And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing).

The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on.

A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way.

I'm not sure I'm quite that cynical personally though. ;)

I think that's probably just medium level cynicism.

There's a whole bunch of other angles to consider here:

- Ukraine was previously a supplier of rocket parts to his competitors; if Russia succeeds that's unlikely to resume; if Ukraine succeeds they're likely to resume and be more closely aligned with the US (than previously)

- he has a habit of supporting whatever the dictator says, to further his business interests (see: comments on Taiwan, and his car business in mainland China)

- he has become increasingly cozy with Republicans, a number of whom apparently think Ukraine should be left to fend for itself.

You didn't answer my question in my previous post. Do you hold this view with Israel? Israel is a US ally. Israel retaking the Palestinian land would be considered driving out an invader by both the US and Israel. Should Musk be forced in using Starlink in those attacks against the Palestinians?

If not, then you aren't being consistent. You only support forcing Musk to help Ukraine because you support Ukraine, not because of some greater principle that you seem to be espousing.

>And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing).

Agreed.

>The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on.

Perhaps, but we can't really know that.

>A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way.

That could explain it, but frankly, we don't have any proof. It is just conjecture.

The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't make things clearer. Musk doesn't have the most consistent or coherent world view.

Funny you say that considering they are trying to launch a government version of Starlink (Starshield) that would likely be used to kill people.

Also, to be clear, Musk isn't opposed to using it for killing people. If he was he wouldn't allow it in defensive military actions in Ukraine. Defensive actions require killing after all.

Using it for the US military doesn't mean offensive killing either. From what I have seen the purpose is for "additional high-assurance cryptographic capability to host classified payloads and process data securely". Not necessarily offensive killings.

This is my problem with this whole thread. Everybody is just making assumption after assumption. Maybe Musk is being a hypocrite on Ukraine using Starlink. I don't know, but the available evidence doesn't show either way.

That could indeed be his motivation. It doesn't change that he deliberately used his power to block the Ukrainians from winning when it counted.

If any pretty much any other US citizen had pulled that shit, they'd already be arrested on treason charges. Musk has his fingers in so many pies though (SpaceX specifically), that they're going to have to handle^Wreplace him carefully.

It's not a useful comparison to Ukraine defending itself from an invader. Repeatedly trying to introduce Israel here just sounds (to me) like you're arguing in bad faith.

So is the Russia / Ukraine situation. They have been fighting for more than 300 years. Russia even annexed Crimea in the 1700s. The idea that it is not long or complicated seems erroneous to me. History didn't start when you were born.

>It's not a useful comparison to Ukraine defending itself from an invader. Repeatedly trying to introduce Israel here just sounds (to me) like you're arguing in bad faith.

The problem is both Israel and Ukraine consider themselves as being on the defensive. Israel is trying to retake the land they controlled a few thousand years ago while Ukraine is trying to retake land they controlled a couple decades ago.

At what point is it no longer your land? You probably don't think Israel has a legitimate claim over Palestine so obviously 2500 years ago is too much. The Kievan Rus (ancestors to Ukraine) took Ukraine in 1037 so you obviously don't think the people who controlled Ukraine prior to them are the legitimate owners of the land. You think Ukraine should control Crimea so 20 years ago is legitimate.

At what point is the cut off? 50 years? 100? If Russia controls Crimea for that long would you say Russia is the legitimate ruler?

My issue with this whole argument is that people don't have any underlying principles on which they are forming their views. It is strictly emotional.

If somebody shouldn't be forced to offensively support Israel than they shouldn't be forced to offensively support Ukraine. The only difference is the time frame.