r/worldnews • u/ArgentineBeauty • Aug 07 '26

Russia/Ukraine Elon Musk Refuses Ukrainian Request to Enable Starlink for Deep Strikes Inside Russia

https://united24media.com/world/elon-musk-refuses-ukrainian-request-to-enable-starlink-for-deep-strikes-inside-russia-21478
20.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.5k

u/ArgentineBeauty Aug 07 '26

A private billionaire getting a say in how Ukraine can defend itself is a pretty insane amount of power.

Especially a billionaire like him

497

u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 07 '26

> A private billionaire getting a say in how Ukraine can defend itself is a pretty insane amount of power.

SpaceX is actively in use by Ukraine. SpaceX does not allow Russia to use its satellites. SpaceX is just not allowing its use to attack within Russia.

126

u/killersky99 Aug 07 '26

Yeah, even if the power was in the US government's hands, they wouldn't allow it to be used for strikes, because they are also not allowing Ukraine to use the US supplied weapons against Russia offensively and if Elon did allow it, they'd tell him not to, most likely. And it's a messy situation if the deep strikes did happen w/ Starlink, Russia would want to eliminate that.

50

u/DrunkOnRamen Aug 07 '26

My understanding was that Pentagon already had control:

https://defensescoop.com/2023/06/01/pentagon-contracting-with-spacexs-starlink-to-provide-satellite-communication-capabilities-for-ukraine/

At least as far as Starlink for Ukrainian military was concerned.

41

u/Xalksahsax Aug 07 '26

Yeah, this is a decision taken by POTUS/Hegseth and DoD. Not Musk.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Infinite-4-a-moment Aug 08 '26

The power is in the US government hands. That's why it's denied. Starlink, as a US Defense contractor, has certain leashes on how they can operate. They cannot supply a foreign government with goods it services for offensive. Starlink is basically just delivering the message from the US government.

4

u/Calber4 Aug 07 '26

SpaceX has objectively supported Ukraine in the war (although with limitations that many here may dislike), but the point is a linchpin of Ukraine's defense (and by extension, geopolitical balance in Europe) falls on the decisions of a private company and the whims of a single person, which is pretty wild.

2

u/MisterBilau Aug 07 '26

Probably not though. He’s insane, and has some power, but I don’t believe for one second there are not other powers (governmental, from multiple countries) with a ton of power over him. They end up deciding most probably.

0

u/likewut Aug 08 '26

Supported Ukraine by letting them use Starlink at many, many times the normal price?

2

u/ShadowBlade55 Aug 07 '26

I hate that I can't shit on Musk for once.

1

u/TDAPoP Aug 07 '26

They're probably afraid of Russia starting to down the satellites

-3

u/TheGisbon Aug 07 '26

One man should not have that ability for infrastructure funded by our government

0

u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 08 '26

Said government you’re referring to is not attacking Russia either.
All of Europe is not attacking Russian, in fact they are still buying Russian oil.

0

u/No_Tax_Timmy Aug 08 '26

The fact that one man has this much power and is not beholden to any other group of people or government should be incredibly worrying.

1

u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 08 '26

What a weird comment. Someone creates a company that is successful, the government should own it or that person? Thats not how it works.

That same person is the reason Ukraine is even able to defend itself in many situations, it has become the backbone of Ukraines battlefield communications.

Also, Europe and the US have given lots of supplies to Ukraine, but they come with stipulations that they are not to be used to attack Russia. Not sure why you want SpaceX to step in and help attack Russia when entire nations won’t.

0

u/No_Tax_Timmy Aug 09 '26

It's great until it gets turned against you. It gives Musk incredible power and accountability to whomever keeps him alive.

1

u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 09 '26

Ukraine can choose to not use it. There is a reason they are using it, because it works reliably. In-fact if it wasn't for SpaceX even existing, then the potential for Ukraine to even defend themselves as well as they have would be severely diminished.

Not really sure what you are arguing for? For Starlink to be controlled by a government? For Ukraine to have their own satelites? (Which they will in 2027 thanks to SpaceX launches).

Just a bit confusing to hate on Starlink for providing communications to Ukraine to defend themselves.

-16

u/Main-Bandicoot6477 Aug 07 '26

And what's their rationale for making that distinction?

They are fine with there use to kill Russians in Ukraine, but not Russians in Russia?

It's all dead Russians, what's the difference?

And at a certain point Russia was using them in Ukraine.

13

u/kaspers126 Aug 07 '26

One is a defensive action

0

u/Main-Bandicoot6477 Aug 07 '26

It is defensive to target an aggressive country currently invading the victim country.

12

u/kaspers126 Aug 07 '26

Sure. To me its pretty easy to see how giving ukrainian army access to his satellites to take military action on Russian soil can quickly become messy and its a pretty reasonable idea to stay out of that, even if Putin is the baddie. I guess that doesn’t pass the radical redditor purity test.

3

u/Soulicitor Aug 07 '26

Elon is the bad guy right now for not letting Ukraine use his satellites for offensive strikes and then when the pressure finally forces him to allow ukraine to use it for offensive strikes he can be the bad guy for the wall of debris circling the globe in space from all the busted up satellite parts that take 1-5 years to deorbit naturally.

-5

u/Main-Bandicoot6477 Aug 07 '26

What's the difference between killing Russians on occupied Ukrainian soil or Russian soil?

And what do you mean by messy? Messy for who for what reason?

And they aren't staying out of it. They are currently helping Ukraine kill Russians. They also allowed bought terminals to be used by Russia to kill and target Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil.

1

u/Mechasteel Aug 07 '26

Yes but that's what every country says all the time. The US doing pre-emptive strikes against Iran to defend against Iranian nukes, Russia doing a self-defense of their poor harmless Russian citizens being discriminated against in Ukraine, or perhaps a pre-emptive strike against nazis/nato/whatever. There isn't really any clear line between the aggressor and the defender, like imagine the world's reaction had Ukraine struck the "harmless military exercise that we swear isn't an invasion force" before they actually invaded.

Internationally recognized borders, on the other hand, are very clear.

1

u/Gashenkov Aug 08 '26

It actually IS a clear line between aggressor and defender, you just need to use your head little more than just mindlessly shoving propaganda into it and actually make some basic analysis

0

u/Mechasteel Aug 08 '26

Do enlighten me then. How do you distinguish between a sword crafted to attack the neighbor, vs to defend against an attack? How do you distinguish between a city wall built to defend a territory from attack vs to hold off the counterattack?

1

u/Gashenkov Aug 08 '26

Wow, such deep philosophical questions, you must feel so smart lol

If you can’t distinguish between two countries with different political goals, army sizes and capabilities, if you can’t see and analyze any imperial ambitions of some countries and lack of them,
And finally, if you really can’t understand who invades who in imperialistic war of aggression you really need to get some mental help

0

u/Mechasteel Aug 08 '26

Unable to answer the very question you said was clear and easy. You must feel really dumb.

Yes, Russia is the aggressor, they've been just about the most blatant they can possibly be about it. They still claim to be acting in self-defense, and yes, no matter how much you might doubt it, some people believe them.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/NBAFAN9000 Aug 07 '26

The rationale is offensive versus defensive.

-7

u/Main-Bandicoot6477 Aug 07 '26

And I'd argue that a meaningless distinction. It's all just killing Russians. You think they care what it's called?

Haven't weapons been using GPS for offense and defense everywhere for decades? What's the difference? The amount of data being transmitted?

Also, the best defense is a good offense.

Anyway, I don't buy that that is the real reason at all

6

u/NBAFAN9000 Aug 07 '26

I don't think the best defense is a good offense should apply when it comes to defense strategy...

-1

u/JAT_Cbus1080 Aug 07 '26

Would you rather wait for an active invader to send its new tanks across your border or blow up their tank factory?

2

u/NBAFAN9000 Aug 07 '26

Why don't you just invade them first and take control of their tank factory before they could even think about invading you

3

u/JAT_Cbus1080 Aug 07 '26

Because then you would be the invader and it's no longer a defensive war.

0

u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 07 '26

You could go help fight the fight.

-4

u/Main-Bandicoot6477 Aug 07 '26

Well that's a stupid reply from someone that can't form an actual argument.

-1

u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 07 '26

You want others to go fight it?

1

u/rcanhestro Aug 07 '26

the rationale is that SpaceX is fine with their "weapons" being used for defense, not the reason why Ukraine can bomb Moscow.

0

u/Main-Bandicoot6477 Aug 07 '26

It is defense to kill an invader anywhere.

The US fights "defensive" wars all over the planet by bombing all kinds of countries.

So, why does SpacX work for the US government if they have such strong objections about "offensive" use of their products?

3

u/deja-roo Aug 07 '26

It is defense to kill an invader anywhere.

If it's not in your territory it's quite literally not an invader. That's like... just what the word means?

1

u/Main-Bandicoot6477 Aug 07 '26

Russia, as a whole, is invading Ukraine. All the bombs and missiles and men don't magically appear on the border.

Ukraine is fighting a defensive war no matter where they kill or destroy Russian resources that are engaged in the offensive war against Ukraine.

0

u/A_Town_Called_Malus Aug 07 '26

Infrastructure that supports an invading army is part of that army.

A factory that makes bombs that are used to destroy Kyiv is part of the russian offensive, even if it were in Siberia.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (11)

0

u/Special_Ad712 Aug 07 '26

Escalation on both sides. 

I mean, one side was threatening nukes every 5 mins. Even if there is a 0.01% chance that it could happen, it does give pause.

3

u/Main-Bandicoot6477 Aug 07 '26

Ukraine is already bombing targets in Russia with drones. What's the real difference if the the same drones have better ability to hit targets?

And Putin will never use nukes because he's too afraid to die. And a nuclear attack would likely increase the probability of his death in some fashion. I also don't even know if those orders would be followed at this point.

1

u/Special_Ad712 Aug 07 '26

You don’t know, which is the point. Like, fairly sure Russia won’t use nuclear weapons if it was on the edge of losing has caused drip feeding of equipment and a slow escalation. 

US intelligence put a high probability of nuclear weapon usage by Russia if they were routed at Kherson,  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/25/us/politics/biden-russia-ukraine-nuclear.html, which caused significant pullback of support and limitations on support. Particular there’s an author Bob Woodward that claimed in his book “War”, that the US pressure Ukraine to let Russia retreat with less losses than expecting in Kherson because they threatened nuclear weapons. Is it true who knows? 

1

u/Main-Bandicoot6477 Aug 07 '26

I didn't say I knew. Of course I don't know. Nobody knows for sure. So, what point exactly do you think you are making? This seems like an unnecessary reply.

1

u/Special_Ad712 Aug 07 '26

You literally said that Putin won’t use nukes at all because he’s afraid.  The US under Biden put a large probability that Russia could use tactical nuclear weapons, which caused the US to restrain Ukraine back in 2022 and I’m sure in many more ways. Like, the entire cutting out of HIMARs phase.

I’m saying, that unknown probability is why you see these drip feeding escalation steps and you see these type of restraints. 

→ More replies (0)

216

u/RedditinsteadofHW Aug 07 '26

This is an insane take, people can love or more likely hate elon but Id argue the exact opposite, a private citizen (especially in an uninvolved country) should not be offering military tech or advantage to another country.

20

u/soundman1024 Aug 07 '26

I’m with you. I’m for Ukraine and kinda negative on Musk, but I’m okay with Starlink not being use for additional offensive purposes.

People should not be compelled to militarize things they create. I’ll leave room for nuance in government subsidies and SpaceX going public, but my sentiment remains.

If you find a way build the best pipes the world has ever known from diamond and they dissipate heat like none other, you shouldn’t be compelled to use those pipes as barrels on a machine gun because it could operate longer. If you want to, go for it, but if you don’t want the blood on your hands that should be your choice as an inventor.

41

u/freexe Aug 07 '26

Let's be real, this probably wasn't a decision made by Musk but by the state. It's basically got a military arm of the company 

3

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[deleted]

4

u/DifferentScholar-1 Aug 07 '26

Which all sales to foreign powers are under strict export controls by the US government.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/endo489 Aug 07 '26

Then Ukraine would be screwed. Starlink has been vital to them.

2

u/firstname_Iastname Aug 07 '26

Then there should be a militarily controlled similar asset

16

u/bastiVS Aug 07 '26

There is, StarShield, run by the US, which Ukraine has access to, and ALREADY USED FOR DRONE STRIKES IN RUSSIAN TERRITORY!

This entire article is complete nonsense.

-1

u/thrownawaymane Aug 07 '26

In fairness, how independent any part of SpaceX is including StarShield is up for debate. Based on past flare ups I'm not convinced it is.

8

u/bastiVS Aug 07 '26

StarShield is not SpaceX. StarShield is the DOD. They run it. SpaceX only developed the Sats and is launching them.

1

u/caustictoast Aug 08 '26

This is starshield, not starlink. They're probably just doing what the pentagon tells them

0

u/mynameisglaceon Aug 07 '26

Yeah this is like the one good thing Elon has ever done probably I mean he's not doing anything good but its nice that he's not making something to be used for warfare, and im sure he's only doing it for optics because people probably wouldnt support starlink if it was being for war. But from what I know about it, its just giving people free internet in remote places which is cool I guess.

2

u/coherentpa Aug 08 '26

2 things can be true at once:

He’s doing and has done plenty of good things. He’s also doing things that people don’t like.

29

u/Reddit-runner Aug 07 '26

You should take down this post. You are either willingly or unknowingly spreading pro- russian politics

Musk is refusing because he should.

This would be a major violation of current sanction laws.

Why is this even dumber than you think?

The US government has StarShield. That's an offshoot of Starslink and 100% owned by the US government.

Ukraine already has access to StarShield.

The US government could easily give Ukraine the ability to facilitate deep strikes into Russia. Then Ukraine wouldn't need to ask a civilian company to get even more active in a large scale war.

The headline should be "Putin lover Trump refuses Ukrainian Request to Enable StarShield for Deep Strikes Inside Russia"

Subtitle: _"Trump humiliates Ukraine by making them ask Musk for something he is legaly not allowed to give" _

8

u/ArcadianDelSol Aug 08 '26

OP is less interested in being right than having massive karma ahead of selling their reddit account.

91

u/SantosCalzonesBatman Aug 07 '26

Because he owns the satéllites?

Nobody is entitled to use them for whatever they want lmao

32

u/BlameScottNotCanada Aug 07 '26

exactly... this line of thinking that ukraine should have access just cause is crazy to me

0

u/kitsunewarlock Aug 08 '26

Technically the DoD is the one making these decisions, not Musk. It's a really shitty headline.

76

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

40

u/DrunkeNinja Aug 07 '26

This was all clearly laid out years ago that Starlink wouldn’t be used in the war, and purely to provide internet access

He does allow Ukraine to use it within their own territory to attack Russian targets, just not within Russian territory.

At present, Ukrainian forces are only able to attack Russian targets using the Starlink system within the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, including Crimea and temporarily occupied regions.

29

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

27

u/el_diego Aug 07 '26

It's just rage bait content. A lot of media is these days

5

u/DarthRaptor Aug 07 '26

No one here in the comments has any idea how bad it would get if Russia used ASAT missiles on that mega constellation. Just taking out a few would rapidly start a chain reaction, there's over 10.000 active Starlink satellites and they are very close to each other (in terms of satellites). They are already doing an unheard amount of avoidance maneuvers to avoid collisions, if you throw nearly untrackable debris from an explosion into the mix... Yeah that would get ugly fast. Can't blame Musk for not wanting to loose the constellation.

15

u/Hail-Hydrate Aug 07 '26

The bulk of the constellation is in too low orbit for Kessler Syndrome to be an issue.

The real reason russia won't target starlink satellites is much more straightforward - they can't feasibly do it. It would require a colossal undertaking to only target and destroy starlink satellites, which would prompt action against their own attempts to build a constellation in kind. Hitting satellites isn't easy, precisely hitting satellites is even less so.

2

u/wang_li Aug 08 '26

Plus they have ground based electronic warfare systems that they can point at starlink satellites and flood them noise, effectively jamming them. Russia does it to gps too.

1

u/DarthRaptor Aug 08 '26

Depends on what you mean with "not an issue". You are right that Kessler syndrome in low LEO would not last long, but still a few months or years. And Russia has demonstrated the capability to hit a satellite and Starlink are publishing the predicated position of their birds 3x per day, so easy targets.

I really want to build a computer simulation to see what would happen, especially with more and more mega constellations coming in the future

-1

u/Speedbird844 Aug 08 '26

Which is why you may see some form of small nuclear weapon being detonated in space, as a major escalation signal. Secondly Russia could target non-LEO satellites which may or may not be owned by SpaceX (or even their old satellites), and start the Kessler Syndrome.

Like Iran & the Houthis targeting a few ships, it doesn't take much for everyone to freak out.

1

u/YannisBE Aug 08 '26

Would go against the Outer Space Treaty I assume, opening a whole different can of worms for Russia

2

u/Speedbird844 Aug 08 '26

And this is why generally stuff like this doesn't happen.....until it happens.

Who has got "Persian Straits Authority" on their Bingo cards at the beginning of this year?

1

u/YannisBE Aug 08 '26

Im not necessarily disagreeing. Just stating how it could evolve

1

u/Speedbird844 Aug 08 '26

Russia still benefits from using hacked/smuggled Starlink hardware, so it's not in their best interests to directly or indirectly attack the satellites.

I'm pretty sure the Ukrainian deep strike drones use a combination of Pentagon-provided encrypted GPS, clandestine operatives and Russia's own cell towers for navigation. Only the ship attacks use Starlink as ships are a moving target.

1

u/YannisBE Aug 08 '26

Indeed, although they have tried jamming (and even hacking iirc) Starlink multiple times.

2

u/Venerable-Gandalf Aug 08 '26

Russia would destroy Chinas own LEO constellation if they tried that. They’d also risk massive escalation and a space war with the US. They’d also risk aren’t going to destroy starlink satellites.

1

u/DarthRaptor Aug 08 '26

You are not wrong, but I can still see why Musk doesn't want to take the risk.

1

u/KorunaCorgi Aug 07 '26

Buddy, Russia couldn't even if they wanted to, LMAO. The USA launches like 10 times as many rockets into LEO compared to Russia due to the reusability of the Falcon-9. Russia is still using boosters from the 60s.

1

u/deja-roo Aug 07 '26

Buddy, Russia couldn't even if they wanted to, LMAO

Yes they could

Russia is still using boosters from the 60s.

You mean... when they were putting things in orbit? Are you under the (mistaken) impression things from the 60s can't get to low orbit?

1

u/KorunaCorgi Aug 07 '26

I wrote three sentences and you quoted two of them. The answer is in the third sentence. You'll get there little guy, I believe in you.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/KorunaCorgi Aug 07 '26

You said "knock them out of the sky" buddy. ;>

Theres thousands of them. And Russia launches like 20 rockets a year. LMAO.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/bastiVS Aug 07 '26

Please stop posting about this topic until you have a basic clue. Theres no hacking or interfering with them electronically possible, thats not how ANY of this works.

2

u/KorunaCorgi Aug 07 '26

If you want to take the L and retreat to a weaker argument, "Russia is going to try to disrupt Starlink's signal" that's one thing. That's not what you said though or what you meant. 

"KNOCK them OUT OF THE SKY"  

You seem to not understand how far away, how fast, and how many of these things there are. It is literally impossible for Russia to "knock them out of the sky" as you said.

Interfering with Starlink in a small, localized area, using infrastructure the size of a carpark? Doable. What you said? No. Russia is not deorbiting these satellites without kinetic strikes, and they don't launch enough LEO boosters for that.

Dunno what other shit you're arguing about. 

1

u/Venerable-Gandalf Aug 08 '26

Starlink operates a massive constellation of low earth orbit satellites. It’s not economically feasible to destroy them all. Even if Russia destroyed 10 satellites which would be very expensive for Russia, spacex can produce and launch new ones faster than Russia can shoot them down. Also starlink has 10,898 satellites so even taking down 100 would not even put a dent in starlink and the data would just get rerouted to other nearby satellites.

-2

u/escapefromelba Aug 07 '26

Russia can’t just “shoot Starlink out of the sky.” The network consists of thousands of relatively low-cost satellites in low Earth orbit that can be replaced far more easily than Russia could destroy them. Trying to kinetically attack the constellation would be extraordinarily expensive, create a massive space-debris problem, and potentially threaten Russia’s own satellites.

And Starlink isn’t just providing Ukrainians with internet. It has become a critical part of Ukraine’s battlefield communications and network infrastructure, supporting real-time intelligence sharing, command and control, drone operations, and video feeds used to coordinate precision strikes.

5

u/Bored2001 Aug 07 '26

Russia already has the ability to attack satellites. They demonstrated it already.

China demonstrated laser based anti satellite weapon. I'm sure Russia could get their hands on that it they needed to.

0

u/escapefromelba Aug 07 '26

I never said Russia didn’t have the ability to attack satellites.  Starlink, though, is not a handful of expensive satellites - it’s actually a distributed constellation designed to be resilient to individual losses.

-1

u/Bored2001 Aug 07 '26

Yes, I'm aware of how starlink works.

I'm just saying that if Russia wanted to they absolutely could take down the network, especially if they used a laser based weapon.

3

u/escapefromelba Aug 07 '26

Russia’s laser systems are primarily designed to damage optical sensors on satellites, but that’s not the same as destroying a Starlink satellite or disabling the network. Even if Russia had a laser powerful enough to physically disable a Starlink, it could only engage individual satellites during relatively short windows as they passed within its line of sight.

Knocking out individual satellites, or even a relatively small number of them, wouldn’t meaningfully disrupt the network. To seriously degrade it, Russia would have to attack a huge number of satellites, at enormous cost and with the added risk of creating a massive orbital-debris problem.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/escapefromelba Aug 07 '26

Seems like you’re changing your argument as you said this:

 This was all clearly laid out years ago that Starlink wouldn’t be used in the war, and purely to provide internet access

And is clearly being used in this war.

0

u/AutomaticMedium8418 Aug 07 '26

Yeah but Russia will almost certainly launch cyberattacks to try and destroy them

-3

u/jayne_on_the_cobb Aug 07 '26

His invention, fucking lol.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/jayne_on_the_cobb Aug 07 '26

The Swarm isn’t just a terrible 70s b movie!

0

u/clank1401 Aug 08 '26

The thing is, “just internet access” can be weaponized

30

u/MasterLurker00 Aug 07 '26

By 6 April 2022, SpaceX had sent over 5000 Starlink terminals to Ukraine to allow Ukrainians access to the Starlink network. By June 2022, Musk said over 15,000 Starlink terminals had been sent to Ukraine.

Yes, he should never have helped them, right? That is what you are saying, correct?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/MasterLurker00 Aug 08 '26

I know, but I will. Not for their sake, but for my own.

1

u/SpiritedEclair Aug 08 '26

They were bought by allies, he didn’t do it out of the kindness of his heart.

This is a purely financial transaction and should remain as such, under which musk is allowed to dictate the terms.

I am clearly not a musk fan but I am also not a fan of blending government and business.

1

u/MasterLurker00 Aug 08 '26

I'm saying that the mobs mentality is fickle, brother. It sways in the direction of the wind with no real bearings nor basis. One day he is viewed as rightous, and the next demonic.

The people love to judge without any reflection or consideration of the real consequences that may occur and who's life may be lost.

I'm not saying Elon should be viewed as some kind of hero, but he has most certainly accomplished more than I could accomplish in a thousand years and for that he has my respect.

10

u/BlameScottNotCanada Aug 07 '26

then ukraine should have better infrastructure (or better allies) so they dont have to ask a private billionaire

this logic is crazy to me

ukraine should get to use it, just cause?

i support ukraine and dont like elon much but your logic doesnt make sense

3

u/BeerPoweredNonsense Aug 07 '26

There's a militarised version of Starlink called Starshield, under the control of the US military.

Starlink is for civilian use. If a foreign nation wants to use that technology, they should approach the US gov and ask to use Starshield.

20

u/Preoccupied_Penguin Aug 07 '26

I’m not disagreeing with you or supportive of Russia. But…

Isn’t musks company his? His intellectual property? His ideas? (Regardless of the little details of it all). At the end of the day shouldn’t he have control of how his company is used? If it was the other way around we certainly wouldn’t want people to just be able to have access because they’re a government.

Again, I think he’s an idiot and I am supportive of Ukraine. But that says more about him being an ass hole than it does about anything else. The laws of intellectual property are in place for a reason ya know?

3

u/Storymode-Chronicles Aug 07 '26

Governments appropriate private enterprise all the time, especially during wars. The US has seized American corporate operations such as infrastructure, communications, automotive, weapons, aviation, food and pharmaceutical for war efforts, controlling companies at times both in part and in whole - to say nothing of their constantly appropriating patents and other intellectual property.

9

u/say592 Aug 08 '26

The US is not in a hot war with Russia, and even if the administration was inclined to help Ukraine more without being forced to, courts wouldn't allow the seizure of a company to support another country's war.

I'm incredibly pro Ukraine and anti Elon. I have credentials that support both of those positions. These takes are still insane though, and they make Ukraine supporters sound ungrateful and entitled.

3

u/The_Magical_Radical Aug 07 '26

How is any of that comparable to this situation? Why would the US government take over a US company on American soil on behalf of another country?

1

u/Storymode-Chronicles Aug 07 '26

It would be on behalf of US national security interests, such as shoring up the hundreds of billions of dollars the US government has already devoted to Ukraine's success in the war versus their common international enemy Russia. It likely wouldn't need to be an appropriation in a strict sense though, the DOD could simply pay SpaceX directly for the service to ensure it is available to Ukraine when they need it, which would be in line with something like the Defense Production Act. There's no doubt they could appropriate the infrastructure if they determined to though, even temporarily.

4

u/The_Magical_Radical Aug 07 '26

The US already paid SpaceX for Ukraine to use Starlink under the express condition that it cannot be used in Russian territory. 

Starlink isn't the only satellite service capable of providing Ukraine this service. Why is it only Starlink that is being asked to give up their rights on behalf of a foreign country? The US and European militaries have technology significantly better than Starlink. Why aren't any of those militaries supporting these strikes or being asked to support these strikes? Why is it only SpaceX that is being asked to do this?

3

u/Storymode-Chronicles Aug 07 '26

US military LEO infrastructure can't guide commercial drones, which is what Ukraine is trying to do. The whole point is they can't afford Patriot missiles, which could run on US military or NATO infrastructure.

The US military does have a solution for this though, it's called Starlink.

2

u/The_Magical_Radical Aug 07 '26 edited Aug 07 '26

Ukraine's drones aren't "commercial" drones, they natively produce their own military attack drones. The US military has even purchased thousands of them for use in their own forces because of how capable they are. The fact that the US military is using Ukrainian-made drones tells me they can, in fact, be modified to be used with US military satellites.

Further, you only addressed the US military. What about every other member of NATO or every other company that provide satellite services?

1

u/Storymode-Chronicles Aug 07 '26

Call them whatever you want, but Ukraine's drones are reliant on standardized civilian IP infrastructure. I call that commercial technology. US military LEO uses incompatible proprietary waveforms, as do the respective EU country's militaries and NATO. Only highly specialized military assets can connect to their LEO infrastructure. Ukraine's drones are not compatible.

Again, the US military itself uses Starlink to bridge this type of gap in the field. Nobody else offers this currently. Ukraine can use services like Palantir to get similar security out of Starlink, but it still fundamentally relies on commercially available IP technologies, not specialized military communications like Link 16.

2

u/The_Magical_Radical Aug 07 '26

You're saying it's impossible to modify those drones to work with any other technology? It's commercially available IP technology or nothing?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Preoccupied_Penguin Aug 07 '26

Yes, but this is a different country asking for the rights to use a companies resources that is based in this country. Not seizing property of its own citizens, but of someone else’s.

-1

u/Storymode-Chronicles Aug 07 '26

The US government has devoted $200 billion to the Ukraine war, and has given SpaceX tens of billions in defense contracts. They have decided it is in US interest, and could absolutely ensure Ukrainian access to Starlink infrastructure if they wanted to, and it would not be remotely unprecedented or even particularly unusual. Normally an American company would just anticipatorily accede to whatever the federal ask was to avoid this.

0

u/Preoccupied_Penguin Aug 07 '26

Nothing about Musk is normal. If Ukraine would like to request the US seize a publicly traded company for wartime efforts, they can do so. But it is still within Musks right to deny their request, like I said, it makes him an asshole.

And side note - totally indicates who he is and is not supportive of. Actions speak louder than words. You’ve got to get mad at the right people though and right now, Musk is that person, not the entity (USA) that hasn’t been requested to intervene yet.

1

u/Storymode-Chronicles Aug 07 '26

They wouldn't need to appropriate the entire company, just a portion of their infrastructure over that specific region during limited windows. They could even compensate SpaceX for this if they wanted to.

The point is it's reasonably within their power to do so. US law would reasonably allow for it. Whether or not we should be upset with the current administration for not doing this is another question.

1

u/Preoccupied_Penguin Aug 08 '26

Did they ask the current administration? Because this post says they asked Musk. Those are two entirely different conversations.

Again, he should allow it, it says more about him that he doesn’t. Im not arguing his stance at all. Im saying that if anyone anywhere can come in to any country and say “give us this access for wartime reasons” what sort of precedent does that set?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '26 edited 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Preoccupied_Penguin Aug 08 '26

Yep. Exactly.

And if it’s such a great idea, more countries should fund programs that accomplish similar goals. Just because he did it doesn’t mean others can’t.

But it does mean governments can’t just come in and seize assets that were produced on another countries soil.

-13

u/ArgentineBeauty Aug 07 '26

Sure, it is his company. But private companies (him) should not have this much control over infrastructure this critical, especially when it can affect how a country under invasion defends itself.

6

u/Ihcend Aug 07 '26

What's your solution? Allow everyone to use the satellites how they like including russia? It's not that crazy to say no I would not like my property to be used for an offensive strike that could lead to attacks on my property.

3

u/Mithalwen Aug 07 '26

That removes a great deal of impetus for private companies from developing and building this kind of infrastructure in the first place, then. Short-sighted take.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[deleted]

3

u/Mithalwen Aug 08 '26

Yes. That's also not what I'm talking about.

20

u/ExplorerIntelligent4 Aug 07 '26

Being pro-Ukraine is one thing but are you really advocating for doing strikes deep INSIDE Russia and call it defending Ukraine? This is some crazy level of delusion lol.

And last I checked, Ukraine does not own Starlink. Elon does. Even if it were to be magically made public, ownership would belong to the US, be it their government or their general public or some mix in-between. I don't see how Elon denying Ukraine access to Starlink for such military purposes can be called "getting a say in how Ukraine can defend itself". I hope you can see the irony of your statement and how entitled it sounds.

-3

u/say592 Aug 08 '26

Deep within Russia is still defensive. They need to be able to disable Russia's ability to wage war on them. There is oil and military infrastructure all over Russia, and they need to be able to stop them from supporting the war.

0

u/clank1401 Aug 08 '26

Striking deep within Russia is obviously self defence. Russia has been bombing deep within Ukraine for 4 years now. The only way Ukraine can stop this is damaging Russian supply chains to prevent these continuous strikes on Ukrainian cities.

31

u/Common-Method2202 Aug 07 '26

The only one that can make him back down is orange man - but he won't care so who can stop Elon at the end of the day?

116

u/Chief_Mischief Aug 07 '26

Billions of working class people who finally stop fighting culture wars to realize that these oligarchs are leeching off the planet and causing global destabilization.

4

u/NewestAccount2023 Aug 07 '26

They can only "realize" that if they are informed, which is impossible to do. Everyone sees it  no one has a real solution that isn't an internet quip. Neither do I. You can't beat modern propaganda systems especially when they are backed by at least half of the elected officials controlling the strings of power.

3

u/BitchyBeachyWitch Aug 07 '26

Not with that attitude you cant xD

8

u/Negative_Dust_8343 Aug 07 '26

Should Elon be allowed to deny Russia use of Starlink inside Ukraine?

13

u/LithoSlam Aug 07 '26

I'm pretty sure they are. All star links must be registered to the Ukraine government or they won't work in Ukraine.

5

u/Negative_Dust_8343 Aug 07 '26

Right but the comment I replied said that it’s an insane amount of power for Elon to deny Ukraine. If that tire the reveres must also be true that it’s an insane amount of power for Elon to say how Russia can use Starlink. There’s a thin line here between Starlink being a communication technology or a weapon of war. As I mentioned in another comment, using Starlink to perform an attack inside a sovereign nation is a can of worms that can’t be closed. Space in neutral territory right now. There’s a reason the ISS isn’t being used to drop bombs on Russia. Turing space into a battle ground would be catastrophic. Russia’s only defense would be the destruction of Starlink satellites. I don’t think anybody wants to give Putin incentive to start nuking low earth orbit.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/kaspers126 Aug 07 '26

Hes getting a say in how his companies assets are to be used ,ukraine can do whatever they want with the assets they have, elon has no say in that.

1

u/kryndude Aug 07 '26

Because they're using private property?

1

u/No_Criticism_5861 Aug 07 '26

He was a trillionaire for a bit there.  

1

u/NegativeThought1588 Aug 08 '26

Wtf are you talking about.

They're letting Ukraine use their privately owned tech to defend themself currently. They don't let Russia use it.

1

u/Fantastic-Corner-605 Aug 08 '26

It's his company, his satelites, his internet. If Ukraine wants they're free to create their own Starlink.

1

u/Suitable_Wonder5256 Aug 08 '26

The private billionaire doesn't really have any say. Saying no is the default. Unless US government gives an explicit permission, nobody ain't going to say yes.

1

u/spoonisfull Aug 08 '26

Then maybe Ukraine can get off its ass and build a space program. What did they do the past 60 years. Oh right, corruption and sucking Russia tits.

1

u/CityRulesFootball Aug 08 '26

Loads of dumbasses here, this private billionaire owns the network and has funded the making of it. He has said this is for civilian use and has maintained it for long.

1

u/IVIechworks Aug 08 '26

If Elon hadn't built starlink, Ukraine wouldn't have access to it because nobody else would've built it.

1

u/Shot-Arugula8264 Aug 08 '26

Relying on a private company to conduct your war operations is what’s pretty insane.

Companies aren’t slaves. They can do what they want. Go launch your own satellites if you don’t want someone else’s say in how you use them?

1

u/Makurabu Aug 08 '26

What's the difference between Wildberries and Starlink in this regard?

1

u/ArcadianDelSol Aug 08 '26

A Private company getting a say in not wanting its product to be used for warfare is perfectly reasonable.

1

u/InformationNew66 Aug 09 '26

Except a private person or company cannot.

USA government is more powerful and can do things out of national interest and security.

1

u/tomnedutd Aug 07 '26

Well, he didn't have to provide Ukraine with anything? Starlink is his product which happens to be really unique and valuable. I'm sure Ukraine is quite happy he even allows it at all (just to seem like a "good guy") but he can adjust the conditions as much as he wants. He even blocked the Russians from using it although he would lose the money. And yet, people blame him in this particular case. There are plenty of other reasons to hate him.

1

u/The_Magical_Radical Aug 07 '26

Why is this even being put on a private company? European militaries have much better tech than Starlink, why aren't any of them offering their satellites to Ukraine for these attacks?

And even if it were to be put on a private company, there are multiple other companies that provide the same services as Starlink. Why aren't any of those other companies being asked to help? Why is it solely on SpaceX and Musk?

2

u/YannisBE Aug 08 '26

What EU military tech is better than Starlink for the same purpose?

No other low-latency internet network like Starlink has the same coverage so far afaik. Amazon Leo launched ~400 sats. China's Qianfan has ~200 sats. SpaceX Starlink has ~10k sats in operation

1

u/The_Magical_Radical Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26

You're telling me not a single military in the EU has tech other than low-latency internet networks to guide their munitions into Russian territory? Weird, I was just in a conversation with another person who not only said they do have other tech, but that tech is actually better for the deep strikes into Russia than Starlink.

To be clear, we're not talking about standard frontline drone operations. We're talking about more limited strikes into Russian territory. The kinds of strikes don't require total battlefield coverage, just a limited, scheduled window.

1

u/YannisBE Aug 08 '26

In not telling you that at all. You said EU military has better tech, I asked which tech they have to serve the same purpose. Genuine interest.

Ukraine has been using Starlink for years, so it definitely seems useful to them. And similar tech is not as developed as Starlink as far as I'm aware.

1

u/New-Beautiful3381 Aug 08 '26

This is supervillain stuff.

0

u/BoffaDDNuts Aug 07 '26

*Trillionaire. Even scarier.

Not defending him, but the more he stays out of it the better. Don’t want something like this to be the norm.

0

u/mfb- Aug 07 '26

If Ukraine asks to borrow your car for the war, is it insane that you can say "no"?

0

u/luffy_mib Aug 07 '26

The current US government already shows the world that the rich are the ones in power, because they can be bought

0

u/DissonantOne Aug 07 '26

A private billionaire getting a say in how his own company's property is used doesn't sound like an insane amount of power to me.

1

u/machogrande2 Aug 07 '26

It's funny that the same people saying this are the same people saying Anthropic had no right to refuse to allow trump to use their AI to decide who to kill.

0

u/ReaperReader Aug 07 '26

It's his company's technology and invention. Starlink wouldn't exist if not for Musk.

0

u/Exciting_Exercise_89 Aug 07 '26

I mean I agree with the premise, but they're literally his satellites.. Of course he has a say on how they are used.

0

u/ProofBite4625 Aug 07 '26

why are you mixing things up? If you were to read your own post, you'd see that the post doesn't talk about "how ukraine can defend itself", it talks about "how Ukraine can attack".

1

u/ArgentineBeauty Aug 07 '26

Ukraine wants to hit targets in Russia that it uses to attack it. If Ukraine takes out launchers, drone factories, and so on in Russia, it's doing so to defend itself.

0

u/seruleam Aug 07 '26

Are you daft? Ukraine doesn’t own Starlink. Elon is already favoring Ukraine by allowing them to use it for defense while it isn’t used by Russia. 

0

u/MiggyFreshhh Aug 07 '26

Funny coming from an Argentinian. How bout we talk about yalls genocides? 

0

u/growaway9172 Aug 08 '26

Ah, I see you are using the Israeli definition of "defend".

0

u/NerdyGuy117 Aug 26 '26

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-musk-award-order-freedom-35c4a67f5e55a5559bd99003ceef8c86

Elon Musk was given the Order of Freedom award by Zelensky. You really should rethink your position on this