7 comments

[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 26.5 ms ] thread
dangerous hyperbole.

Of course you expect it from the Daily Beast but the fact that it is shared at all suggests there's folk out there that will swallow the line. Turns out Musk has been subsiding the Starlink expansion of services to Ukraine, at a cost of some 100 million USD, a substantial donation to the Ukrainian cause in financial terms, never mind the enormous value it has provided in military terms.

His letter sent to the Pentagon a month ago states that indefinite support is untenable and reasonably requests DoD support by sharing at least some of the financial burden.

This is then spun into the headline 'Musk ceases supporting Ukraine', at best an inaccuracy, at worst misinformation

I vehemently disagree with Musk's position on suing for peace with Russia now, I understand his reasoning I just think he's wrong. Still, the fact is Starlink has been a massive force multiplier for Ukraine. Yes most of the terminals were paid for by aid agencies, but over 3,000 were donated by Starlink and all the connectivity for the stations bought by aid agencies was provided for free. Plus these stations are the upgraded premium models with double the bandwidth and lots of nifty features increasing reliability. How many private individuals or companies have done more for Ukraine, really?

However yes he's had a hissy fit and the costs are mounting, and they're not minor costs. Two separate things, but they're happening at the same time which makes him look somewhat petty and mean. I think the former is right, he is being a bit petty, but I'm not sure about mean. He's done a huge amount for Ukraine, who can truly fairly demand that he _must_ do more? How much are most of us doing? As so often with Musk he's no saint, and certainly a sinner but he's also doing an incalculable amount of good.

Agreed on all counts. This is a textbook example of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...). Musk and SpaceX have done a huge amount for Ukraine, but they could possibly be doing even more and that somehow makes them worse than others who haven't done anything.
It's not abt a binary good/bad judgement. It's that he bailed when an ambassador didn't praise his suggestion to captiulate to Russia.
“Didn’t praise” is one way to put it. “Told him to fuck off” would be another.
I agree. If Musk did not want to assume this cost and perform this crucial and powerful function, he could have said no and backed out. As Russia improves their electronic counter measures, RCM, then Starlink has to mount ECCM - then ECCCM and on the ECCCCM as it develops, it is going to get harder and more complicated to maintain secure communications via Starlink. The Pentagon also learns about these ECCnM, and they will need these skills that are doubtless being jointly developed by Startlink and the Pentagon. Thus the USA and joint allies should jointly get involved in the $$ and tech aspects. Perhaps the pentagon will want a closed USA shop on this stuff?
>some 100 million USD

~20K terminals x 8 months x $60 (subscription in Poland, thats what private Ukrainians are paying right now) = ~$10mil