First surface vessel attack on Crimea failed as Musk turned off connection : ukraine

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 9 months ago

Is any of this new information?

Ukraine tried for the first time to use uncrewed surface vessels against Russian vessels in Sevastopol Bay in September 2022, but 70 kilometres from the target, the connection with billionaire Elon Musk's Starlinks was lost. It was not possible to persuade Musk to turn back on the connection, so Ukraine modified the drones.

Details: The first attempt to attack Russian targets in Sevastopol took place on the night of 16-17 September 2022.

[-] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

No I have heard all that before. I saw at least one news report that it was not known by the Ukrainian that starlink had geofences. They had not been informed/had a misunderstanding to the extent of their access to starlink. It was not a thing of Musk hearing about the attack and turning the system off, but one of that it was never on in that area and Musk refusing to change that in the moment.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago

I've heard a couple versions of this story. One is the story in the post, the other is that Crimea was not covered by Starlink, and Ukraine tried to get it covered and Musk wouldn't.

Do we have a definitive source that can speak to which occurred?

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago

From what I can gather from various sources (most detailed one here: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9?op=1)

Elon's biographer Isaacson says he turned it off as the Ukrainian ships were approaching Sevastopol, following a call with the Russian ambassador who he told about it(!!?), resulting in a nuclear threat. Ukrainians begged him to turn it back on and he refuses.
Elon has denied the first part, saying it was never turned on, only acknowledging the call to turn it on and his refusal to do so.

I'm not sure which to believe. Isaacson's account is detailed and I doubt it's made up, but perhaps he misunderstood something. At the same time, turning it off seems to require Elon to have foreknowledge of the attack which seems unlikely, though plausible.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Issac corrected the story and said he was wrong. His stance is it was never on. Musk refused to turn it on.

So either Issac got it wrong and the correction is legit. Or Issac is now covering his ass and willing to lie, and lying would be bad for his credibility.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 20 points 9 months ago

Ask the man himself

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4193788-musk-acknowledges-he-turned-off-starlink-internet-access-last-year-during-ukraine-attack-on-russia-military/

[-] Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

Ah yes, let's ask the most vain man on earth if he did a highly newsworthy thing. I hope he doesn't lie about this like he does pretty much everything else.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Eh... In this case that lie could (should) have put him in major trouble considering he got in the way of an attack by an ally of the country he resides in.

[-] Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

Not helping your countries ally bomb someone is in no way illegal. In fact, it's a lot more likely that the reverse will be true. Bombing people is bad, as it turns out.

[-] massive_bereavement@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago

Musk's official biographer explained that there was a point where he had to take a decision of either allow it or not, and a Russian official discouraged it on the basis that there would be a nuclear escalation.

Allegedly, someone in a 5 point building got super pissed by the fact that a rich guy got to call it off, jumping over them and the Prez himself.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

The DoD has since signed contracts with Starlink for service. But they hadn't at the time yet so I don't see why the Pentagon or American president would be involved in the decision.

[+] TWeaK@lemm.ee -13 points 9 months ago

That is exactly what happened. The US prohibits US companies (including SpaceX) from operating in Crimea. Nothing was switched off, the attack vessel simply left the area it works in, and they couldn't switch it back on either.

Furthermore, SpaceX are not authorised to sell weapons or participate in military actions with foreign forces. They're already on shaky legal grounds by turning the other way to Ukraine's use (which the US supports, of course, so they're generally willing to let it slide). If SpaceX started operating in Crimea and actively supporting the war effort, that would open them up to liability.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 months ago

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4193788-musk-acknowledges-he-turned-off-starlink-internet-access-last-year-during-ukraine-attack-on-russia-military/

"That is exactly what happened"

Except for the part where Musk himself admitted it wasn't so.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

If you view the comments above you'll see that your quote was from a biography, Musk has always denied this, and since then the author of the biography has said he got it wrong.

Starlink has never operated in Crimea.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1699917639043404146?s=46&t=bZcrLpl8DTxSpYLBntBfhQ

It never operated in Crimea, but there's a huge difference between "We can't do it even if you ask us." and "We won't do it even if you ask us." In that case it's the second option.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

I'm sure they technically could, but legally they can't.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

And they would have gotten sued by the government that was providing the weapons used to blow up Russian targets?

Musk got himself involved in the war and got in the way of his country's ally, he should be in jail and his company should have been seized.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

Probably not sued, no. The government doesn't need to sue a business to reprimand it for breaking the law.

Musk got himself involved in the war and got in the way of his country's ally, he should be in jail and his company should have been seized.

It's pretty clear you don't even have a basic understanding of how the law works. And you've moved back to "got in the way", as if he actively blocked something specifically to prevent Ukraine's attack.

The service never worked there and he wasn't allowed to turn it on. That's all there is to it, regardless of how angrily you tap on your keyboard.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.

Yes, he actively blocked something specifically to prevent Ukraine's attack.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

The request he referred to was turning it on. The US had already told him not to operate in that area. He didn't block it to prevent the attack, it was already blocked because the US told him he had to.

[-] Sequentialsilence@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

The thing I don’t think many people are aware of, is that if something is exported from the US (like starlink) and is used for military purposes (like a surface attack vessel) it is subject to ITAR restrictions and regulations. Starlink does not have ITAR clearance. A breach of this means your company can be seized and shut down by the US government. I would expect this behavior from any US based company that does not have ITAR clearance.

[-] Squizzy@lemmy.world 53 points 9 months ago

Except it was cleared for military use so it doesn't add up, it also wasn't the reasoning given by the guy who refused to provide connection.

He's a crook and a snake.

[-] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago

This doesn't make much sense...starlink was already available for military use by the Ukrainians. That was the whole reason Musk was "donating" use of the system to them.

Even if this were the underlying reason, the behavior I would expect from any US company that doesn't have ITAR clearance would be to cite said lack of clearance for the decision instead of the CEO coming out and saying he did it for war strategy reasons (like being worried about a nuclear response).

[-] AlfredEinstein@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

At this point it makes the most sense for the US government to sieze Starlink as a military asset. Cut out the little man.

[-] Promethiel@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

It makes perfect sense if you consider two things:

Consider the reality of ITAR and the value assessment of actually breaking it versus being able to say whatever you want in a post truth society.
The CEO in this particular instance is, to put it charitably, not an example to be held and compared against if seeking a baseline "reasonable person"-esque standards in the self-serving (and self-editing) annals of corporate history.

[-] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No it wasn't. There was never US government dispensation for direct UA military use. The original provisioning was for civilian usage. Starlink is definitely approved for US military, and a blind eye was turned to backend logistics use by UA, but as soon as your equipment is guiding bombs onto targets you're running straight into ITAR. It's being used for a weapon and that's a major no no.

Edit You're vs your

[-] ale@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I'll add that it's not per company approval, it's per export approval (potentially each individual item needs an approval for export to a different country) and the rules around ITAR are a bit fuzzy when it comes to technology.

[-] butt_mountain_69420@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Their first mistake? Not being able to identify a lying fucking narcissist.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social -4 points 9 months ago

No, their first mistake was launching a military operation that depended on Starlink connectivity to a region that they knew was already cut off from Starlink due to sanctions on Russia on the assumption that they'd be able to convince an American company to turn it on for them in the middle of the attack, thus violating some very serious American laws preventing that sort of thing from happening.

I know the overwhelming narrative on the Internet is "Ukraine good, Elon bad", but in this case it really seems to me like the screwup was on Ukraine's side here.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I always got the sense from the story that Ukraine didn't know it wasn't going to work in Crimea. When they realized, they begged him to turn it back on, because they thought he turned it off.

But it was never on and he refused to turn it on.

They also knew they weren't allowed to use it that way and tried anyway.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago

If they hadn't known that it wasn't on then that would be a pretty big part of the screwup, I'm sure Starlink wasn't keeping it a secret that there was no service there.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Given the urgency of the request makes me think they didn't know.

I don't think we've ever gotten a reliable answer on if they knew or didn't though

Edit: E.g they've never admitted to a successful use in the region prior to that event to indicate it was actually on or attempted before.

Edit: I think they were also told it'd work in Ukraine, but maybe unknown to them that didn't include Russia controlled areas. I can see the mistake happening

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

I'm trying to think how to word this so I don't get banned.

We need to turn off his connection.

[-] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Why would you get banned? You still got Reddit mod PTSD?

[-] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

@EdibleFriend@lemmy.world

Because of the virtual certainty the comment's true intent violates Rule 1. It is, however, worded cleverly enough that a naive reader would likely interpret it mainly as 'connection to funds, or internet backbone' which is just inside the line.

;tldr because the moderation here aren't bots and understand metaphor.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I've already gotten a ban from all of .world for saying I'm too fat to run in the running group. Another mod came along and reversed it though.

The moderation here can be just as bad as reddit.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

This is a sopuli.xyz thread, lemmy.world mods don't have much authority here.

But yeah, the answer to bad moderation is the same as it was on reddit: make your own community, with blackjack and hookers.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

The problem with that is I would like to be in a populated community full of people shitposting in ways that amuse me

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

Maybe it's the sentiment that's the problem, not the wording?

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

oopsie doodle!

[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago

Who, the Ukrainians? I think if Ukraine was to attempt to assassinate an American on American soil using a drone attack it would cause rather more problems for them, and certainly wouldn't get them better Starlink coverage.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social -2 points 9 months ago

A badly misrepresented year old story suddenly back in the news again on multiple platforms. Sigh.

I guess it helps that the Internet is so conditioned to hate Musk that any headline that says something bad about him gets an instant upvote.