Trump doesn't want to look unpopular and he will give anything to avoid that, including letting innocent people die. It's as simple and as disgusting as that.
He started a war with Iran to look big and tough for his cult. That failed spectacularly and now he'll sacrifice anything and anyone to avoid the consequences of his actions.
It is hard to know the difference between what the US government tells the Oligarchs to do and what they tell the US government to do. They're effectively one and the same.
You cannot outsource technology that is critical to your defense.
You either develop it on your own or you operate it along your allies.
Ukraine is in no military alliance, so Musk or not, it is consistently liable to the unreliability and whims of external providers, either public or private.
Which is why I'm very negative every time I hear European countries are renting from Space X instead of investing in common space technology. The day that somebody in Washington, or Dallas, decides to turn the switch off, you're off.
I beg to differ. There's solid photographic evidence of him throwing a Heil Hitler salute a few years back. Plus, he's one of the white supremacists of South Africa.
Musk left South Africa at 17 years old. You cannot suggest that a child being born in a place means he was complicit in its political failings. He was never even old enough to cast a vote.
The timing is interesting, given that it comes days after Musk said Ukraine had gone "too far" striking Yandex data centers. Putting other considerations aside, these strikes could be interpreted as direct retaliation against strikes on Ukrainian data centers days before.
That said, depending on a single piece of tech is not a good idea (as evidenced by the Russians when they lost starlink access). Russians have resorted to long-range mesh radios, Ukrainians should probably integrate that as well (though it does increase BOM costs).
The other dependency is Chinese suppliers, who supply both sides but may prefer to favor Russia. It is a huge liability for Ukraine as it supplies 80% of the parts that perform 70% of battlefield duties, and could stop anytime (besides known design leaks to the adversary, etc). Russia is even relocating whole production lines to evade sanctions.
Ukraine has been fighting with one arm behind its back, this is the latest development in the series of seemingly-arbitrary limitations imposed on it.
Yes, putting mesh radios on drones. As a sibling commenter said, Russia already does that: they do not really have access to starlink anymore (they still use it on drones sometimes, but there is a registration scheme in Ukraine that really curbed their use).
Both sides have used drone-mounted signal repeaters for FPV drones. FPVs use cheap radios, and signal extending drones can be reusable and carry a more expensive and jamming-resistant radio.
Since it is rarely a single drone attacking, but more often an entire swarm (to saturate air defences), having a mesh radio between drones can be useful, reduce the requirement that every drone must be equipped for long range communication, and enhance the connectivity back home.
Of course, both sides are mostly supplied by the same Chinese factories when it comes to radios, so China also gets to develop their drone warfare know-how. I assume that Ukraine also uses mesh radios, but probably to a lower extent than Russia does, as they can rely on Starlink.
To address your last point, I would also assume that it is possible to air drop signal repeaters from the swarm, especially for one-way trips, they do not need to last more than a few hours.
Obviously, I would assume that most strike drones are fully autonomous, but having a connection back home means it is easier to adjust plans (air defense location, for instance) and provide intelligence (if target was hit, etc).
I am also wondering if the recently discovered SDR APIs in Wi-Fi chipsets will be leveraged for warfare. If I had to bet, I'd say: yes, pretty soon. These are a good fit for mesh radio, jam-resistant frequency hopping and wideband transmissions.
> The timing is interesting, given that it comes days after Musk said Ukraine had gone "too far
More like Zelensky, in stating the Trump-Russia diesel deal was a 'weak decision by strong partners', has pissed-off the Orange One with his famously thin skin.
America, your president is a liability to the free world.
It is likely last weeks/months while orange man has unchecked power before new parliament turns him into a lame duck. So he is hurrying up to trade his final favors with his fascist friends all over the world.
I don't understand how it's "too far" in any way, provided that Russia has since the start of the war struck against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, including datacenters. The only way I can read this is as an example of heavily pro-Russian bias.
That's a very friendly term. I would use aiding and abetting a common enemy instead. And make no mistake: russia never stopped being an enemy of the USA, they just switched their tactics. Trump is probably the best ROI of any investment ever.
There's some hidden rule that Russia could do anything, Ukraine not. Remember, ca. a year ago it counted a "red line cross" that Ukraine attacks military targets in Russian territory.
Russia can attack anything anywhere, but probably NATO or EU will concern.
> heavily pro-Russian bias.
It's nothing, in Hungary, the situation was even worse, the goverment echoed Russian propaganda, and they spread it across press, Facebook ads and everywhere. For a half year, we have a new goverment and PM - Putin is very sad.
My recollection is Trump posted Zelensky had gone too far, mostly referring to hitting refineries and then Musk echoed he's gone to far. I don't think it's about data centers especially.
It’s so obvious that Putin has something on Trump. It’s either the unsubstantiated pee tape, or they have the video tapes Epstein said he had. And since Musk also (at least) wanted to party on one of the islands wildest nights, there might be even more leverage Putin is using strategically.
I think it’s simpler than that - no conspiracy theories needed.
Trump is just vey susceptible to influence, depending on who he’s speaking to and feels positive towards at a given time. Traditional Republicans (i.e. not MAGA) are typically anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine, so if some reason they have his ear, he moves away from Putin and Russia. On the other hand he seems to be very influenced by Putin directly (fear? envy? Putin being a very good manipulator?) and so swings back towards Russia every time they speak.
If Putin had kompromat, it’s unlikely that Trump would ever have done anything to inconvenience Russia (he has, on occasion) and it’s unlikely that Musk would have kept Starlink open for Ukraine’s use for so many years.
Imagine you're having beers with the boys and the discussion turns to which girls in the office they all want to bang. The guy who stands up and says "guys this isnt right" - that guy is a real stick in the mud! He might be correct but it wins him no friends at that table. The other will not sit back and commend him for his morals, actually they will get seriously pissed off. Gangsters and lowlives only want to hang with other gangsters and lowlives, someone like Zelensky must be a real boner-killer to Trump and his circle.
The SS used murder and torture as a way to bond, things you can speak about with nobody else.
When I was a kid, I was convinced wearing ties is just doing something obviously stupid and degrading to show obedience, and I'm still not sure I was wrong on that one. I get suits and shirts and other nice things, but I don't get ties. Not that I want to outright equate that with the SS or the Epstein stuff. At the very least I would have to think about it some more.
I don't think it's that obvious because another thing that's obvious is how much Trump wants to be Putin. He looks at dictators and admires them, envies them, identifies with them. They're the only people he respects, hence his willingess to humble himself and the US to gain Putin's approval. And before that, it was Kim John Un.
What's your source for that? A random tweet on X I bet?
> “What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Musk wrote in an email to Epstein in November 2012. In another in December 2013, he asked, “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?”
Defence media can't really talk politics, so who can try to read between the lines? There must be a lot of money riding on Trump's political career for Musk to do this, as it's bad for his image and his company's image.
When you think about it - wouldn't disabling the Starlink system completely remove or at the very least vastly reduce the threat posed by Iranian drones over the Strait of Hormuz? I bet its all bootstrapped with starlink internet.
Would you argue he wasn't a force of good back when he started tesla and got electric vehicules on the road for the first time?
Until now his satellites had been helping out Ukrainians massively as well.
Had he not diverged into the Trump wake and AI scams (amongst other things) he would have been very much net positive for mankind.
I think he intended/intends to do good he just got gradually corrupted by success/money/power. Pinning down how and why a good person becomes bad is important lest we leave no lessons for the next generations and we keep repeating the same mistakes.
If Musk/Trump truly commit to pulling Starlink for Ukraine this will spell the end of their licensing in most of Europe. Adjust your SPCX positions accordingly.
Of course this got flagged. I'm halfway tempted to post the link on every article currently on the homepage but I'm pretty sure the mods would not appreciate that sort of thing. Meanwhile, how about some Rust, a nice font, a new AI model and some pelicans while we're all safely gratifying our intellectual curiosity? And never mind the guys dying over there, that's not important. /s
This drives home the point that depending on US companies for anything means you have to bow and pay tribute to the US regime or else they'll cut you off, even if the company itself doesn't want to. The US is currently an authoritarian regime without law.
68 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 45.8 ms ] threadHe started a war with Iran to look big and tough for his cult. That failed spectacularly and now he'll sacrifice anything and anyone to avoid the consequences of his actions.
You cannot outsource technology that is critical to your defense.
You either develop it on your own or you operate it along your allies.
Ukraine is in no military alliance, so Musk or not, it is consistently liable to the unreliability and whims of external providers, either public or private.
Which is why I'm very negative every time I hear European countries are renting from Space X instead of investing in common space technology. The day that somebody in Washington, or Dallas, decides to turn the switch off, you're off.
The person who made this decision will have been Trump.
That said, depending on a single piece of tech is not a good idea (as evidenced by the Russians when they lost starlink access). Russians have resorted to long-range mesh radios, Ukrainians should probably integrate that as well (though it does increase BOM costs).
The other dependency is Chinese suppliers, who supply both sides but may prefer to favor Russia. It is a huge liability for Ukraine as it supplies 80% of the parts that perform 70% of battlefield duties, and could stop anytime (besides known design leaks to the adversary, etc). Russia is even relocating whole production lines to evade sanctions.
Ukraine has been fighting with one arm behind its back, this is the latest development in the series of seemingly-arbitrary limitations imposed on it.
Yes and putting a CEO of a tech company in command of strategic infrastructure is not a good idea either.
The U.S. government and the Pentagon own and control Starshield,
I would also guess it is not that hard to setup a base station? With Operation Spiderweb they were able to start the drones from enemy territory...
Both sides have used drone-mounted signal repeaters for FPV drones. FPVs use cheap radios, and signal extending drones can be reusable and carry a more expensive and jamming-resistant radio.
Since it is rarely a single drone attacking, but more often an entire swarm (to saturate air defences), having a mesh radio between drones can be useful, reduce the requirement that every drone must be equipped for long range communication, and enhance the connectivity back home.
Of course, both sides are mostly supplied by the same Chinese factories when it comes to radios, so China also gets to develop their drone warfare know-how. I assume that Ukraine also uses mesh radios, but probably to a lower extent than Russia does, as they can rely on Starlink.
To address your last point, I would also assume that it is possible to air drop signal repeaters from the swarm, especially for one-way trips, they do not need to last more than a few hours.
Obviously, I would assume that most strike drones are fully autonomous, but having a connection back home means it is easier to adjust plans (air defense location, for instance) and provide intelligence (if target was hit, etc).
I am also wondering if the recently discovered SDR APIs in Wi-Fi chipsets will be leveraged for warfare. If I had to bet, I'd say: yes, pretty soon. These are a good fit for mesh radio, jam-resistant frequency hopping and wideband transmissions.
Same fascism, same colors (blue, red, white). Only the logo is a little different, but not much.
More like Zelensky, in stating the Trump-Russia diesel deal was a 'weak decision by strong partners', has pissed-off the Orange One with his famously thin skin.
America, your president is a liability to the free world.
That's a very friendly term. I would use aiding and abetting a common enemy instead. And make no mistake: russia never stopped being an enemy of the USA, they just switched their tactics. Trump is probably the best ROI of any investment ever.
Russia can attack anything anywhere, but probably NATO or EU will concern.
> heavily pro-Russian bias.
It's nothing, in Hungary, the situation was even worse, the goverment echoed Russian propaganda, and they spread it across press, Facebook ads and everywhere. For a half year, we have a new goverment and PM - Putin is very sad.
The restraint which Ukraine has shown so far is nothing short of amazing.
Trump is just vey susceptible to influence, depending on who he’s speaking to and feels positive towards at a given time. Traditional Republicans (i.e. not MAGA) are typically anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine, so if some reason they have his ear, he moves away from Putin and Russia. On the other hand he seems to be very influenced by Putin directly (fear? envy? Putin being a very good manipulator?) and so swings back towards Russia every time they speak.
If Putin had kompromat, it’s unlikely that Trump would ever have done anything to inconvenience Russia (he has, on occasion) and it’s unlikely that Musk would have kept Starlink open for Ukraine’s use for so many years.
When I was a kid, I was convinced wearing ties is just doing something obviously stupid and degrading to show obedience, and I'm still not sure I was wrong on that one. I get suits and shirts and other nice things, but I don't get ties. Not that I want to outright equate that with the SS or the Epstein stuff. At the very least I would have to think about it some more.
> “What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Musk wrote in an email to Epstein in November 2012. In another in December 2013, he asked, “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?”
https://time.com/7362868/elon-musk-epstein-emails/
Normally I'd say "assume ignorance before incompetence before malice" but with the current US political climate it's usually all 3 at the same time.
In contrast Ukraine is launching strikes of up to 3000km into Russia.
From an Ironman inspiration to an actual real life villain.
Until now his satellites had been helping out Ukrainians massively as well.
Had he not diverged into the Trump wake and AI scams (amongst other things) he would have been very much net positive for mankind.
I think he intended/intends to do good he just got gradually corrupted by success/money/power. Pinning down how and why a good person becomes bad is important lest we leave no lessons for the next generations and we keep repeating the same mistakes.
We don't need to cover the globe like SpaceX, just Ukraine and from there North-Westward into Russia.
Imagine Britain in the fucking Blitz where Roosevelt starts to buy oil from Nazi Germany and JP Morgan cuts off the Telegraph somehow.
Crazy times.