowed to renege… So, far from perfect but most treaties that were drawn up after WWII have been pretty successful, especially when you think how arbitrarily and ahistorically some of those borders were: Königsberg, Poland's borders with Ukraine and Germany.
But it's simply bollocks to even suggest that Crimea should be Russian if not Ukrainian. If anything, it should be independent or at least autonomous.
Pick a square foot of land anywhere in the world and it will have been ruled over by many different entities. Do they all have claims?
This kind of logic always annoys me. "He who owns the land is he who controls and can defend it NOW." I know that sounds harsh in our 21st century world but it is still as true today as it was 3000 years ago.
Ukraine gave up the power to protect themselves in exchange for protection by other nations. Principally the West. The West failed them.
Actually yes you can, in fact technically, you can kill them.
The latter is somewhat more tricky but if you can show that you used ‘reasonable force’ to remove an intruder and they resisted your attempts to the extent that a ‘reasonable person’ might conclude that your life was in imminent danger, and in self defence, you took an action that caused the death of the intruder, you know what, you haven’t actually committed any crime.
"in fact technically, you can kill them."
That would depend entirely on jurisdiction.
As always in situations like this, contact an actual member of your local Bar Association for advice before listening to the babble of a random Internet armchair lawyer, who in al likelihood first heard said babble at another kind of bar entirely.
ChoHag, that whooshing sound is the point going over your head.
Cliffwilliams44 says their neighbour controls it now, and not only is it not permitted for Cliffwilliams to ask anyone else to help get their property back, they're not allowed to try themselves either.
It's a strange worldview, if I may be so bold.
Historical ownership notwithstanding as another commenter states, I would tend to agree with "Crimea is part of Ukraine"
The article says "attack against Russian naval ships near Crimea". Without any further details it's impossible to know if it's a part of the Black Sea that is anyway Russian-controlled. Either way, I think the more relevant part of the article is this "Earlier conversations with Russian officials had convinced Musk that the Kremlin would retaliate against such a Ukrainian attack".
Again, it could be argued that Musk fell for a Russian bluff, and in hindsight we might think it was a bluff since other attacks have happened without nukes being fired. But you have to look at it in the context of last year, when no such attacks had yet been carried out, and the fear of Russian use of tactical nukes was very real*. So, maybe Musk got played for a sucker. Or more likely, in a high-pressure situation he took an action that seemed right at the time and turned to be wrong. There's enough reasons for finger-pointing at Musk not to have to add this one too.
*or at least that was what NATO was publicly saying and/or feeding to the western press, even if only to stoke fear of Russia and consequently approval of whatever NATO were doing
The article states "Earlier conversations with Russian officials had convinced Musk that the Kremlin would retaliate against such a Ukrainian attack with nuclear weapons, the biographer claimed."
It strikes me as odd that in the midst of a major conflict, a US-based businessman somehow has a direct line to officials in the protagonist nation.
It's the Libertarian paradox: people are supposed to be free to do whatever they want but money is also right.
Musk, Peter Thiel and others have some pretty weird ideas about what all their money allows them to do and nothing, especially not government or international regulation should stop them. But, in their own little kingdoms they expect to be able to rule absolutely.
But it came with strings that they could apparently only be used in ways he approved.
What I'd like to know is how could he have possibly known about the drone attack on Russian ships as it was happening? Did he have someone in Ukraine's military telling him about their plans? If so, I hope that idiot was fired.
possible that neither he nor whoever tipped him/Starlink off didn't know an attack was imminent.
But that cutting the links coincided with a particular attack and we see patterns in the shadows that aren't there.
Wars are complex and messy businesses and bad fortune and good fortune can overtake good planning and bad planning respectively.
I didn't say "likely" I said "possible".
also possible that Musk was directly informed that Ukraine was using Starlink for unspecified offensive actions but then prevaricated over his decision long enough that it coincided with the naval attack.
A few hours earlier and the attack would not have been put in at all, a couple hours later and the newspapers would have been making comparisons with the battle of Tsushima
Im not doubting Starlink may or may not have been used in the past, im just going to say that Musk likes to exaggerate, and he is inventing stories that he was ever involved in any live action. This you can be sure, there is no strategic value in Ukraine keeping Musk in the loop for this or any other military activities today or in the past.
Netflix is toxic, though in a different way that the social cancer of those media. It's as toxic as being in the middle of a smart-looking restaurant, with multi-coloured attractive-looking, self-serving bufet options, all for a small, painless, though recurring, entry fee. All-you-can-eat for only 10 usd!!!! (or whatever they fees are), etc.
I was thinking that its probably not the greatest idea to piss off chappies from that part of the world unless you have a taste for polonium tea or a novachok chaser.
But then Musk has real form in not having the greatest ideas.
Still I guess he could be added to WS Gilbert's They'll None of Them be Missed
A nice, if arrogant and prone-to-be-argumentative friend of mine has turned into a frothing nutter after losing his job and spending 5 years getting his information from youtube. Despite being based in the Cotswalds he has somehow adopted all the talking points of the american reactionaries, up to and including becoming suddenly and virulently anti-abortion.
When he would raise some doubt about climate change and I sent him a one page NASA Goddard summary with very good evidence, he responded with a link to a 30 minute youtube video by someone with a marketing degree, and a note that "20 minutes in he rebuts this".
It's a crying shame, but after pondering this for some time the issue is: he doesn't read for information. He gets it all from video, Youtube is where you go for video, and it's a site that (as we know) will prioritise angry stuff over accurate stuff because angry gets more engagement.
So yes, I agree. YouTube is by far the most toxic site on the internet in terms of impact. Despite it having some useful woodworking videos.
Sadly I have to agree with this from my own experience of otherwise sensible folks ending up as raving right-wing USA nutters, in spite of having no connecting to American issues it real life.
Yes, there are left-wing nutters as well, but it seems the right has a far bigger stake in this.
Sadly I have to agree with this from my own experience of otherwise sensible folks ending up as raving left-wing USA nutters, in spite of having no connecting to American issues in real life.
Yes, there are right-wing nutters as well, but it seems the left has a far bigger stake in this.
And it wasn't until you started meddling in it.
You put up a vast comms network in the sky, which is good. Then, as usual, you start getting ideas on how it is supposed to be used and by who. You shouldn't.
A comms network will be used by nefarious people that are up to no good. If you can't hack it, then shut down Starlink and be done with it.
The Internet is rife with DDOS, scams, kiddie pr0n and other unsavory things. I don't hear anybody shutting off Russia because of any of that.
Oh go grow a pair already.
As usual, Musk and all the other hard of thinking idiots believe that freedom of speech, expression. Liberty, Internet freedom etc. should only apply if it confirms and or complies with their beliefs.
Musk is a child in a rich man's body with too much influence.
Hopefully governments will grow some balls and stand up to him instead of funding him.
Cutting off countries from the internet seems an attractive idea but could have unintended side effects and reinforce the influence of their government. Better to do it more subtly perhaps?
"Hopefully governments will grow some balls and stand up to him instead of funding him."
Have you seen who was running the US federal government from January 2017 to 2021? (Not to mention influencing it, mostly via media, both before and after.)
Musk isnt a man child, he knows exactly what he is doing and what he is saying. He is playing to a specific audience and well too many of them believe. Its pathetic that anyone prays on idiots like them but thats the world, and well rich people will do things, because all you need to know is they will do anything including prostituting themselves for their own advatnage.
So this is a freedom of speech issue? Really?
Please, use the Starlink Service to plan and execute a military strike, potentially resulting in 1000's of deaths. Free Speech!
Use the wrong pronouns, causing real world harm, and your service is terminated.
What am I missing here?
while in general support your view and I think Musk is a classic example of 'too much money got into his head', I do think that in his mind, and in his true capacity (starlink has had a BIG influence on this war), Musk has started thinking on the level of US government, i.e. 'SOMEBODY's got to be a responsible adult here'.
IF the Russians have communicated to the US (and, directly or not, to Musk), that Crimea is 'the' red line (no, really, it's only their 33353656th 'real red line' ;) and there are indications that the US government does believe that it might be the final red line, then, being a responsible adult, it would be responsible to prevent the 'showdown' by incapacitating starlink. That said, since last year, there've been a few successful (relatively) drone attacks on Russian warships around Crimea via live feed, so either the responsible adults have grown more permissive of their Ukrainian junior partners, or it's all bollocks to sell more book copies.
"while in general support your view and I think Musk is a classic example of 'too much money got into his head', I do think that in his mind, and in his true capacity (starlink has had a BIG influence on this war), Musk has started thinking on the level of US government, i.e. 'SOMEBODY's got to be a responsible adult here'.
IF the Russians have communicated to the US (and, directly or not, to Musk), that Crimea is 'the' red line (no, really, it's only their 33353656th 'real red line' ;) and there are indications that the US government does believe that it might be the final red line, then, being a responsible adult, it would be responsible to prevent the 'showdown' by incapacitating starlink. That said, since last year, there've been a few successful (relatively) drone attacks on Russian warships around Crimea via live feed, so either the responsible adults have grown more permissive of their Ukrainian junior partners, or it's all bollocks to sell more book copies."
Looks like Musk took the decision by himself. Moscow has had many red lines, and if they got to Musk by another "ultimatum" ("this time it will be nuclear war, for sure, honest"), or simply by threatening him or his family/families, then this just shows that he needs to step down from Starlink, and the US Gov needs to step in. When you run critical infrastructure you don't have the right to just turn it off on a personal decision. No matter how much you own it. That's part of the contract between you and the users.
Ukaine has, as far as possible tried to avoid that kind of dependence. Don't forget that Starlink offered to provide the equipment, as long as the US DoD paid for it. Fortunately, in the meantime other companies have stepped forward giving them more options and great pictures such as the recent attacks on air defence in Crimea and Kherson.
Sure. And I would argue that it is very unsound to rely on a tool run by a bipolar megalomaniac. But if this is the best you have, you're going to make use of it. Besides, did his Muskness "donate" his starlink stuff to Ukraine that they can watch Netflix in Kherson while bombs are dropping on them?!
Absolutely right; technically this is the difference between a personality disorder, and a mental disorder.
The former is the way you are made, the latter is an illness, which should be treated with compassion.
It's the difference between being a psychopath and a psychotic. A psychopath may well never kill anyone, but if they do so, they'll plan it and dispose of the body/bodies, a psychotic will do things like running around with a knife shouting at people that aren't there and stabbing random people.
It's also worth pointing out that whilst most serial killers are psychopaths, most psychopaths are not serial killers.
I'd not claim that Musk has some sort of psychopathy, by the way. Internet psychiatry is not a real thing. Any diagnosis can only be made by a proper mental health professional who is actually treating the person in a doctor/patient capacity. I'd only go as far as to say he appears to be a deeply unpleasant example of a human animal, and that his decision-making capacity doesn't appear to be well-formed.
I imagine there are life situations when you have no other option, it's not like they go for it, because it's the first thing that came to their mind. You weight risks of failure versus potential gains. Incidentally, a similar issue came up recently at a conference where the Russian pilot who flew mi-8 to Ukraine was present. One question, directed at Ukrainian military intel rep was: OK, he's here, his parents are here, he brought documentation, other valuable intel, you paid him half a milion bucks for the chopper, you suggest he might work for our transportation, all's well, but we all know that Russia can afford to have paid him so much more, so how did you verify he's not a mole? Obviously, he couldn't go into details of 'how', but yes, they did what they could to verify him (the operation took around six months), and the bottom line is, they decided the risk v. gain is worth it.
Target what? There are lots of ships in a port, and they tend to move around too. Without very sophisticated autonomous weaponry, which Ukraine does not posses, you need a live feed to identify between warships and other vessels, and provide terminal guidance so the small explosive charge is detonated location which will cause the greatest damage.
Musk confirmed on X that they had always restricted the use of Starlink in Ukraine (and probably Russia).
The issue was he got a request to enable Starlink for drone boats to attack Sevastopol. He declined to enable it on the very reasonable grounds that he would be complicit in an attack, and quite possibly responsible for a nuclear war.
Care to back that up with some sources? 'cause Elon's confirmation doesn't carry a lot of weight with most people and it strikes me as unlikely that he'd *ever* restrict the use of any product in any market if it would increase his influence/wealth.
Sorry, but this story confirms that Starlink blocked the use quite recently, not that "they had always restricted the use of Starlink in Ukraine (and probably Russia)."
No doubt they worked out / were told what was up and decided to block traffic. I strongly doubt that Elon has any altrustic motives - rather I suspect that Starlink Legal or Marketing advised that - if Putin went Nuclear, then Starlink could be held complicit or at least look bad and therefore they shut it down.
if Putin went Nuclear, then Starlink could be held complicit or at least look bad and therefore they shut it down.
if Putin went nuclear, the I doubt there'd be many people left to pass judgement, and they'd probably have other things on their mind.
You do realize that there is a difference between tactical nuclear and strategic nuclear weapons, don't you?
I believe that the Russians are threatening the use of tactical weapons against Ukraine, at least in the first instance.
How the US and the rest of the world would react would then be the question...
Putin must realised by now that you cant really trust Russian technology. Its far more useful to scare others than show your crap doesnt work. Im sure the CHinese know the same which is probably why they have never tried to do anything to Taiwan. After what has happened in Ukraine, the Chinese will surely try and repalce all their Russian crap before they try anything. THe Chinese problem is not gone its just on pause for some time.
Russian derived Chinese kit, oh yes, they'll be taking notes and improving the home built offerings, while letting Russia burn itself into the ground trying to beat NATO, the same countries that supplied every one of the allies in WW2. There's a global market of 'we did buy Russian, not any more' out there waiting for a suitable alternative.
A lot of the Chinese military is from the 'one child' generation and it'd not help the CCP internally if too many were families were left childless. (twenty years from now, hmm..)
There's no current way the PLAN could suddenly invade Taiwan without a large casualty bill* and any campaign to clear the path first would have the US military on station demanding they stand down or risk trying their first serious modern war with a top table adversary. (a bit like Argentina did in '82)
All this could be seen as being hasty by forcing a clear win/lose when not losing is the only allowable outcome long term for the CCP.
They appear to have learned from history in their overseas endeavours, think of the various East India Companies (with less shooting) and compare.
I agree, the Chinese will wait.
*against other Chinese citizens because after all Taiwan is just an internal Chinese province with outside influence issues.
You do realize that there is a difference between tactical nuclear and strategic nuclear weapons, don't you?
Absolutely I do.
As absolutely as I believe that if tactical nukes got used, things would escalate and strategic nukes would end up getting flung about.
And yet here we still are are, several attacks on Sevastopol later and still no nuclear war.
Per Wikipedia, galaxy brain rocket scientist Musk listened to Pootler's empty threats and was stupid enough to actually believe him.
In early May 2022, the Russian head of Roscosmos and politician Dmitry Rogozin said Elon Musk will be accountable "as an adult" because of his providing the Armed Forces of Ukraine with Starlink satellites.[39] Later on February 3, 2023, Kremlin-backed spokesman Vladimir Solovyov issued threats over the use of Starlink by Ukraine to attack Russian targets, the Kremlin spokesman calling Musk a "war criminal".[40] The same month, SpaceX restricted military use of Starlink in Ukraine.[35]
Drones don't require Starlink, especially not long-range marine drones. They operate on planned GPS courses and receive monitoring and control by a wide range of technology such as HF radio, meteor scatter radio, and commercial satellite services such as Iridium.
The juicy bit about Starlink is it can give high-quality video from boats plunging into bridges etc. More of a propaganda tool than anything else.
from the drone footage released by the Ukrainian side, it appears the drones do require starlink, unlike with stationary target, eg. a bridge, a warship is a small target (or 'small and moving') and you need live link to hit it. I don't think they stream video purely so that they could later release it on social media for propaganda effect, it appears to me to be a side-effect of the main functionality, i.e. precise navigation and manouver (while close to / approaching) the target. This was particularly noticeable when those drones were manouvering wildly while being fired, approaching their targets.
incidentally, one of those (?) drones did hit that (...) bridge, it didn't even make the main news, so presumably damage was next to nil. And they carry, allegedly, up to 500+ kg explosives...
from the drone footage released by the Ukrainian side, it appears the drones do require starlink, unlike with stationary target, eg. a bridge, a warship is a small target (or 'small and moving') and you need live link to hit it.
Only if you don't know what you're doing. Much of the Black Sea Fleet has been moored inside the Sevastopol bastion and has been launching missiles without moving. This is one of the reasons NATO has really wanted to take over those bases because they're pretty easy to defend. Russia's also been launching missiles into Ukraine and Syria from much further away, but that's probably more to demonstrate capability given there's no way NATO warships could get into those waters.
The types of FPV drones they use from China require a video feed for final targeting. But.
When the target is a warship at sea, all you have to do is use GPS to get close enough and then use a thermal sensor to lock on to target. This is not some magic. Thermal sensors have been used on amateur aerial drones for decades - principally to maintain level flight against a horizon. They cost a few bucks and there is Arduino code to use them.
You could use an Arduino to navigate the final attack including zig-zag and jinking to home into that huge hot thing that is a warship.
So a pre-planned GPS approach with minimal low data rate adjustments and you have a battleship killer or bridge demolition device.
No need at all for Starlink video other than to record the event and use it later for propaganda.
I'm absolutely sure that something like a warship would have electronic countermeasures on board to disrupt things like thermal targeting (such as thermal chaff, for example, but probably a more high-tech equivalent), and GPS. Blowing up a bridge probably has different considerations again; it's one thing to steer an unmanned sea drone to the vicinity of the bridge, and another again to hit the spot you want to (presumably, the targeting points are quite specific as there are unlikely to be many weak points in Putin's armoured bridge), rather than simply continuing under it.
Ukraine are probably working with what they have. Yes, you can do all sorts of fancy things with arduinos or other microcontrollers, but if you want to launch an attack today, you'd be out of luck with the lead-time on the development and testing of the integration of those into any guidance system. I'm sure, as the war progresses, the sea-drone attacks will become more sophisticated (and the evidence is that the Ukrainian home-brew drones are already quite effective). They'll probably be developing and using several variants on designs, as this is a classic arms race between developing weapons and developing defences against those weapons. Ukraine will want to keep that as asymmetric as possible, as they are fighting the larger, less agile, enemy.
This post has been deleted by its author
More importantly warships have CIWS (Close in Weapon Systems) to shoot out of the water any small high speed vessels which try to approach. There are videos of the Ukrainian drones being actively controlled to try to avoid the incoming fire, usually unsuccessfully given the potency of such systems. The successful attacks have been when they haven't been spotted until its too late.
You dont need to steer the drone. The GPS coordinaates of the targets like a Bridge a well known, you plot the path and hit go.
DJI drones today have offered this feature for a long time. You can literally look at a map and pick way points and hit go. Its not rocket science to make your drone hit a target. You can also do the same with ARDUPLANE and Mission planner. I can imagine both sides are using ARDUPLANE to fly their drones at targets.
Not everything is a TV show.
It's easy to hit a bridge using GPS coordinates. Not so easy to hit a well defended bridge with GPS blockers or spoofers on it. Given that the bridge in question is a Russian propaganda symbol, I reckon it's not so simple as flying an off-the-shelf DJI drone into it without expecting some sort of countermeasures.
The subtlety here is that GPS "jammers" which broadcast noise on the same frequency to swamp the true signal, would be ineffective, in reality, they would use spoofers (tell the drone it's 500m away from where it really is, for example, plenty of room to miss). A false signal is pretty hard to tell apart from a true one in these circumstances.
Starlink isn't a positioning system, so swamping the signal is the only real option; spoofing wouldn't work because the content is encrypted anyway, unlike a GPS signal*. If you broadcast noise on the same frequency that starlink is using, you are literally target-painting yourself. Now, you could broadcast that from another nearby source, or multiple sources, but those are going to be sacrificial, because they're asking to get a bomb drone dropped on them. They're also a pretty good hint that there is something worth blowing up nearby.
*Technically the high-accuracy one is encrypted, I believe, but the keys are known, or something like that.
In the ideal case you might expect your drones to have fall-back modes if one method of communication is blocked.
I wonder if the case here is that rather than being conventional military equipment, they might be a quick and dirty lash-up using off-the-shelf commercial equipment without all the backups to see if they can get it done on the cheap to rapidly fill a hole in their arsenal.
Radio bands are allocated to different technologies. TO get a backup they would need a duplicate system that transmits and rx on a different bandwidth. How many commercial long range systems are there ? Even planes that fly across the pacific have very modest systems that transmit by radio a few bytes every so often, its part of the reason that Malaysia flight has been lost for so long because it sends very limited data not that often.
"He declined to enable it on the very reasonable grounds that he would be complicit in an attack, and quite possibly responsible for a nuclear war."
This scenario doesn't pass the test. Why would Ukraine send drones knowing they would have no contact with them?
They wouldn't. It was turned off -simple as that. Traitorous behaviour.
And why would Russia launch nukes? Red line after red line has been crossed. Making Ukraine waste massive effort and give away useful secrets to Russia is traitorous.
Musk must now be treated as a Russian asset.
well, this could be either true, or absolute bullshit. True, because at one point, one such 'drone' was washed out (well, got stuck on the rocks) on the shore of Crimea last year, and around that time at least one more was destroyed in that area, apparently 'incapacitated'. And true, because Musk has been openly paranoid about the Russians nukes in action (and I'm sure Russians have used their threats also to stoke his fears, because starlink has been a quiet 'wunderwaffe' for the Ukrainians). And, ironically or not, it appears the US administration shares Musk's... 'concerns' re. Crimea/Russia/nukes.
On the other hand, I call it bullshit, because I very much doubt Musk would have information about the exact timing of that attack. UNLESS, being more paranoid than I take him to be, but far from stupid, he'd already prewarned 'his people' to monitor starlink usage around Crimea and either inform him immediately, or apply pre-designed course of action (incapacitate). Which does not (bullshit again) explain how come that the Ukrainians have, since then, carried out at least three successful drone attacks against Russian shipping, one against a warship (no damage, perhaps malfunction of explosive charge), another warship, that limped to port, just, and then the tanker, likewise. And at the least first of those was IF I remember, near Sevastopol, the other two definitely very near Crimea.
Also, on the bullshit side, I somehow doubt the Ukrainians relied just on Musk's good will (starlink) with those drones, when he'd been a wild card from the start of this large-scale war and he made his wildness known to the world. I imagine they would have built in some sort of fail-safe into the drones, if not to return home by a map-programmed route, because no fuel left, then to, at least to 'auto-destruct when positioning system incapacitated', so it does not fall into Russian hands. Actually, the Russians were sensible enough not to try to open that drone, towed it out to open sea and blew it up from a distance.
Bottom line is: I call it bullshit, because there is no hard evidence, and never will be, unless somebody runs away from the x-twitter with audio/video or other recording of 'Musk made me do it', at which point he'll call it fake news, etc, etc.
And the final 'proof' it's bullshit is the old saying: there is no bad publicity. Particularly for a book about the richest (and possibly the most narcistist) man in the world, and particularly when that tightly-guarded (remember leaks of Harry Potter) secret, yet-to-be-published volume, or bits of it, miraculously finds its way into CNN. I'd say Musk is shocked, truly shocked.
Guess Putin now has Musk where he wants him. Big mistake getting personally involved in this war. Now either the Russians or Ukrainians, or both, will want to extract some revenge at some point in time. He should have handed over control to NATO, and not got personally involved. Sinking Russia's fleet would have been a good thing to bring peace closer -now Musk has instead assured prolonging the war.
Showing how naive he is, he then tweets (X-es?) about it too, giving away details. And he probably gave the Russians fully working drones to study. Bit of a traitor to Ukraine at this point in time. A turncoat, for sure.
Were this to be proven to be factual, it exemplifies the stranglehold that corporate big tech now has over practically everything -- a very dangerous position that we have sleepwalked into smiling over the shiny. On a lesser level, a couple of behemoths can now shut down a high percentage of businesses of all sizes worldwide just by freezing their cloud accounts, so said behemoths effectively own all those businesses. Couple this with the snooping those behemoths participate in both directly and via other vendors, the overall picture is not a pretty one. The big question is how we unravel all this (even supposing it's actually possible to do so). Maybe we're stuffed.
First up there's the bullshit claim that Starlink is somehow losing money in Ukraine. Ukrainian citizens, the Ukrainian government, and the US government have all been giving Starlink lots of money for service. Twitler was just looking to double dip. It was his decision to donate the terminals, so he doesn't get to complain about losing money on that later.
Then, the fact that while a people are literally fighting for their right to exist, and have been subjected to some of the worst war crimes likely seen since WWII... the fact that they are subject to the whims of one narcissistic asshole is scary. At any point Twitler could leak real-time info about Ukrainian troop positions and the like to Russia.
This, IMO, is even more evidence that Twitler is not intellectually nor emotionally fit to be the CEO of a neighborhood grocery store, let alone global companies. Not only are there claims that his Twitter addiction ended up costing SpaceX about $150m and possibly more, he has actively involved himself in an international war. That in turn makes you wonder if there are other examples where he's influenced the outcome of specific battles.
I’d love to see the intersection of the group of people who shout loudly about “net neutrality” and the people who are now resolutely defending Elon Musk for clearly breaking that principle.. I know it’s not going to be small.
To clarify: “see” refers to the chart, not the actual people ... even one Musk fanboy is nauseating; can you imagine a mass of them? yech.
We on both sides of the pond should pay careful attention to this story and the foreign policy implications of technology, critical to our shared national security, being in the hands of for-profit companies or petty individuals. After having stood shoulder-to-shoulder for a century protecting our shared values and freedoms, allowing a private company to make critical military decisions puts all we have accomplished at risk.
Starlink isn't a backbone provider, it's an ISP that plugs into the backbone so Elon gets a bill every month for the bandwidth that gets used. If he can't collect a monthly fee from users in Ukraine, he'll want to axe that service. This must seem to him a good time and place to stop providing service now that the PR isn't giving him the same amount of glowing praise that he wants. It's never been about helping out or standing up for the underdog for Elon. It's been nothing but self promotion and PR to deflect people away from things he doesn't want focused on.
Starlink isn't a backbone provider, it's an ISP that plugs into the backbone so Elon gets a bill every month for the bandwidth that gets used. If he can't collect a monthly fee from users in Ukraine, he'll want to axe that service.
I don't think so. Costs in the grand scheme of things probably won't be that high. The space segments are 'free', the earth station capacity is part of the overall opex, and basic Internet transit capacity is probably only a tiny fraction of that. Starlink is a private company, so doesn't have to answer to public shareholders and it's only really answerable to the private ones and investors. But as a private company with fiduciary responsibilities, it should be up to it's board whether it donates services to the war effort, or not. Especially given the billions that are being thrown at defence companies, or Ukraine in general.
Bigger risk is PR and operations, ie having it's services used to kill people. Ukraine again isn't really helping when it complains about needing the service so it can blow stuff up. If it's being used as part of the war effort, then Starlink's satellites become a legitimate target for Russian ASATs. Russia could attack any satellites flying over Ukraine or Russia, and that would obviously create gaps in coverage further afield. Plus it might also create more legal complications under the Space Liability Convention, depending on where wreckage lands.
"If it's being used as part of the war effort, then Starlink's satellites become a legitimate target for Russian ASATs. Russia could attack any satellites flying over Ukraine or Russia, and that would obviously create gaps in coverage further afield. Plus it might also create more legal complications under the Space Liability Convention, depending on where wreckage lands."
Using ASATs would be doing it the hard way. The bottleneck are the ground stations. Make those non-functional and the satellites have nothing to connect up users to the internet with. If ground stations are in a country friendly to Russia, a garden sprayer filled with vinegar let loose into the electronics cabinets would make a big mess of things and won't make any noise vs just blowing the facility to bits.
Sadly there is no way to properly translate this to English but my favourite Finnish saying is "Ryssä on ryssä vaikka voissa paistaisi" - "A Russian is still a Russian even if fried in butter". Let's just say that "ryssä" is the N-word for a Russian which sadly we don't have in English. Ruskie just doesn't have the same impact :-D
This post has been deleted by its author
So basically whether Ukraine or the USA EU or UK, Your internet connection can be dropped without warning if Musk decides he doesn't like what you used it for.
i.e. If you're a journalist investigating Twitters refusal to pay BILLIONS in backdated salaries, building rent and purchased computers etc, and you use Starlink, Musk will cut you off.
No other ISP would be allowed to get away with such actions.
There also needs to be a full UN investigation into spying by Starlink and Musk. HOW did he access data that drones were being used to sink ships? data is supposed to be encrypted (especially in a war zone).
Does Musk have some sort of decryption ability and the power to have systems scan what your data is and report to him? Its unlikely anyone in Ukraine sent him a snapchat with "blowing up russian fleet. LOLz"
If Starlink DOES have some sort of data-analysis/hacking tools then this needs to go public urgently, because it means Starlink is capable of breaking bank encryption and seeeing/manipulating peoples financial transactions as well as communications about their family and medical issues.
why does the idiot try and move the border closer to NATO? As others have pointed out Russia has already lost, pretty much like Japan lost because the 4 aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbour were out on manoeuvres - its was only going to work if you got it right first time. I do fear Trump getting in though, if he does I can foresee a Russia and US 'alliance' against the world apart from China. We will need more grassy knolls.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
