Ukrainian presidential adviser says deaths of civilians ‘the price of a cocktail of ignorance and big ego’
A senior Ukrainian official has accused Elon Musk of “committing evil” after a new biography revealed details about how the business magnate ordered his Starlink satellite communications network to be turned off near the Crimean coast last year to hobble a Ukrainian drone attack on Russian warships.
In a statement on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, which Musk owns, the Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak wrote that Musk’s interference led to the deaths of civilians, calling them “the price of a cocktail of ignorance and big ego”.
“By not allowing Ukrainian drones to destroy part of the Russian fleet via Starlink interference, @elonmusk allowed this fleet to fire Kalibr missiles at Ukrainian cities. As a result, civilians, and children are being killed,” Podolyak wrote.
“Why do some people so desperately want to defend war criminals and their desire to commit murder? And do they now realise that they are committing evil and encouraging evil?”
Musk defended his decision, saying he did not want his SpaceX company to be “explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation”.
CNN on Thursday quoted an excerpt from the biography Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson, which described how armed submarine drones were approaching a Russian fleet near the Crimean coast when they “lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly”.
The biography, due out on Tuesday, alleges Musk ordered Starlink engineers to turn off the service in the area of the attack because of his concern that Vladimir Putin would respond with nuclear weapons to a Ukrainian attack on Russian-occupied Crimea.
Musk, who is also the CEO of the Tesla electric car company and SpaceX rocket and spacecraft manufacturer, initially agreed to supply Starlink hardware to Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion disrupted Ukrainian communications. But he reportedly had second thoughts after Kyiv succeeded in repelling the initial Russian assault and began to counterattack.
Musk has previously been embroiled in a social media spat with Ukrainian officials including the president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, over his ideas for ending Russia’s invasion.
In October last year, Musk proposed a peace deal involving re-running under UN supervision annexation referendums in Moscow-occupied Ukrainian regions, acknowledging Russian sovereignty over the Crimean peninsula and giving Ukraine a neutral status.
“Preliminary analysis suggests that the reach and influence of Kremlin-backed accounts has grown further in the first half of 2023, driven in particular by the dismantling of Twitter’s safety standards.
The EU has also accused Musk’s X of allowing Russian propaganda about Ukraine to spread on its website.
A study released last week by the European Commission, the governing body of the European Union, found that “the reach and influence of Kremlin-backed accounts has grown further in the first half of 2023.”
The study said that the increased reach of Russian propaganda online was “largely driven by Twitter, where engagement grew by 36% after CEO Elon Musk decided to lift mitigation measures on Kremlin-backed accounts”.
Musk on Friday attempted to refute the EU study, writing on his social media platform: “Where is all this pro-Russian propaganda? We don’t see it.”
archive: https://archive.ph/wip/ENe3P
Right?
The “escalation” was the invasion, Elon, you simpering pile of shit.
musk is clearly a russian sympathizer, if not asset, as has been documented time and time again among conservatives/fascists.
But this is pretty much the same verbiage that NATO has been using the entire time. We want to help Ukraine but don’t want to escalate.
Assuming anyone cares enough to investigate this, that will hold up as far as the international crimes thing goes. Whether The Pentagon is cool with this is a very different discussion.
NATO is a Russian asset confirmed
Damn you guys really didn’t like this joke huh
Obviously not the way you are implying but… kind of? There is a long history of us actively letting russia do whatever they want so as to not escalate things. Like… when russia invaded and stole the Crimea a few years back. Or even the weeks leading up to the war where we all assumed Ukraine would be steamrolled and we would just be supporting an insurgency… rather than watching them time and time again push russia’s shit in.
I don’t think it is active malice and sabotage. It is more just the nature of NATO not wanting to actually have to get involved in any wars. But being expected to be the first line of defense.
Well yeah, it’s a defensive alliance. So it’s general policy is “do whatever you want, but if you attack a member we will seriously fuck you up!”
It’s situation where there’s no legal obligation for NATO to help (though there is a bit more of an obligation for the US help because of separate treaty with Ukraine in the 90s) but there is a moral obligation to help. And of course it’s in the national interest of the members of NATO to help, which is what matters. So NATO’s stance of not wanting to escalate the war is understandable. They will help but don’t want to be drawn into direct combat which is what they mean when they say “escalation.”
But Elon Musk is not really supposed to be a player on the international stage. If the Pentagon or NATO requested him to disable Starlink to disrupt an op, ok they’re the ones that will have to deal with whatever fallout there is from doing or not doing anything like that. But Elon Musk is an impulsive idiot and shouldn’t be in a position to make these kinds of decisions.
Can we please shut the fuck up about this “it is a defensive alliance” nonsense? That was only ever used to justify leaving the Ukrainians to die.
We have invaded plenty of countries for much less. It is humanitarian aide when there are resources we want and “we are a defensive alliance” when there aren’t. Simple as that.
Which countries did NATO invade again? There’s the operations after the break-up of Yugoslavia but that was largely a Peacekeeping operation. Do you consider that to be an invasion?
Afghanistan was most certainly an invasion. That happened because one of NATO’s members (US) was attacked. Yes NATO will invade countries when a member has been attacked.
Sure there’s no-fly zones and some airstrikes conducted by NATO, but in terms of outright invasions, it’s just Afghanistan which was in response to a member being attacked. Because it’s a defensive alliance.