He was talking to me that night as it was happening. He said ‘We’re not enabling it on the Crimean coast.’ I thought ‘Okay that means he shut it off that night.’ He later said to me, and I’m sure he’s right, that it had been a policy already in place, that he had already decided not to allow — to geofence, it’s called — the Crimean coast. And that night, all he did was reaffirm the policy.

Starlink is not a military weapon, it is a consumer / business tool. By using Starlink as a weapon it puts Starlink/SpaceX under different regulations which they can't be under. Crimea was technically Russian controlled as well, and they weren't allowed to offer service in Russian occupied areas.

SpaceX wanted the government to be handling all of this so it would be fine and dandy, but the government wasn't. AFTER this happened, it helped give a shove to the government / military to step in and take control of Starlink in Ukraine.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

They could have done a whitelist from day 1, but Ukraine didn't want to do a whitelist initially. It means having to register every single terminal including non-military in the country.

There was an article as well when this drone / dish thing came up that one official said there are a lot of non-military dishes being used by military personnel who either purchased their own, or had it donated, and they are afraid that by registering it, the military would take it from them for other purposes, but they have to do it now as there's no other practical solution and the Starlink controlled drones needed to be stopped as they were too hard to intercept/jam.

In terms of stopping the drone usage with a speed limit, that also stopped Ukraine from using drones. It wasn't a Russia only fix it was a emergency region wide fix to stop all drones over a certain speed. Only with the whitelist can Ukraine continue to use them at high speeds.

It's not a simple as you seem to want it to be.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

He's not a traitor, he doesn't care about anything but money and trying the worst ways possible to be popular.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If you help the enemy faction in a war your are a traitor. Having done so for personal gain doesn't change that.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 14 hours ago

Fair enough, I can't argue with that. My point is that he doesn't have allegiances, and he doesn't really have an onus to give allegiance to either Russia or Ukraine, and he's not sworn fealty to anyone. He's not alone in being a traitor to the American people fwiw, the entire Epstein class only have allegiance to money and power.

Either way, eat the rich

[–] HowRu68@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

(* sorry But..) by involving himself with far-right he's a traitor to American & European democracies. By choosing money instead of lives, he's a traitor to humanity and morality.

*Ed: sry my 1st response was perhaps a bit strong. I really dislike Musk.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Fair, I'm not saying he isn't a piece of shit, and sure he's a traitor to everyone, but to the point of being a traitor, you have to give fealty to be able to be a traitor I would say.

[–] HowRu68@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

fealty to be able to be a traitor I would say.

Yes, legally being a traitor is another matter, and very complex. It's a rabbit hole. Thankfully, you know what I mean though.

And even if he legally was a a traitor, considering the current US Admin and his immense wealth, he'd probably never go to court. Justice isn't blind.