Comments by "cloudpoint" (@cloudpoint0) on "How essential is Starlink to Ukraine's odds on the battlefield? | DW News" video.

  1. Musk selectively refused Starlink service when the service was free to Ukraine, e.g. he allowed battlefield communication and drone communication over occupied areas except Crimea. When the US and European governments agreed to pay for full service to Ukraine his moral concerns disappeared.
    4
  2.  @sof553  Sink a private US cargo ship and see how your act of war claim holds up.
    2
  3. Yes, he corrected his initial error and now allows Starlink to be used in Crimea.
    1
  4. ​ @Quan-gotta_go  Musk was all in favor of Starlink being used for warfare. He gave Ukraine access to it for free over the front lines. Except for Crimea which he mistakenly thought was part of Russia until Putin startled making the same claims about more Ukrainian oblasts. At that point he realized Crimea was no different - just more Russian stolen land. Musk must be giving access all over Russia now since we see drone hits in many truly Russian places.
    1
  5. ​ @sof553  To be clear, I expect the U.S. would treat the intentional sinking of a U.S. commercial ship as an act of war. Safe seas are one of the key military objectives of the U.S. But this extends to any intentional act that causes a major disruption of the privately-owned parts of its defense systems. Like say, disrupting American corporate-owned satellites or damaging an F-35 critical components factory owned by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or BAE Systems. Being a private company would not change the U.S. response. What’s matters is the threat level to American interests. In short, “Wouldn’t be an act of war as Starlink is a private company.” is incorrect.
    1