The US war in the Ukraine is a war of aggression against Russia.
The war in itself, in theory, is a border dispute in the former USSR. When empires collapse, you have these sorts of disputes. It’s not really a big deal. The people in the east of the Ukraine are ethnically Russian and want to be a part of Russia. The Ukraine might want to keep controlling that land, to get taxes and whatever natural resources are there. But it’s not a big deal.
After provoking this war by encouraging the abuse of ethnic Russians in the east of the country – which included constant military operations, wherein 15,000 people died between 2014 and 2022 – the US then claimed that this was some kind of existential crisis for the entire Western order, and said that the only solution was to send every last Ukrainian to die in the name of US influence in Eastern Europe.
I know people get very confused, because Russia is the one that invaded, but the US provoked this invasion on purpose because they wanted to wage this war against Russia.
No one can say that this is not an elective war. Zelensky publicly announced just weeks after the invasion that he was going to meet Russia’s demands. Then Boris Johnson flew in and told him he was not allowed to do that. The war could have ended then, and there would not be a totally destroyed Ukraine, there would not be hundreds of thousands of dead Ukraine soldiers, there would not be tens of millions of refugees.
What would the Ukraine have lost, exactly?
Tax revenue in two small, poor provinces?
The decision to keep fighting this losing battle was completely insane from a Ukrainian perspective. It only makes sense from an American perspective, where the goal is to try to hurt Russia.
It is a war of aggression, which is totally unnecessary, and anyone who supports it is supporting a mass slaughter of Ukrainians and the total destruction of that country.
Elon Musk was totally right to refuse to be a part of this.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk spoke to Russia’s ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov, before making the decision to switch off his Starlink satellite internet service in Crimea last September to thwart a Ukrainian attack on the peninsula, the Washington Post has reported.
On Thursday, the paper published more details about Musk cutting Starlink coverage to prevent a Ukrainian seaborne drone strike on the Russian Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol. The events that occurred have been described in a biography of the tech billionaire by historian Walter Isaacson that is due to hit shelves next week.
With Kiev’s forces poised to launch their attack, Musk spoke with Antonov, who told him that a strike on Crimea, which became part of Russia after a referendum in 2014, “could lead to a nuclear response” by Moscow, Isaacson said in his book.
“In later conversations with a few other people, he [Musk] seemed to imply that he had spoken directly to [Russian] President Vladimir Putin, but to me he said his communications had gone through the ambassador,” the historian wrote.
According to Isaacson, Musk concluded that “allowing the use of Starlink for the attack… could be a disaster for the world.” He therefore took matters into his own hands and secretly instructed engineers to turn off coverage within 100km of the Crimean coast. As a result of the move, the six explosive-laden Ukrainian drones, which relied on Starlink for navigation, “lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly.”
Musk started receiving “frantic” calls from Kiev as soon as the Ukrainians realized that the satellite service wasn’t working. They tried to explain to the billionaire that the drones were “crucial to their fight for freedom,” but Musk still refused to switch Starlink back on. He argued that Ukraine was “going too far and inviting strategic defeat” by targeting Crimea, Isaacson wrote.
The historian also claimed that Musk had discussed the situation with US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, explaining to them that he didn’t intend for Starlink to be used for offensive purposes.
Musk provided a slightly different account of events in a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter), saying that Starlink was never active around Crimea and that he simply turned down Ukrainian calls to provide coverage in the area. “If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation,” he argued.
This is obviously true.
Elon Musk and his own private company are under no obligation to be complicit in this war of aggression.
On a professional level, this makes him look insane.
On a personal level, no one wants “helped the US try to destroy Russia and started a nuclear war” in their legacy.
Elon is getting attacked from every angle right now, and this attack is particularly vile.
How entitled are these Ukrainians? How much do they feel they deserve from the American people?
Well, Vladimir Zelensky actually answered that when he said “nothing is enough.”
The US government/media is still continuing to refuse to explain what is going on with this war, and has instead continued to spew the lowest level emotional tripe at the people – while demanding that any criticism of the war be banned from the internet.
Glenn Greenwald recently did a good review of the situation on his Rumble show. It’s worth a watch.