Ukraine 31: Icarus Edition

[mormont]

Look, I don't agree with Musk, but I do agree that he's perfectly entitled to a view that attacks on Crimean soil are something he wants no part of. The issue here is that it shouldn't matter what a private individual thinks, but in this situation it did.

I've been forthright in my views about Ukraine reclaiming Russia (and been criticised for it) and in my criticisms of Musk as an individual and a businessperson. But I'm not seeing a legitimate criticism here. He was entitled to refuse this. I wish he hadn't, but he had the right.

[Wilbur]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

Look, I don't agree with Musk, but I do agree that he's perfectly entitled to a view that attacks on Crimean soil are something he wants no part of. The issue here is that it shouldn't matter what a private individual thinks, but in this situation it did.

I've been forthright in my views about Ukraine reclaiming Russia (and been criticised for it) and in my criticisms of Musk as an individual and a businessperson. But I'm not seeing a legitimate criticism here. He was entitled to refuse this. I wish he hadn't, but he had the right.

I agree with this.

The other thing that this situation brings to light is that the US government allowed Musk to set his satellites in specific low-Earth orbit without any functional oversight or regulatory action.

So on the one hand, those satellites are Musk's, and he can do with them whatever he wants.

And on the other hand, the US government needs to get back in the business of regulating the process of putting satellites into orbit.  Because one individual making a decision about what has come to be a de facto public good is not an optimal outcome.

Democracy, or representative government, is the second worst type of government.  But all the other ones are worse.  And no government, aka Musk Space Anarchy, which is what Musk's role here represents, is possibly worse.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I agree with this.

The other thing that this situation brings to light is that the US government allowed Musk to set his satellites in specific low-Earth orbit without any functional oversight or regulatory action.

So on the one hand, those satellites are Musk's, and he can do with them whatever he wants.

And on the other hand, the US government needs to get back in the business of regulating the process of putting satellites into orbit.  Because one individual making a decision about what has come to be a de facto public good is not an optimal outcome.

Democracy, or representative government, is the second worst type of government.  But all the other ones are worse.  And no government, aka Musk Space Anarchy, which is what Musk's role here represents, is possibly worse.

Isn't that what I said?

Anyway, the US can't regulate space alone. Unless you claim space belongs to the US and the US alone.

That's one of those pesky areas, where they should have worked with other nations.

[Zorral]

Yet Starlink is being used by many for military purposes.  He gets to decide who gets to use it and who he shuts out.  That's pretty goddamned military and political and arbitrary to me.  Capitalism reigns. Yay capitalism and its billiionaires who get to decide whether you have water, air, or a country.

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Star Link is not a military thing/contractor by design

So. What.  It is what it is and as an essential global communications network, it is also a military resource, tool and weapon.

I didn't knock you down and pull off your clothes by design to rape you.  Rape just . . . happened. And then got paid by somebody.  And, anyway, it was YOUR OWN FAULT.  Gimme a frackin break.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Zorral

[Zorral]

46 minutes ago, mormont said:

he had the right.

AY-up -- them's the rule of capitalism.  Until the capitalist get in trouble, and then it's socialism for them.

This argument that this biz r all belong to him (despite the billions of US taxpayers' money that went into all the areas of the development) so he can do what he wants with it because um, well, he wasn't being 'national' for the nation in which he lives, extracts his wealth while helping his nation's enemies -- that flew well at Nuremberg I guess.   

So many of them got off scot free, kept their property and were even able to move to other countries and continue their merry capitalist way.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Zorral

[Kalbear]

46 minutes ago, mormont said:

Look, I don't agree with Musk, but I do agree that he's perfectly entitled to a view that attacks on Crimean soil are something he wants no part of. The issue here is that it shouldn't matter what a private individual thinks, but in this situation it did.

I've been forthright in my views about Ukraine reclaiming Russia (and been criticised for it) and in my criticisms of Musk as an individual and a businessperson. But I'm not seeing a legitimate criticism here. He was entitled to refuse this. I wish he hadn't, but he had the right.

I don't think the issue is that he doesn't have the right to do it. It's a private company and he owns it. He can basically run it however he wants, especially without a contractual obligation.

I think it's far more the case that the US military and the Ukrainian military is now entirely at the mercy of one person's viewpoint of how their service can be run for a core competency. It is also the case that we should be somewhat pissed off that Musk decided to fuck over Ukraine. Both of these things are legally fine, and both can be morally outrageous. I don't see why 'having the right' also means 'having immunity from criticism or wanting to change that thing'. 

Musk is absolutely within his legal rights to do a very shitty thing to Ukraine. Similarly, the US is within its legal rights to nationalize SpaceX under several very solid legal bases. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I didn't knock you down and pull off your clothes by design to rape you.  Rape just . . . happened. And then got paid by somebody.  And, anyway, it was YOUR OWN FAULT.  Gimme a frackin break.

Ahum, usually the following advice applies to mcbigski, but I think you might want to cut down on your alcohol levels when posting, too.

Equating the military (non-use) of Star Link to rape? Seriously? That analogy is so off, that it really puts the anal in analogy.

[Ran]

14 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Capitalism reigns. Yay capitalism and its billiionaires who get to decide whether you have water, air, or a country.

No one has been stopping the US military from creating its own bespoke system. Musk certainly didn't stop them, or the EU, or anyone else. Half a dozen other attempts at doing what Starlink achieved have crashed and burned.

The actual solution to the whole business was Starshield and the DOD contract. The problem was resolved in an appropriate and legal manner.

 

6 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

I think it's far more the case that the US military and the Ukrainian military is now entirely at the mercy of one person's viewpoint of how their service can be run for a core competency

The US military and Ukraine did not have the option of Starlink a decade ago, because it didn't exist. It's crazy that they have chosen to put themselves in a position where state-of-the-art private satellite network is so vital to them, and then act shocked when the private network takes issue with certain uses outside the bounds of what they believe is an appropriate use of their network.

6 minutes ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

It is also the case that we should be somewhat pissed off that Musk decided to fuck over Ukraine.

He didn't fuck them over. They were misusing Starlink and figured they could get away with it because they'd throw bad PR at Musk if he balked. I find his statement to Isaacson suspect because the fact is that the DoD military contract resolved his concerns shows that his real concern was that Ukraine was using the system in a way that he hadn't intended and went against the terms that were specified. So he created a system that satisfied their needs, gave him legal cover through the DoD contract, and it's resolved.

The fact that they could even think of using Starlink that way was, again, precisely because Musk didn't fuck them over and went out of his way to provide Starlink and other resources. It's silly to turn a good thing he actually did into some new example of how awful he is because he didn't want the resources he was giving them being used in some certain way.

It's literally no different than the US restricting Ukraine's use of HIMARS against Russian territory. You use someone else's resources, they have a say on how you use it. You can say no thanks and just not use it.

I want Ukraine to win and to throw the Russians out of Crimea to boot, but people are being really nonsensical about this particular story. 

 

[SpaceChampion]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

There's zero regulation about the use of that space (for lack of a better word). So it's basically like the gold rush in the US. You shoot your stuff into Earth stake your claim with it. All those Musk satelites are eating up space, that could otherwise be used by NASA, ESA etc. And like with the gold rush, the good spots are only there in limited numbers.

So it wasn't outsourced, but Musk was basically allowed to build a monopoly on space. It's absolutely insane.

Don't know where you''re getting that from, but wholly wrong. 

There are at least 3 U.S. agencies regulating Starlink and one international.  SpaceX doesn't have exclusive use of the orbit, and they can't and didn't just launch to that orbit to claim it.  That's complete nonsense.   There is regulation of the altitude, the transmission spectrum, sat-to-sat microwave communication and deorbit capability.  Plus it takes suggestions from NASA.

It's actually in 3 orbital shells, at 340km, 550km, and 1150km.  For reference ISS is at 420km.   Planet Inc. has 200 earth observation sats at 400km altitude.  Nothing about this prevents others from using that space.  We can stuff a million more satellites in that space without worrying about collisions.

The International Telecommunications Union approved the spectrum and orbit, the FCC approved the spectrum, orbit and number of sats, while apparently NOAA oversees deorbit risks and reliability.  Plus every nation Starlink operates in is regulated by its own national organizations.

Military uses are more highly regulated and expensive in overhead.  ITAR exists, and that means you can't suddenly provide commercial services to a foreign government that then uses it for war, terrorism, or trades to a third party that does those things.  Starlink was given to Ukraine to connect it's towns and hospitals in the war zone so civilians would not be cut off.  If SpaceX wasn't told it would be used in the battlefield, there is a legitimate concern that they'd face expensive legal and regulatory ramifications.  I'm sure their legal department reacted like a beehive when a firecracker goes off inside.  There is a years-long process of getting things through ITAR that can't be resolved in an afternoon with a phone call.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

The US military and Ukraine did not have the option of Starlink a decade ago, because it didn't exist. It's crazy that they have chosen to put themselves in a position where state-of-the-art private satellite network is so vital to them, and then act shocked when the private network takes issue with certain uses outside the bounds of what they believe is an appropriate use of their network.

I think that you're right that the US put themselves into this bind somewhat, though I don't know how you blame Ukraine for this. This is obviously a major oversight in communication behavior that the US military is still behind the ball on logistically and otherwise.

That said, Musk volunteered to give Ukraine Starlink. No one forced him to do that. And he wasn't doing it for just non-military views, either. He knew for months that their military was using it and did so with his blessing and promotion. The idea that he was upset about Ukraine using Starlink for military uses is obviously flawed; he stated publicly that he was upset about their use in Crimea. In fact, he had restricted the use to geofenced locations that corresponded to the specific borders that Ukraine had fought to, which famously caused problems last year when Ukraine was able to advance and retake a lot of territory only to find Starlink stopped working as soon as they crossed that line. 

IMO, if you're going to give people the communication for defensive purposes but aren't allowing it to be used in any counteroffensives you need to be very specific about that requirement, and Musk definitely wasn't that - because it's an insane restriction in most military settings. 

1 minute ago, Ran said:

He didn't fuck them over. They were misusing Starlink and figured they could get away with it because they'd throw bad PR at Musk if he balked.

I don't think that follows at all. They weren't misusing it, or if they were they had been doing so since they had been given it months ago. And again Musk knew that. Hell, Ukraine had a specific path of communication with Musk directly. 

1 minute ago, Ran said:

I find his statement to Isaacson suspect because the fact is that the DoD military contract resolved his concerns shows that his real concern was that Ukraine was using the system in a way that he hadn't intended and went against the terms that were specified. So he created a system that satisfied their needs, gave him legal cover through the DoD contract, and it's resolved. 

Okay, but you get that it's a bit weird to simply dismiss what he actually said and instead interpret what he said based on other viewpoints, right? Didn't you earlier bring up how none of us can actually know what someone is thinking and should instead judge based on their stated views and actions?

In which case we have Musk stating that he didn't like Starlink being used for offensive actions, he reported (to Isaacson) that he feared Russian retaliation and escalation to nuclear war, we have his contemporaneous statements at the time also saying that, we have him specifically restricting Starlink during this drone attack instead of any of the previous times that it was used in the war. And we have him saying that Ukraine should sue for peace and give up most of the territory lost. We also have the pentagon offering him a sweet contract and him refusing it and saying pissily 'we'll just give it all away for free', which pissed off his SpaceX CFO. 

Now, all of that could have a ruse, but is that more or less likely than he was being truthful?

1 minute ago, Ran said:

The fact that they could even think of using Starlink that way was, again, precisely because Musk didn't fuck them over and went out of his way to provide Starlink and other resources. It's silly to turn a good thing he actually did into some new example of how awful he is because he didn't want the resources he was giving them being used in some certain way.

I don't think that's particularly silly given that it did fuck over Ukraine and he gave them zero warning for it. Why should they expect him to change that viewpoint now given that it had been working for months? 

1 minute ago, Ran said:

It's literally no different than the US restricting Ukraine's use of HIMARS against Russian territory. You use someone else's resources, they have a say on how you use it. You can say no thanks and just not use it.

Except Musk never said that. That was never part of the deal. As far as I can tell there was no particular deal as far as restricting things. 

 

[Kalbear]

Add to that that Musk gave his biographer the communications with Ukraine without any permission from Ukraine:

https://mastodon.sdf.org/@[email protected]/111030148924362379

Quote

 

Ukrainian deputy prime minister Mykhailo Fedorov told the Financial Times on Friday that he was unaware that Walter Isaacson had obtained and published the messages in a forthcoming biography of Musk written with the billionaire’s full collaboration.

'It’s not very pretty,”' Fedorov said in an interview in his office in Kyiv. 'I’ve never shown or talked about our correspondence publicly.'"

 

 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Equating the military (non-use) of Star Link to rape? Seriously

Cutting off starlink so Ukraine couldn't successfully pull off it's naval military action -- yah. 

That the only/first accusation that come to your mind to defend the musk is to state I'm drunk is worthy of somebody already drunk, or childish, or intellectually challenged -- and again, blaming the victim of what happened.  Sheesh.  Grow up.

These are evil people.  It's a disaster for us all, and for the planet, they are in charge.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Zorral

[Zorral]

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Cutting off starlink so Ukraine couldn't successfully pull off it's naval military action -- yah.  And to accuse me of being drunk is worthy of somebody who is drunk (since that's the first thing that comes to your mind as a valid defense of what is indefensible), or at least emotionally and intellectually impaired -- and, again, as rapiost do, blaming the victim of what happened.  Sheesh.  Grow up.

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Zorral

[polishgenius]

I think Musk is a horrible bastard, I think the Russians are horrible bastards, and I wish he had let them do it, but I have serious issue with the idea that a private, non-contracted individual has the obligation to allow a military to do whatever they please with his resources or equipment. 

[Zorral]

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I think Musk is a horrible bastard, I think the Russians are horrible bastards, and I wish he had let them do it, but I have serious issue with the idea that a private, non-contracted individual has the obligation to allow a military to do whatever they please with his resources or equipment. 

In any case this is the strongest argument possible that private individual capitalist SHOULD NOT BE IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING, including government/military actions, yes?

[Maithanet]

Anonymous US officials say the decision had been made to send ATACMS.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-send-long-range-atacms-missiles-ukraine-time/story?id=103031722

I mean... We all knew it was coming.  I hope this actually comes to pass soon.

[Kalbear]

31 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I think Musk is a horrible bastard, I think the Russians are horrible bastards, and I wish he had let them do it, but I have serious issue with the idea that a private, non-contracted individual has the obligation to allow a military to do whatever they please with his resources or equipment. 

I think this is a disingenuous argument, because the question isn't 'should they be able to do whatever they please' but instead 'should they be able to use this in a way that is reasonably consistent with prior, allowed uses' along with 'is the reasoning behind stopping them good or fucking shitty'. 

So is it reasonable for someone who has provided the service to a nation at war, with the knowledge that they were using it at war on the frontlines and who had direct communication with their ministry of defense regularly - then just turning it off arbitrarily based on entirely uncommunicated policy viewpoints? And doing so in the middle of an attack instead of saying 'you can't do this'? And doing so with the reasoning NOT that it violates any specific contracts or behaviors (because Starlink at war already violates all of them and he didn't care) but because he was concerned about Russia's reaction, based on Russia telling him bullshit?

Like, okay, I get that it isn't carte blanche, but we're not talking about Ukraine using Starlink to attack South Africa with chemical weapons or spy on Musk; we're talking about a very reasonable use of the service here.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Cutting off starlink so Ukraine couldn't successfully pull off it's naval military action -- yah. 

That the only/first accusation that come to your mind to defend the musk is to state I'm drunk is worthy of somebody already drunk, or childish, or intellectually challenged -- and again, blaming the victim of what happened.  Sheesh.  Grow up.

These are evil people.  It's a disaster for us all, and for the planet, they are in charge.

Np, somebody randomly equating rape to an action that is not actual rape and thereby diminishing the suffering of rape survivors a) knows their argument is weak, and thereby feel the urge to prop it up with one of the biggest weapons in their rhetorical arsenal and b) is sorta stupid to go down that road.

You should know better, and I assume you do know better. So assuming you were posting under the influence was more like giving you the benefit of the doubt here. As an intelligent and sober wouldn't go there.

[Zorral]

Ukraine blasts Musk over Starlink order; Russia praises his ‘balls

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4194233-ukraine-blasts-musk-over-starlink-order-russia-praises-his-balls/

[Zorral]

16 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

equating rape to an action that is not actual rape and thereby diminishing the suffering of rape survivors

Tell that to the Ukranians, particularly those who have been suffering rape rape rape rape, from children to adults.