> Because there was no warning. He just crippled it and then denied that he's done it.
What if he's telling the truth and it wasn't him that disabled it? How is it that you have obtained evidence as to internal operational procedures of Starlink/Starshield/Pentagon that make you better qualified than Musk to judge who carried out an action?
And why would Ukraine deserve any kind of warning? Surely if anyone breaks the very clear T&Cs by using Starlink in weaponry, then they should expect the service to be withdrawn, or at best, temporarily limited.
> Ukraine uses it for defensive purposes, not offensive
Ukraine have blurred the line since they started attacking energy infrastructure and civilian data centres etc deep inside Russia, with loss of Russian civilian life. I'll say it again - I support Ukraine vs Russia's illegal invasion. However, from Starlink's PoV, Ukraine is using its network for military attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure, which gives Russia the right (arguably) to attack Starlink infrastructure (e.g. ground stations). Why would Musk allow this to happen?
> Musk alongside Trump want Zelenskyy gone (receipts are there) and he thought pressuring him by crippling access to Starlink would do it or at least get him to stop attacking Putin's oil refineries.
That's a possible motivation, although speculative at this point. And it seems certain people are strenuously trying to paint Musk as the bad guy in this, and any other circumstances they can find. There's some partisan noise and speculation that we need to remove in order to find the truth here.
What if he's telling the truth and it wasn't him that disabled it? How is it that you have obtained evidence as to internal operational procedures of Starlink/Starshield/Pentagon that make you better qualified than Musk to judge who carried out an action?
And why would Ukraine deserve any kind of warning? Surely if anyone breaks the very clear T&Cs by using Starlink in weaponry, then they should expect the service to be withdrawn, or at best, temporarily limited.
> Ukraine uses it for defensive purposes, not offensive
Ukraine have blurred the line since they started attacking energy infrastructure and civilian data centres etc deep inside Russia, with loss of Russian civilian life. I'll say it again - I support Ukraine vs Russia's illegal invasion. However, from Starlink's PoV, Ukraine is using its network for military attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure, which gives Russia the right (arguably) to attack Starlink infrastructure (e.g. ground stations). Why would Musk allow this to happen?
> Musk alongside Trump want Zelenskyy gone (receipts are there) and he thought pressuring him by crippling access to Starlink would do it or at least get him to stop attacking Putin's oil refineries.
That's a possible motivation, although speculative at this point. And it seems certain people are strenuously trying to paint Musk as the bad guy in this, and any other circumstances they can find. There's some partisan noise and speculation that we need to remove in order to find the truth here.