Elon Musk, who faces a Senate probe for his role in hindering a 2022 Ukrainian attack on Crimea, seems to share David Sacks’ view against US support for Ukraine’s counteroffensive.
People have over and over again tried to apply some logic to Musk’s behaviour, but I have found that in most cases it ends up just being plain stupidity or ignorance at best.
Giving a nation the idea you may support an enemy. Is in no way a protection from that nation taking control of your assets. It is at best giving the nation the ability to rationalise the need to limit your own power.
After all dispite not seeing any reason why any corp in the US would be worried about current potential govs nationalising them. It just not something either of the main parties are fans of.
Its even less likely musk would see cooperation with russia as a way to prevent such a thing.
I mean siding with Trump, buying Twitter and the “free speech” people. This is the smoke screen so that he CAN defend Russia and make Biden wary of fighting back, because he now has the unconditional support of 30% of the country.
Not that aiding Russia is the prevention, I think it may be at least part of the goal.
While I hate to give the little shit the benifit of the doubt.
It is worth considering. That there are plenty of other people out their. Who truly think letting russia keep the ground they have taken. Is the best way to prevent the war continuing on.
I disagree because evidence is give russia an inch. And they will just wait until they build up again. And take your whole nation. They are just not trustworthy when it comes to peace treaties.
But plenty of folks are less untrusted (more stupid imho)
There is also more direct fiscal reason why he may want to discurage the US from supporting Ukraine.
If the war continues with the current US weapons spending on Ukraine support. Eventually the gov is going to have to raise money to do so. This drematically increases the risk that industries like his. Will lose some tax breaks or loopholes he uses.
It doesn’t have to be nationalized, but it doesn’t make any sense for a civilian to be able to unilaterally make decisions like that while under military contract. At the very least, any decision to change or influence the contracted service while the contract is active should require some sort of review and approval. Maybe there’s a good reason it’s the way it is, I’m just a layman, but every time I hear about this it just baffles me why it was even allowable for Elon to make the call he did, or any call for that matter.
A key issue, often overlooked, is that US law imposes significant restrictions on the export and sale of military hardware.
Starlink is currently not considered military hardware. SpaceX is desperately trying to keep it that way, their ultimate goal is to sell subscriptions to civilians. Thus they get anxious when it is openly used for military purposes.
In this regard Starlink is somewhat similar to civilian GPS receivers, which automatically shut down at 1200 mph so they can’t be used in missiles.
Maybe - just maybe - a private citizen shouldn’t be left in control of contracted military infrastructure at all…
His posturing politically may just be to protect himself from SpaceX and Starlink being nationalized.
People have over and over again tried to apply some logic to Musk’s behaviour, but I have found that in most cases it ends up just being plain stupidity or ignorance at best.
Giving a nation the idea you may support an enemy. Is in no way a protection from that nation taking control of your assets. It is at best giving the nation the ability to rationalise the need to limit your own power.
After all dispite not seeing any reason why any corp in the US would be worried about current potential govs nationalising them. It just not something either of the main parties are fans of.
Its even less likely musk would see cooperation with russia as a way to prevent such a thing.
I mean siding with Trump, buying Twitter and the “free speech” people. This is the smoke screen so that he CAN defend Russia and make Biden wary of fighting back, because he now has the unconditional support of 30% of the country.
Not that aiding Russia is the prevention, I think it may be at least part of the goal.
While I hate to give the little shit the benifit of the doubt.
It is worth considering. That there are plenty of other people out their. Who truly think letting russia keep the ground they have taken. Is the best way to prevent the war continuing on.
I disagree because evidence is give russia an inch. And they will just wait until they build up again. And take your whole nation. They are just not trustworthy when it comes to peace treaties.
But plenty of folks are less untrusted (more stupid imho)
There is also more direct fiscal reason why he may want to discurage the US from supporting Ukraine.
If the war continues with the current US weapons spending on Ukraine support. Eventually the gov is going to have to raise money to do so. This drematically increases the risk that industries like his. Will lose some tax breaks or loopholes he uses.
If we had a policy of nationalizing contracted military infrastructure, then nobody would make a contract with the military.
And while this may sound good to some, it sure wouldn’t be in Ukraine’s interest. Unreliable Starlink access is better than no Starlink access at all.
It doesn’t have to be nationalized, but it doesn’t make any sense for a civilian to be able to unilaterally make decisions like that while under military contract. At the very least, any decision to change or influence the contracted service while the contract is active should require some sort of review and approval. Maybe there’s a good reason it’s the way it is, I’m just a layman, but every time I hear about this it just baffles me why it was even allowable for Elon to make the call he did, or any call for that matter.
A key issue, often overlooked, is that US law imposes significant restrictions on the export and sale of military hardware.
Starlink is currently not considered military hardware. SpaceX is desperately trying to keep it that way, their ultimate goal is to sell subscriptions to civilians. Thus they get anxious when it is openly used for military purposes.
In this regard Starlink is somewhat similar to civilian GPS receivers, which automatically shut down at 1200 mph so they can’t be used in missiles.