A senior Ukrainian official says this enabled Russian attacks and accuses him of "committing evil".

Elon Musk says he refused to give Kyiv access to his Starlink communications network over Crimea to avoid complicity in a “major act of war”.

Kyiv had sent an emergency request to activate Starlink to Sevastopol, home to a major Russian navy port, he said.

His comments came after a book alleged he had switched off Starlink to thwart a drone attack on Russian ships.

A senior Ukrainian official says this enabled Russian attacks and accused him of “committing evil”.

Russian naval vessels had since taken part in deadly attacks on civilians, he said.

“By not allowing Ukrainian drones to destroy part of the Russian military (!) fleet via Starlink interference, Elon Musk allowed this fleet to fire Kalibr missiles at Ukrainian cities,” he said.

“Why do some people so desperately want to defend war criminals and their desire to commit murder? And do they now realize that they are committing evil and encouraging evil?” he added.

The row follows the release of a biography of the billionaire by Walter Isaacson which alleges that Mr Musk switched off Ukraine’s access to Starlink because he feared that an ambush of Russia’s naval fleet in Crimea could provoke a nuclear response from the Kremlin.

Ukraine targeted Russian ships in Sevastopol with submarine drones carrying explosives but they lost connection to Starlink and “washed ashore harmlessly”, Mr Isaacson wrote.

Starlink terminals connect to SpaceX satellites in orbit and have been crucial for maintaining internet connectivity and communication in Ukraine as the conflict has disrupted the country infrastructure.

    • @NotMyOldRedditNameEnglish
      -8•1 year ago

      No?

      The attack failed because there was no internet there and he didn’t turn it on.

      • @Jimbob0i0English
        8•1 year ago

        So your implication here is that a major military counter strike was predicated on the network being extended just as the drones were headed to their targets?

        That the strike plan was put into action, and then a request was made to extend the network whilst they were already moving and as they were approaching a point of losing contact?

        Does that really make sense to you?

        • @NotMyOldRedditNameEnglish
          2•1 year ago

          From the biographer matching what Musk said and you’ve all been downvoting me for.

          https://twitter.com/WalterIsaacson/status/1700342242290901361?s=20

          To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a major war.

        • @NotMyOldRedditNameEnglish
          -5•1 year ago

          No

          But Ukraine not knowing it wasn’t enabled in contested zones and then doing the attack and realizing it wasn’t going to work does.

          To them, that would look like it was turned off when contact was lost. They put in an emergency order and he says he won’t turn it on.

        • @NotMyOldRedditNameEnglish
          -7•1 year ago

          Further to my other reply

          There’s already past proof that Ukraine didn’t know that starlink would be off at the front lines.

          So to say there’s no way they wouldn’t know is provably false

          What very likely happened is an asset told them the ships were docked, they sent them, and shit went sideways.

          Edit: unless Ukraine comes back and says they successfully sent a recon drone first all the way successfully there’s no reason to believe they’d previously tested it so far, so early. A land asset makes more sense