defence24.com
Back to storiesRanked by HN
Comments
168 total · 168 loaded
The timing is interesting, given that it comes days after Musk said Ukraine had gone "too far" striking Yandex data centers. Putting other considerations aside, these strikes could be interpreted as direct retaliation against strikes on Ukrainian data centers days before.
That said, depending on a single piece of tech is not a good idea (as evidenced by the Russians when they lost starlink access). Russians have resorted to long-range mesh radios, Ukrainians should probably integrate that as well (though it does increase BOM costs).
The other dependency is Chinese suppliers, who supply both sides but may prefer to favor Russia. It is a huge liability for Ukraine as it supplies 80% of the parts that perform 70% of battlefield duties, and could stop anytime (besides known design leaks to the adversary, etc). Russia is even relocating whole production lines to evade sanctions.
Ukraine has been fighting with one arm behind its back, this is the latest development in the series of seemingly-arbitrary limitations imposed on it.
> That said, depending on a single piece of tech is not a good idea
Yes and putting a CEO of a tech company in command of strategic infrastructure is not a good idea either.
A tech company CEO that has some ethics issues.
[deleted]
That sounds like something completely made up by trolls.
It's like me saying I'm on the Pope's Super Secret Christmas List because some random on Reddit said so.
It's just amateur propaganda.
The list is run by some random dudes and has no relation to government or military formations.
> Yes and putting a CEO of a tech company in command of strategic infrastructure
The U.S. government and the Pentagon own and control Starshield,
The guy who built it should not be running it because it is too important?
Indeed. The ability to build something does not come with an automatic right to continue to operate it during a war. That said, I would assume Musk did not reach this decision in a vacuum. What surprises me is that there has never been a leak from inside SpaceX about the circumstances of these decisions.
> What surprises me is that there has never been a leak from inside SpaceX about the circumstances of these decisions.
What point is there in trying to get sources to leak things when decisions are made at the top on a whim, versus policy options being analyzed video position papers and reports.
It's the same as the current White House: there's no point in trying to cultivate sources as decisions come from one place, with no consensus seeking, often in the middle of the night, and can be changed a few hours later.
How would a county like Ukraine go about regulating a company like Starlink in this manner?
You can't nationalize another country's business, especially when their assets are floating in space disconnectes entirely from your country.
If they want to regulate it, they need to build it first. Ukraine has no ability to regulate Starlink. It's not theirs to regulate.
Ukraine clearly can not regulate a company like Starlink.
But the United States has that level of control and Musk is either using it to benefit putin or he's using it to benefit trump. Both of these could be fixed and could be fixed in relatively short order if there was the will to do so.
The rest of your comment is just restating the obvious so I won't respond to that.
EU could step in here to penalize or forbid Musk-Starlink if they block or restrict Starlink in Ukraine ...
the EU is a HUGE market that Musk will not want to piss off and loose ...
He is unhinged enough at this point and has enough control that he might give up starlink in the EU if pressed on it. I think this would be ultimately be a net positive for the EU and likely the world.
EU should probably stop sending money to Russia if they actually cared about the war...
They don't really have a leg to stand on.
I agree, he should pay for betraying the Ukrainians.
I'm all for it.
[deleted]
Musk has been pretty vocal. Past controversy was literally the government asking him to do something illegal. Starshield is starlink for the US military. I highly doubt this controversy is anything other than SpaceX doing what the US gov tells them.
Musk isn’t a reliable narrator by any stretch of imagination
If Musk says one thing and Trump says the opposite I would have a really hard time figuring out what is true.
*the guy who is CEO of the company that built it - attributing what companies and their engineers and staff did to one person is unfair. People stopped blaming Bill Gates for everything Microsoft did, eventually.
And it's not uncommon, many public utilities may be operated by companies but they are bound by laws and regulations.
This is like the CEO of Lockheed Martin deciding what can be bombed...
And where does it say this was SpaceX decision? Seems highly unlikely to me.
Starshield is litteraly a US gov project which this is about. Not the public network at all. The title is clickbait honestly.
This is about regulating it, not running it. When things need regulation, putting the creators in charge is almost never a good idea.
Is it uncommon for companies that produce dual use tech to have stronger oversight?
>The guy who built it should not be running it because it is too important?
What's so radical about this anyway?
The absolute glazing this man receives is incredible. “The guy who built it,” lmao.
Maybe he bought Twitter for access to data to train bots to stroke his own ego.
How my architects decide who gets to use a bridge they designed?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Obviously, yes. At some point that becomes infrastructure the rest of society relies upon, not just a personal project for someone as unhinged as musk
I don't understand how it's "too far" in any way, provided that Russia has since the start of the war struck against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, including datacenters. The only way I can read this is as an example of heavily pro-Russian bias.
There's some hidden rule that Russia could do anything, Ukraine not. Remember, ca. a year ago it counted a "red line cross" that Ukraine attacks military targets in Russian territory.
Russia can attack anything anywhere, but probably NATO or EU will concern.
> heavily pro-Russian bias.
It's nothing, in Hungary, the situation was even worse, the goverment echoed Russian propaganda, and they spread it across press, Facebook ads and everywhere. For a half year, we have a new goverment and PM - Putin is very sad.
"heavily pro-Russian bias"
That's a very friendly term. I would use aiding and abetting a common enemy instead. And make no mistake: russia never stopped being an enemy of the USA, they just switched their tactics. Trump is probably the best ROI of any investment ever.
Calling things as they are earns heavy downvotes here. It does make me think not all of the bots were in those Yandex DCs.
IDGAF. Things are what they are. The current US president might as well be a russian asset if he isn't in actual fact and his from-the-heart-saluting side-kick is spending his money all over the world to help get more fascists elected. It's pretty clear.
Again, people like to say that, but the US weapons and humanitarian aid continue to flow to Ukraine.
Isn't this thread about an article that is indicating those things aren't actually flowing to Ukraine?
The Starlink service is clearly "flowing" to Ukraine
Unfortunately, they don't. Dynamics: https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmin/_processed_/1/5/csm_mi...
Not sure where this page gets its data. There's $8B between reports in Oct 2025 https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2026-02/OAR_Q1Dec2...
and Mar 2026 https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/Special_IG...
And that's just USAID
Except when they don't. The USAID presence in Ukraine has evaporated, weapons bought and paid for by the EU are sitting in the US waiting to be shipped held up by Trump.
[deleted]
Right, because Starlink is provided to Russia and denied to Ukraine.
> The timing is interesting, given that it comes days after Musk said Ukraine had gone "too far
More like Zelensky, in stating the Trump-Russia diesel deal was a 'weak decision by strong partners', has pissed-off the Orange One with his famously thin skin.
America, your president is a liability to the free world.
It is likely last weeks/months while orange man has unchecked power before new parliament turns him into a lame duck. So he is hurrying up to trade his final favors with his fascist friends all over the world.
Long range mesh on planes? Otherwise, it's pretty difficult to setup base stations in your enemies territory.
Yes, putting mesh radios on drones. As a sibling commenter said, Russia already does that: they do not really have access to starlink anymore (they still use it on drones sometimes, but there is a registration scheme in Ukraine that really curbed their use).
Both sides have used drone-mounted signal repeaters for FPV drones. FPVs use cheap radios, and signal extending drones can be reusable and carry a more expensive and jamming-resistant radio.
Since it is rarely a single drone attacking, but more often an entire swarm (to saturate air defences), having a mesh radio between drones can be useful, reduce the requirement that every drone must be equipped for long range communication, and enhance the connectivity back home.
Of course, both sides are mostly supplied by the same Chinese factories when it comes to radios, so China also gets to develop their drone warfare know-how. I assume that Ukraine also uses mesh radios, but probably to a lower extent than Russia does, as they can rely on Starlink.
To address your last point, I would also assume that it is possible to air drop signal repeaters from the swarm, especially for one-way trips, they do not need to last more than a few hours. Range will be degraded on the ground though.
Obviously, I would assume that most strike drones are fully autonomous, but having a connection back home means it is easier to adjust plans (air defense location, for instance) and provide intelligence (if target was hit, etc).
I am also wondering if the recently discovered SDR APIs in Wi-Fi chipsets will be leveraged for warfare. If I had to bet, I'd say: yes, pretty soon. These are a good fit for mesh radio, jam-resistant frequency hopping and wideband transmissions.
The drones themselves build a mesh network during an attack. Russia does this as well.
I would also guess it is not that hard to setup a base station? With Operation Spiderweb they were able to start the drones from enemy territory...
Allegedly Ukraine was using UK and their extensive network of satelites to target russia. So starlink withdrawal is not a real problem.
My recollection is Trump posted Zelensky had gone too far, mostly referring to hitting refineries and then Musk echoed he's gone to far. I don't think it's about data centers especially.
[deleted]
The temporal correlation with datacenter hits argued to take out Russian bot farms is striking...
Normally I'd say "assume ignorance before incompetence before malice" but with the current US political climate it's usually all 3 at the same time.
Trump really needs the votes and the bot farms are probably making a difference.
It could also be the refinery hits, but it really makes no difference...
Slightly disturbing that the way to determine if attacks on Russia are properly on the mark for pain is to watch US backlash.
internet comments dont vote, they need to appeal to the latent desires of actual voters
Unacceptable. How far has Musk fallen from when he was our best hope to save this planet.
From an Ironman inspiration to an actual real life villain.
The best hope we have is increased democracy and increased education for the masses. That was always the case.
He never was our best hope for anything. What a mad thing to say.
For the beggar in the street, the rich man making a dash from his limo to his bank has always been their best hope.
Would you argue he wasn't a force of good back when he started tesla and got electric vehicules on the road for the first time?
Until now his satellites had been helping out Ukrainians massively as well.
Had he not diverged into the Trump wake and AI scams (amongst other things) he would have been very much net positive for mankind.
I think he intended/intends to do good he just got gradually corrupted by success/money/power. Pinning down how and why a good person becomes bad is important lest we leave no lessons for the next generations and we keep repeating the same mistakes.
> Would you argue he wasn't a force of good back when he started tesla and got electric vehicules on the road for the first time?
Just for the record, electric vehicles were first on the road more than a century ago.
Tesla was founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning. The engineers become CEO and CFO, respectively.
Musk moved in as a Series A funding financier, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page invested in the company during its Series B round, as did many others over the early years.
Lotus Cars (British company famous for sports and race cars) provided the chassis and body design of Tesla's first vehicle, The Roadster.
> Had he not diverged into the Trump wake and AI scams (amongst other things) he would have been very much net positive for mankind.
That still leaves him screaming "pedo" when he tried to insert himself into a cave rescue, etc.
Just a rich person simping for a place where no consequences for rich exist. It's not even surprising which side those people choose.
Post got pushed back to >150 rank
Yes, there are enough MAGA idiots and russia sympathizers with flag powers on HN to do that. Cue someone dropping in to explain that this is all just organic and that there is nothing to see here.
Meanwhile, here is another article about pelicans and one on something that already existed that I rewrite in a new fashionable language.
When you think about it - wouldn't disabling the Starlink system completely remove or at the very least vastly reduce the threat posed by Iranian drones over the Strait of Hormuz? I bet its all bootstrapped with starlink internet.
The ranges involved in Hormuz drone strikes don't necessitate Starlink; their targets are with UHF LoS of mountain-top sites.
In contrast Ukraine is launching strikes of up to 3000km into Russia.
the probably that musk acted "on his own intitative" and not with orders / "suggestion" from the us gov is not 100%
I thought they used Starshield and not Starlink now? Doesn't USAF control that?
This drives home the point that depending on US companies for anything means you have to bow and pay tribute to the US regime or else they'll cut you off, even if the company itself doesn't want to. The US is currently an authoritarian regime without law.
Give France $30 billion and launch a few orbits full of LEO.
We don't need to cover the globe like SpaceX, just Ukraine and from there North-Westward into Russia.
Imagine Britain in the fucking Blitz where Roosevelt starts to buy oil from Nazi Germany and JP Morgan cuts off the Telegraph somehow.
Crazy times.
Not surprising considering Trump is Putin's agent and Musk is Trump's agent.
If Musk/Trump truly commit to pulling Starlink for Ukraine this will spell the end of their licensing in most of Europe. Adjust your SPCX positions accordingly.
Defence media can't really talk politics, so who can try to read between the lines? There must be a lot of money riding on Trump's political career for Musk to do this, as it's bad for his image and his company's image.
It’s so obvious that Putin has something on Trump. It’s either the unsubstantiated pee tape, or they have the video tapes Epstein said he had. And since Musk also (at least) wanted to party on one of the islands wildest nights, there might be even more leverage Putin is using strategically.
I don't think it has to be the kompromat (it could be zo), as well it could be a natural affinity to dictatorship and imperialism. He simply seems sees himself doing what Putin is doing and it would be annoying if those other people didn't bow down to him. The fact that it's his opponent in the grand scheme of things doesn't matter that much.
Imagine you're having beers with the boys and the discussion turns to which girls in the office they all want to bang. The guy who stands up and says "guys this isnt right" - that guy is a real stick in the mud! He might be correct but it wins him no friends at that table. The other will not sit back and commend him for his morals, actually they will get seriously pissed off. Gangsters and lowlives only want to hang with other gangsters and lowlives, someone like Zelensky must be a real boner-killer to Trump and his circle.
The SS used murder and torture as a way to bond, things you can speak about with nobody else.
When I was a kid, I was convinced wearing ties is just doing something obviously stupid and degrading to show obedience, and I'm still not sure I was wrong on that one. I get suits and shirts and other nice things, but I don't get ties. Not that I want to outright equate that with the SS or the Epstein stuff. At the very least I would have to think about it some more.
Unlikely, there’s nothing that can’t be magicked away by saying it’s AI. No one will believe any tape at this point. Certainly not his supporters.
It’s Trump’s financial interests plain and simple.
Maybe for the MAGA crowd. The rest of the world does not believe what they are told to believe. There are millions of documents and dozens of witnesses that could corroborate the videos, if only they were actually be investigated.
I think it’s simpler than that - no conspiracy theories needed.
Trump is just vey susceptible to influence, depending on who he’s speaking to and feels positive towards at a given time. Traditional Republicans (i.e. not MAGA) are typically anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine, so if some reason they have his ear, he moves away from Putin and Russia. On the other hand he seems to be very influenced by Putin directly (fear? envy? Putin being a very good manipulator?) and so swings back towards Russia every time they speak.
If Putin had kompromat, it’s unlikely that Trump would ever have done anything to inconvenience Russia (he has, on occasion) and it’s unlikely that Musk would have kept Starlink open for Ukraine’s use for so many years.
I don't think it's that obvious because another thing that's obvious is how much Trump wants to be Putin. He looks at dictators and admires them, envies them, identifies with them. They're the only people he respects, hence his willingess to humble himself and the US to gain Putin's approval. And before that, it was Kim John Un.
Elon Musk autisicly begging to be invited to the island turned out to be a meme, not real emails.
What's your source for that? A random tweet on X I bet?
> “What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Musk wrote in an email to Epstein in November 2012. In another in December 2013, he asked, “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?”
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
This probably has more to do with US government pressure; they clearly don't want refineries or energy infrastructure hit in Russia.
Then maybe they should pressure russia to back out of their senseless war.
It's really hard for people to remember this...for some reason.
What do you propose? Europeans deploy their military and attack Russia? More sanctions? If Ukraine destroys more refineries then what effect does that have on the global economy? Is it more important to destroy the refineries and cause disruptions to fuel supplies across the world or is more important to not let things get too bad?
Everyone pretends there are easy answers here and I don’t think there are, nor do I think a lack of nuance and honest discussion does anyone any good. What more pressure can the US put on Russia that it hasn’t already? Call on the phone and yell at Putin more strongly? I’m interested in hearing ideas but I’m not sure what more we can do that will “end the war”.
Well, it would not be an easy answer. Currently China is openly "it is in our interest this continues". So US & EU could coordinate to make it in Chinas interest that this does not continue (problem: rare earths, so maximum effort to fix that first).
Once China is aligned totally isolate Russia.
What do you think the EU should do? I know the US has enacted tariffs which have been met with hostility but that was an obvious first move to shore up manufacturing capability. The EU I believe is seeing a continued influx of Chinese products and vehicles and I’ve been told by Europeans that Huawei for example wasn’t a big deal and didn’t need to be removed from NATO networks.
There has been a (unfortunately recent) shift in the view towards China in the EU. So the US and EU would be natural allies when it comes to dealing with Chinas export led growth strategy. The Huawei thing was before Russia where everyone was still a bit more optimistic.
China depends on market access for its growth. So the US & EU have a pretty big lever, they'd just have to use it and not chicken out when it hurts a bit.
Complete comms blockade with Russia. Complete trade embargo with Russia. Complete embargo of sanction breaching states. Complete sea blockade in the Baltic and Mediterranean. All within technical reach and no option of proportional retaliation by Russia.
Great - when will Europe start doing that? It doesn’t even ban Russian tourists.
I am posting this from Norway. It most certainly bans Russian tourists.
Yes but not most of the EU, right? If I’m wrong please correct me as this would be new information.
I think it's banned in most of Northern Europe, with less enthusiasm in the South. However there's an effort to ban it across the bloc, which is likely to happen at some point.
https://www.rferl.org/a/eu-limits-russians-entering-bloc/338...
And anyhow, your question was what Europe can really do to end the war. I just listed some practical, low escalation options.
Sure but why only low escalation options? It’s a war. Also I’m not too sure much of those are necessarily “low” escalation. But let’s assume they are. I agree with the goals - let’s get Europe to implement as soon as possible. Do you think a “coms blackout” for example will force Russia out of Ukraine? Idk.
Also why is it taking a long time? Why is Brussels working on a “nuclear” option? Just ban them tomorrow, and seize Russian assets and property in the EU. Have all Russians return to Russia. What is Europe waiting for and why wasn’t this done on day 1 of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
A comms blackout and other forms of blockade will severely hamper Russian influence ops in the West. That would make other forms of confronting Russia politically tenable.
For my end am fine with just glassing Russia today, you don't have to convince me.
Glassing Russia? You and what army?
You do understand that a naval blockade is an overt act of war?
You're basically asking two nuclear powers to go to war. The US has been sly in its blockades, but anything like what you're suggesting is basically WW-3.
> What do you propose? Europeans deploy their military and attack Russia? More sanctions?
How about not weakening Ukrainian capabilities so they can continue to beat Russia? How about the US not buying Russian diesel/energy, which Trump himself criticized Europe doing in his September 22, 2026, UN speech.
Why did Europe continue to buy oil and gas from Russia? Maybe global energy markets are more important than Ukraine and Russia’s war is?
Which capabilities are being weakened exactly? Can you point to specific capabilities?
Why are you repeating all kinds of russian talking points that have been debunked over and over again?
I’m not repeating Russian talking points so I don’t follow the question.
I believe that you believe that you do not, but you are.
"Europeans buying oil and gas from russia" -> that is mostly one or two hold-outs that are in russias camp, pretty much like Orban/Hungary.
"Maybe global energy markets are more important than Ukraine and Russia’s war is?" -> yes, they are, but they have nothing to do with each other. Conveniently though, this is the link that Trump wants you to make and Trump is pretty much a mouthpiece for the Kremlin.
> Which capabilities are being weakened exactly? Can you point to specific capabilities?
GP never responded and I don't blame them, but taking the risk that you really do not know and are not 'just asking questions':
Ukraine needs both defensive weapons to stave off russian attacks on their citizenry and offensive weapons to make sure russias capacity to wage war is diminished. Both of these rely to a large (but ever decreasing) extent on foreign countries. Lots of that stuff comes from the United States and even though the United States has not made good on the promises it has made it now also effectively puts its thumb on the scale to favor the Kremlin, for instance by diminishing Ukraine's capability to control its drones and by withholding armaments that were promised by the United States, and paid for by the EU.
If you are even remotely interested in what is going on there this should not be news to you, if it is then you should review your sources.
The problem here is you are making two fundamentally flawed assumptions. I shall spell them out:
The first flawed assumption is that an argument, discussion, or point that disagrees with you must fundamentally be a Russian talking point. That I can tell you is just untrue.
The second flawed assumption is you are assuming that something which appears to be “pro-Russian” must also be judged solely as Donald Trump serving as a Kremlin talking point.
> Ukraine needs both defensive weapons to stave off russian attacks on their citizenry and offensive weapons to make sure russias capacity to wage war is diminished.
There is an assertion “if only Ukraine had more weapons” that would somehow “end the war” yet when asked to provide specific examples, there is a failure to do so. At best the provision of additional defensive missiles, which of course are sorely needed, simply protracts the stalemate. Ukraine does not posses the manpower (please feel free to cite specific, reputable sources if you disagree) to retake territory stolen from it by Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Even in the case of “the US is withholding admissions” is framed incorrectly. We need those munitions too. We have to make tough choices. We cannot just give or even sell to Ukraine all of our weaponry when we need it versus Iran and maybe China.
> If you are even remotely interested in what is going on there this should not be news to you, if it is then you should review your sources.
This comment applies to you, not me. You mistake, continually, a disagreement with “someone is on a different side than me” and that undermines your position, causes disagreement about the overall goal (get Russia out of Ukraine or at least bring peace and stability), and plays directly into Russia’s desire to sow division. You act like you know more than others about the war, but the United States has a lot of fish to fry, so to speak, around the world. Ukraine is just one of those fish. Iran and stopping them is in my opinion far more important. We face trade-offs and challenges. When someone mentions those and you try to then accuse them of “pro-Russian talking points” you only undermine your own position and goals.
> You act like you know more than others about the war.
I've been ten times or so in Ukraine since this war began and yes, I think I know more than others - specifically, you, not all others - about this war. I've also lived in Poland before the wall came down and have first hand experience with the russian body politic when they think they are on top. I have family in the Baltics, Poland and Romania.
You seem to have a highly theoretical understanding of how this all works and I can't fault you for that but I will be happy to educate you and I invite you to come along on my next trip to Ukraine. And we'll see how your theoretical idea of the world holds up in practice.
If you want to take me up on that offer, email in profile.
Being in the country just colors your perspective differently. If anything it clouds your judgement as someone like me who has not been (but would love to visit sometime!) can look at the situation a bit more dispassionately and with a more global perspective.
Happy to share more info any time.
My position did not change since I went there, I went there because of my position. But I did learn a lot of things that are not so easy to see from behind your keyboard and a continent (or in my case half a continent) away.
And no, my judgment isn't clouded, I know right from wrong when I see it. If you would love to visit sometime then you may have to change your position on a lot of things because if enough people believe like you seem to do then there won't be anything to visit left.
That doesn’t make any sense. I support Ukraine and Russia’s war is wrong and stupid but I also see more of the global perspective so I don’t have to overreact to bad things happening in only one part of the world. There are bad things happening in many places and America for example has to deal with many bad things or potential bad things all over the planet. The European perspective is very narrow while the American one is global.
> The first flawed assumption is that an argument, discussion, or point that disagrees with you must fundamentally be a Russian talking point. That I can tell you is just untrue.
You write just like someone whose brain has been softened by Russian propaganda. That's why you're seeing the responses you are seeing, not as a response to mere disagreement.
All the energy in the world, doesn't make any kind of Ukrainian genocide ok.
Ukraine needs to defend itself, and that is all.
Europe is buying refined fuels from India. Debunk this.
Ironically all of this is also making Ukraine stronger, more able to attack European targets.
1) If Russia ever did get control of Ukraine, they would be much closer and much more armed to attack more of Europe.
2) If Urkaine ever has a change of heart towards Europe / hostile leadership is elected, you now have an extremely capable, strong, well experienced fight force on your doorstep.
Really supporting Ukraine is the best option.
> What do you propose?
Consistency.
> Europeans deploy their military and attack Russia?
Well, given that half our gear was US bought that doesn't even look like an option at this point.
> More sanctions?
The ones in place were broken by Trump.
> If Ukraine destroys more refineries then what effect does that have on the global economy?
Ask a russian. But the rest of us will have to deal with it and whatever Ukraine does has far less effect on the world economy than what trump and putin have done and continue to do.
> Is it more important to destroy the refineries and cause disruptions to fuel supplies across the world or is more important to not let things get too bad?
Where do you get this 'across the world' thing from?
> Everyone pretends there are easy answers here and I don’t think there are, nor do I think a lack of nuance and honest discussion does anyone any good.
You mean: "I've made up my mind and even though the evidence is obvious I'm going to persist in my way of thinking". It is so transparent. All of the points you make above you could have pulled right off the russian set of talking points.
> I’m interested in hearing ideas but I’m not sure what more we can do that will “end the war”.
Give Ukraine the means to defend itself, no strings attached, no stupid games and no witholding arms already bought and paid for. Recognize that russia is the aggressor and ensure that they realize that if they stay on this path it can only go down for them.
> Well, given that half our gear was US bought that doesn't even look like an option at this point.
That doesn’t make any sense.
> The ones in place were broken by Trump.
No they aren’t.
> Ask a russian. But the rest of us will have to deal with it and whatever Ukraine does has far less effect on the world economy than what trump and putin have done and continue to do.
Russia should stop its war. It won’t until it’s forced (Europe should start using its military immediately to take down Russia). Spain and Italy should immediately deploy forces on the ground in Ukraine. What are they waiting for?
There isn’t anything to “ask a Russian” because if there was an answer to be had they wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.
> Where do you get this 'across the world' thing from?
Energy markets are global?
> You mean: "I've made up my mind
Incorrect. Unless you mean I’ve made up my mind that Europe should immediately go to war with Russia and stop the whole thing. If it is unwilling to do that we have to figure things out in a different way.
> Give Ukraine the means to defend itself, no strings attached, no stupid games and no witholding arms already bought and paid for. Recognize that russia is the aggressor and ensure that they realize that if they stay on this path it can only go down for them.
This doesn’t end the war. You haven’t been following it very closely if you think just giving some weapons to Ukraine somehow “solves the war”.
> That doesn’t make any sense.
To you. But it makes sense to me and to many other people besides: If the United States can not be trusted as an ally then that means that weapons systems bought from the United States diminish in value because their operational readiness can not be counted on.
> > The ones in place were broken by Trump.
> No they aren’t.
Well sorry, but yes, they were. To wit:
- Russia is currently under sanctions both by the EU and by the US, who signed their last sanctions package less than a month ago - Within days of signing that sanctions package Trump broke the law by agreeing to buy oil from russia.
You can't really argue with the facts here unless you are doing this wilfully.
> There isn’t anything to “ask a Russian” because if there was an answer to be had they wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.
I would not count on that. Russia is the aggressor here, not Ukraine and only Russia can stop this war. Not the USA, note Europe, definitely not Ukraine. Until you recognize that simple fact the answers to 'why' are to be found in Russia. As for the rest of the effects of recent activity on the global economy: the American/Israeli/Iranian war is a much larger factor there. It is disingenuous to blame Ukraine for what their actions against Russia do to the world economy.
> Energy markets are global?
They are, but they are local markets first and there is this thing called proportionality. You are focusing on something that has 1% or thereabouts of the impact internationally that the US made disaster in the strait of Hormuz has. If you have beef with someone about this you will find them in the Whitehouse or in some brothel in Florida.
> Unless you mean I’ve made up my mind that Europe should immediately go to war with Russia and stop the whole thing.
Oh that's your solution. Yes, sure, that will definitely end well, escalate to deescalate? Where have I heard that before?
> This doesn’t end the war. You haven’t been following it very closely if you think just giving some weapons to Ukraine somehow “solves the war”.
Well, there is a difference between 'some' and 'lots' and there is a difference between promising to do so and actually doing it. Ukraine has done extremely well so far given that in the beginning of this war most people thought they would roll over. So this is not the time to start withdrawing capabilities from them. If you believe it is then you are a useful tool in Putin's pocket.
> But it makes sense to me and to many other people besides: If the United States can not be trusted as an ally then that means that weapons systems bought from the United States diminish in value because their operational readiness can not be counted on.
Not trusting the US means either you are playing in to Putin’s hands, or it means we need to immediately leave NATO and pack up all of our military equipment deployed all over Europe because it’s impossible to have a military stationed in Europe if you don’t trust it.
> Well sorry, but yes, they were. To wit: - Russia is currently under sanctions both by the EU and by the US, who signed their last sanctions package less than a month ago - Within days of signing that sanctions package Trump broke the law by agreeing to buy oil from russia. You can't really argue with the facts here unless you are doing this wilfully.
Sure I can. You can just say as I might, that stability of global energy markets is more important than sanctioning Russian diesel fuel. Maybe by continuing to sanction this fuel we cause other wars to erupt, or something even worse. While tiny, insignificant countries in Europe are focused on Ukraine, the United States has to worry about the entire planet. Trade-offs and choices have to be made. Europe for example still allows Russian tourists.
> I would not count on that. Russia is the aggressor here, not Ukraine and only Russia can stop this war.
And Russia won’t stop the war so if Europe can’t stop the war and neither can Ukraine then there isn’t anything to do or anyone to call.
> They are
Thanks. Conversation was over here. My point was made.
> Oh that's your solution. Yes, sure, that will definitely end well, escalate to deescalate? Where have I heard that before?
So Europe isn’t willing to fight and thinks that sanctions will just magically stop Russia? It might, and I hope it does, but until then I’m not sure what else to tell you. Want to end the war? Join the military or your EU member state or volunteer to fight in Ukraine. Everything else is bullshit. You’re sounding a lot like a Russian right now.
> Well, there is a difference between 'some' and 'lots' and there is a difference between promising to do so and actually doing it. Ukraine has done extremely well so far given that in the beginning of this war most people thought they would roll over. So this is not the time to start withdrawing capabilities from them. If you believe it is then you are a useful tool in Putin's pocket.
You’re explaining things I already know. No need. Ukraine exists today still in no small part bexause of the United States and United Kingdom. A large reason why Ukraine did so well is because American and British militaries were running 24/7 airlift operations to bring weapons to Ukraine while Germany was sending helmets and Spain, France, Portugal, and others were claiming American warmongering. You’re welcome, Europe.
How about instead of accusing anyone who even vaguely disagrees with you, you take a step back and realize you yourself are playing into Putin’s hands by trying to discredit American help? Yea? Stop accusing people of being pro-Russia or whatever.
> Call on the phone and yell at Putin more strongly?
Nobody in the current administration is “yelling” at Putin, strongly or weakly. Perhaps that would be a place to start.
What do you think that would accomplish? Putin would just say thanks for your concern.
Strange question. What do you think high-pressure diplomacy on the part of the most powerful nation on Earth accomplishes?
Without a willingness to go to war probably not a whole lot else more. And we can’t go to war because whenever we do we’re bad guys unless it’s a war Europe approves of. Rhetoric has consequences.
Nothing strange about it. Maybe the EU which is many times larger than Russia and posses countries like France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland should call Putin and do whatever you’re suggesting the US should do.
[deleted]
Next move will be to help russia to restore refineries.
You have to wonder why Trump backtracked on his "I'll stop the war in 24 hours."
Trump doesn't want to look unpopular and he will give anything to avoid that, including letting innocent people die. It's as simple and as disgusting as that.
He started a war with Iran to look big and tough for his cult. That failed spectacularly and now he'll sacrifice anything and anyone to avoid the consequences of his actions.
Finnish satellite startup decacorn Iceye and Nokia are working on an alternative:
https://www.iceye.com/satcom
Europe needs to invest in viable alternatives then regulate his companies out of the picture locally.
like competitive product or go UE way - new 10000 pages long directive
Musk or not Musk it does not matter.
You cannot outsource technology that is critical to your defense.
You either develop it on your own or you operate it along your allies.
Ukraine is in no military alliance, so Musk or not, it is consistently liable to the unreliability and whims of external providers, either public or private.
Which is why I'm very negative every time I hear European countries are renting from Space X instead of investing in common space technology. The day that somebody in Washington, or Dallas, decides to turn the switch off, you're off.
I'm with you regarding the independence bit, but I draw the line at how we got here. Ukraine should get all the help we can give it to survive and stop russia from doing more damage.
The fact that they are willing to use this switch in this way is far more damning than if they had done nothing at all. The problem is that one of the so called 'allies' here is behaving in ways that make it very difficult to sustain using that term.
And military alliance or not, there is such a thing as justified defense and it used to be in the decades leading up to 2015 or so that the USA was a reliable defense partner. I realize that 10 years is a long time, but a lot of people have been very slow to realize how far the rot has worked its way in.
Weapons bought and paid for by EU money are being withheld, and that's in light of daily slaughter of Ukrainian civilians (I have no other word for what is happening there).
> Ukraine is in no military alliance
I agree with you this is the de facto situation, but they thought they were in an alliance because of the Budapest Memorandum.
1. A memorandum is not a treaty, in international law it's equivalent to a note, it's non binding.
2. No point of the Budapest Memorandum implied that the signatories had to defend Ukraine.
Paragraph 4 essentially states that signatories have seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine became the victim of aggression or a threat of aggression involving nuclear weapons.
Ukraine isn't victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons, and even if it was, the signatories merely said they would escalate the matter to UN's security council.
Another paragraph had signatories (China, France, US, Russia, UK) to refrain from using force against Ukraine. Russia has violated this point.
And you seriously believe that if Russia had stated their intention to invade Ukraine that they would have given up their nukes under this 'note'?
All this lawyering-after-the-fact ignores that if what you say is true then Ukraine got screwed over, both by Russia and by the other signatories of that 'note'.
So, the normal response of other parties to such an agreement would be to ensure that all signatories stick to the agreement. Since the only party that conceivably could break it was Russia I'm pretty sure that that was taken into account when the agreement was signed, anything else would be stupendously naive.
The end result of this is that non-proliferation is dead, and that is a net negative for the whole world.
> Ukraine got screwed over, both by Russia and by the other signatories of that 'note'
Ukraine had no alternative.
We have various analyses in the National Security Archives, reports and memoirs from US diplomats involved in the matter: the US was the primary actor that pressured Ukraine in giving up their nuclear stock pile.
Ukraine could not operate it (everything from security, cryptography, controls, navigations, etc was in Moscow anyway), could not maintain it, and could not even guard their stock pile.
The biggest risk for the United States was that with the rampant corruption and sell off of soviet weaponry on the black market there were the wrong incentives for too many actors that could bring soviet nuclear weapons in the hands of bad actors.
And we pay them back by restricting their access to weaponry, fight with one arm tied behind their backs against a much larger invader (notably: signatory to that memorandum) and on top of that use them as scapegoat for the effects of conflicts caused by others.
The US restricts sales of core weaponry to everyone, allies included.
You really think they do something other than what the US gov tells them?
Musk is not a Nazi and does not decide how Starshield is used.
The person who made this decision will have been Trump.
I beg to differ. There's solid photographic evidence of him throwing a Heil Hitler salute a few years back. Plus, he's one of the white supremacists of South Africa.
Musk left South Africa at 17 years old. You cannot suggest that a child being born in a place means he was complicit in its political failings. He was never even old enough to cast a vote.
He's old enough now. And we see how he votes, we see which parties he supports.
Are you suggesting that everyone who supports the US Republican Party is a white supremacist? Really?
They're specifically talking about Musk, who supports many political movements in many countries.
In toto, he clearly veers toward the views of his grandfather re: white supremacy.
Your reading and comprehension skills might be in need of a touch up if you're actually interpreting what was said above as "everyone who supports the US Republican Party is a white supremacist". That seems like a deliberate error of "understanding".
This was what the person I replied to said:
>And we see how he votes, we see which parties he supports.
And that itself was a reply to my debunking of:
>Plus, he's one of the white supremacists of South Africa
------
So given that Musk has only ever voted in the United States, previously for the Democratic Party and now the Republican Party, how can this be interpreted any other way?
Strawman much?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]