Ukraine

[Glenstache]

I'm surprised that all this military satellite traffic isn't encrypted better. Why should Musk be able to see the Ukrainian information transiting the satellites in the first place?

If I was a corporate or government user, I would want assurances that my traffic was not readable by anyone anywhere along the network.

I don't think he is. The issue is that he geofenced the terminals from functioning past a certain point on the map. A satellite service provider knows when traffic is going across their network, but not what the data actually contains unless it was unencrypted.

This is correct. Starlink is geographically throttled based on where they can operate within the laws/governing structure of the nation they are over. This is a baseline structural feature of the program. That said, the implementation adverse to Ukraine in this way is suspect.

[Michael in ABQ]

Musk needs to move to Russia if he likes it so much

So he provides a global satellite communications system for free to Ukraine at the beginning of the war which is critical in allowing them to continue fighting.

Then he eventually asks that they pay for this service (or let the Pentagon pay on their behalf) since he is running a business, not a charity.

He defends the network from Russian cyber attacks/electronic warfare so Ukraine can continue using it.

He also asks Ukraine to not directly integrate this service into weapons systems to prevent further escalation.

So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?

[Sibley]

Musk needs to move to Russia if he likes it so much

So he provides a global satellite communications system for free to Ukraine at the beginning of the war which is critical in allowing them to continue fighting.

Then he eventually asks that they pay for this service (or let the Pentagon pay on their behalf) since he is running a business, not a charity.

He defends the network from Russian cyber attacks/electronic warfare so Ukraine can continue using it.

He also asks Ukraine to not directly integrate this service into weapons systems to prevent further escalation.

So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?

The part where he spoke to Putin directly? Which is being reported.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spoke-vladimir-putin-before-ukraine-peace-plan-report-2022-10
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told-pentagon-staff-he-spoke-to-putin-before-starlink-call#xj4y7vzkg  - its paywalled unfortunately.

There's also the fact that he should have thought about it before he gave the Ukrainians access. If he didn't want to be involved, that's fine, but that means you stay out of it to start with. Yes, I'm well aware that he did it as a publicity stunt to help grow the business. Just because he's an idiot doesn't mean that there's no consequences in yanking access because its convenient.

From my limited googling, he wasn't under the same type of contract at least last fall as he is now. That might help him. What's not going to help him is the military deciding that it's critical technology and taking steps to ensure continued availability. I'm sure they can lock him into some airtight contracts. And I can not imagine that someone in charge isn't aware of his character.

[LennStar]

Just mention that right from the start Starlink was geofenched to not work on Russian (occupied) territory - one to prevent Russians using it (in occupied territory), second to not "help an attack on Russia."
Defense yes, attack no. Not different from the many states not delivering long range attack missiles or demanding from Ukraine to not go on Russian soil.

This is not new.

[Travis]

So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?

Sibley's article sums it up, but depending on the source he either talked to Putin or the Russian Ambassador, and then started Tweeting the Kremlin's talking points almost word for word denouncing Ukraine's claims to Crimea and that in the name of peace, Russia was entitled to everything it captured and was continuing to demand. He hasn't backed down from this position at all in the last year.




On the front, Ukraine continues to push one small field at a time south-southeast past Robotyne with possible further penetrations near Novomaiorske further east in that sector. Sources are reporting (but no visual confirmations) that Ukraine has recaptured Optyne just north of the Donetsk airport, and may have completely secured Klichivka and Adviika near Bakhmut.

Ukraine and Sweden appear to be making long term arrangements to build 1,000 CV-90 Infantry Fighting Vehicles. This is probably half of what Ukraine needs to replace their Soviet-era BMPs and will take the better part of a decade to fulfill.
https://gagadget.com/en/tanks/312301-ukraine-together-with-sweden-plans-to-produce-1000-cv90-infantry-fighting-vehicles-for-the-afu

Russia is rumored to be looking at restarting production of the T-80. Since 2000 they've only maintained a single factory for refurbishment and spare parts. They haven't cast a new hull from scratch since then. Brand new T-90 production appears to be in the low 10s per month, and its possible that they simply can't scale it any higher and need a second line of production.
https://twitter.com/militarnyi_en/status/1701158640080589083

Report coming out of the Russian technical/scientific community that they are still unable to work the bugs out of the T-14's engine meaning they can't mass produce the tank.
https://twitter.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1701210132690919431

And reports that the need for Russia to refurbish its existing fleet and keep the war going is squeezing out funds for any modernization.
https://twitter.com/thedeaddistrict/status/1700587319126863989
https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/09/08/russias-out-of-control-military-spending-en

And a French think tank ran the latest numbers on Russian tank production, tank refurbishment from storage, losses, and put together several projections for the future of their tank force. One scenario has the Russian industrial base running out of tanks to refurbish at the end of 2024 and anything after that has to be new production.
https://institutactionresilience.fr/publications.php

[markbike528CBX]

I can't help but wonder when Musk will shave his head and get a cat.

This is the post of the week as far as I'm concerned.

I had to wipe off the laptop screen after I read that.  Luckily it was just water, but still, I don't often percussively guffaw at online material like that post made me.

Been there done that.
Can’t make this stuff up
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1436415954762805254
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Satellites with “lasers” in “space” [strokes white cat]

Refers to new at the time Starlink v1.5 with inter-satellite laser links.

[bill1827]

Well it would seem that the story about Musk intervening on the part of the Russians is a false claim that appears in a new biography, with extracts published in the Washington Post.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/12/elon-musk-biographer-admits-suggestion-spacex-head-blocked-ukraine-drone-attack-was-wrong

Not a fan of Musk, but neither am I a fan of misrepresentation.

[Sibley]

Well it would seem that the story about Musk intervening on the part of the Russians is a false claim that appears in a new biography, with extracts published in the Washington Post.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/12/elon-musk-biographer-admits-suggestion-spacex-head-blocked-ukraine-drone-attack-was-wrong

Not a fan of Musk, but neither am I a fan of misrepresentation.

Regardless of the biography, the tweets are out there.

[Travis]

Ukraine just hit Sevastopol naval base with cruise missiles. Damage likely to include a Kilo class submarine and a Ropucha class transport ship. Situation still ongoing, fires burning as of these reports.  This would be the same base Elon didn't want touched.

Fuel or munitions cooking off
https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1701765467738644810

The Ropucha burning in the background
https://t.me/s/razvozhaev/3849

Geolocation of the fires puts them right on top of the two ships sitting in drydock
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1701774908403904799?s=20

[LennStar]

Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!

Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.

[Travis]

Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!

Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.

Ukraine's luck with the sea drones hasn't been very high (with or without Musk), but whatever cruise missile they've started using is racking up the high-value kills across Crimea.

[LennStar]

Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!

Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.

Ukraine's luck with the sea drones hasn't been very high (with or without Musk), but whatever cruise missile they've started using is racking up the high-value kills across Crimea.

I think you are counting too much hard hits there.
This war is a military economy attrition war, not the US storming the desert.

The drones might have only sunken one ship and damaged half a dozen or so - but they demontrated that Ukraine can effectivly attack everywhere in the Black Sea.

For the dollar price of a hand full of cruise missiles (which Ukraine didn't even have), they have not only driven warships away from the coast, preventing close range support, but more or less grounded them. For a single digit million cost, Russia lost the use of billions (of dollar) of warships.
Effectivly that might even be better than destroying them, because destroyed ships don't cost money and crew to maintain.

[zolotiyeruki]

It appears the two craft that were hit were already dry docked for repairs, i.e. not actively involved in the conflict.

It's still absolutely a win, though, because it'll mean they won't be involved in the conflict basically ever, now.  And it makes the dry docks unavailable for other ships until Russia can clear them out again.

[pecunia]

It appears the two craft that were hit were already dry docked for repairs, i.e. not actively involved in the conflict.

It's still absolutely a win, though, because it'll mean they won't be involved in the conflict basically ever, now.  And it makes the dry docks unavailable for other ships until Russia can clear them out again.

The sea drones didn't even exist a few months ago.  I've heard improvements are being made.  There may even be a largely submarine drone.  I would think the antenna would have to poke out of the water, but that would be hard to spot.

[Sibley]

So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?

I'd say this is pretty definitive, though admittedly not admissible in court.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/12/russias-vladimir-putin-praises-elon-musk-as-an-outstanding-person.html

[Travis]

Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!

Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.

Ukraine's luck with the sea drones hasn't been very high (with or without Musk), but whatever cruise missile they've started using is racking up the high-value kills across Crimea.

I think you are counting too much hard hits there.
This war is a military economy attrition war, not the US storming the desert.

The drones might have only sunken one ship and damaged half a dozen or so - but they demontrated that Ukraine can effectivly attack everywhere in the Black Sea.

For the dollar price of a hand full of cruise missiles (which Ukraine didn't even have), they have not only driven warships away from the coast, preventing close range support, but more or less grounded them. For a single digit million cost, Russia lost the use of billions (of dollar) of warships.
Effectivly that might even be better than destroying them, because destroyed ships don't cost money and crew to maintain.

Yes, I was only counting confirmed kills with that comment. That's not to discount the strategic impact the drone fleet has had on Russian operations. They don't go out into the water nearly as much. They've had to set up the Kerch bridge like it's a besieged castle. And they're probably putting a lot of hours on patrol helicopters looking for them.


So according to Ukrainian military sources, the strike was done by StormShadow cruise missiles. The Ropucha is a charred mess. The Kilo is more difficult to determine, but the drydock it is sitting in is covered in scorch marks so heat damage is likely. These drydocks may simply become permanent parking spaces for these two ships.

Possibly related to this strike, Russian forces abandoned an oil platform in the Black Sea a few days ago. Ukrainian Marines captured it and a surveillance radar intact. It's possible that capture played a role in this strike. Ukraine has also been picking off radars and SAM launchers across Crimea the last few weeks.

Edit: The green circles shown in the satellite photos are the impact craters from the missiles. Difficult to see, but I'm being told the sub took a direct hit with missile possibly going through the sub and detonating underneath it (StormShadows have two warheads).

https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1701909431846387916

https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1701997074911224343?s=46

[Michael in ABQ]

So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?

I'd say this is pretty definitive, though admittedly not admissible in court.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/12/russias-vladimir-putin-praises-elon-musk-as-an-outstanding-person.html

Putin made the comments at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia, as he spoke about Russia’s space program.

“Elon Musk ... is undoubtedly an outstanding person. It must be admitted. I think the whole world admits it. He is an active, talented businessman,” Putin said, according to a Reuters translation.

So Putin admitting that SpaceX/Elon Musk have completely revolutionized (and dominated) the global rocket/space launch industry makes Musk on Russia's side? SpaceX now handles about 80% of the global launch market - much of it taken from Russia's space program.

This is yet another sign he is clearly on Russia's side by taking away a valuable source of hard currency and decimating their rocket launch industry. /s

It's kind of hard to argue with calling him a talented businessman when he's become the richest person in the world through starting and running multiple businesses, including two simultaneously that dominate their industries (SpaceX and Tesla).

[PeteD01]

Musk has de facto recognized Crimea not being part of Ukraine.

The praise Putin is heaping on Musk is actually a threat to Musk not to change his stance on this.

Putin is a skilled operator when it comes to keeping oligarchs in line and there is no reason to think that he looks at Musk any differently than as being just another oligarch.

In Putin's world oligarchs exist as long as they are useful to him and make efforts to stay in his good graces.

Putin's statements about Musk and Trump, at this point, do not mean more than that they continue to enjoy his goodwill and also that his opinion about them matters.

Given the low opinions the majority of westerners have of Putin, his praise is not necessarily good for the praised as it really represents an assertion that they are in Russia's sphere of influence and that Putin's opinion still matters.

Of course, Putin knows that characters like Musk and Trump respond to flattery - so there is that.
But there are also windows and polonium tea ...

Of course, reminding his assets in such a public manner of the loyalty owed to Putin can be interpreted as a sign of weakness.

[Travis]

So which part of that makes him on Russia's side?

These parts:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577083012914651142?

Musk seems to think that Ukraine actually fighting back to retake its own sovereign territory is "escalation."

His ideas about a "peace plan" were very close to the Russian Foreign Ministry's demands which both him and FM called on Ukraine to stop fighting, stay out of NATO, Crimea is and has always been Russia, and that the occupied territories would have votes on which country to join.  Calls for ceasefires and referendums imply that a) Russia gets to keep what it has captured and b) assumes that Russia's word is worth the paper its printed on and c) votes conducted in militarily occupied territory could ever be legitimate. Russia already held votes with the ballots handed out by armed soldiers in territories with fractions of their pre-war populations and declared them all now Russia anyways.

Russia's negotiating position since the war started has been "just give us everything we want and we swear we won't attack you [again]." Musk's Tweets from that time went right down that checklist and he's never suggested that Russia should have to give up anything for this proposed peace.

That's why he appears pro-Russian.

[Michael in ABQ]

All-In Summit: Elon Musk on Ukraine, X, the creator economy, China, AI, & more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKqJ5-kkUGk

Elon Musk told the panel on the 'All-In' Podcast Summit yesterday.....

This point underlined the broader geopolitical considerations he takes into account in his business ventures, which brings us back to Starlink and the recent controversy over Ukraine demanding him enable the satellite web service for an attack on Crimea.

Musk made it clear that Walter Isaacson - his biographer - had misunderstood the situation and that the initial decision to not allow access to Starlink around the Crimean border was due to sanctions from the Biden administration.

"Starlink have provided connectivity to Ukraine since the beginning of the war and as the Ukrainian government has said, Starlink was instrumental in the defense of Ukraine - although the media forgets to mention that."

Musk explains that "at the time [the attack] happened, the region around Crimea was turned off... and the reason it was turned off was because the United States has sanctions against Russia, which includes Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on connectivity to a sanctioned country without explicit permission - which we did not have from the US government."

The bolded quote was about 7:30 in the video above. A convenient fact that all of the reporting on this subject chooses to leave out. I'm not an attorney versed in international law so I'm not sure exactly which sanction (there are numerous dating back to 2014) would cover the US not allowing Starlink service within Russian territory (and specifically within Crimea) but I'm sure SpaceX has a team of lawyers that have looked at this.

[PeteD01]

...

Musk explains that "at the time [the attack] happened, the region around Crimea was turned off... and the reason it was turned off was because the United States has sanctions against Russia, which includes Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on connectivity to a sanctioned country without explicit permission - which we did not have from the US government."

That's nonsense. Crimea is not Russia.
The argument would only be valid if Crimea actually was recognized as Russian territory.
The issue is that Musk recognizes Crimea as Russian territory because he is cowering before Putin.
Crimea is Ukraine and there is no lawyering that could possibly get around that reality.

[GuitarStv]

...

Musk explains that "at the time [the attack] happened, the region around Crimea was turned off... and the reason it was turned off was because the United States has sanctions against Russia, which includes Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on connectivity to a sanctioned country without explicit permission - which we did not have from the US government."

That's nonsense. Crimea is not Russia.
The argument would only be valid if Crimea actually was recognized as Russian territory.
The issue is that Musk recognizes Crimea as Russian territory because he is cowering before Putin.
Crimea is Ukraine and there is no lawyering that could possibly get around that reality.

Agreed.

100 countries in the UN (including the US . . . where Musk lives) voted not to recognize Crimea as Russian territory, leading to a resolution calling upon states not to recognize changes in status of Crimean region after Russia invaded and occupied the territory.

https://press.un.org/en/2014/ga11493.doc.htm

[Telecaster]

The bolded quote was about 7:30 in the video above. A convenient fact that all of the reporting on this subject chooses to leave out. I'm not an attorney versed in international law so I'm not sure exactly which sanction (there are numerous dating back to 2014) would cover the US not allowing Starlink service within Russian territory (and specifically within Crimea) but I'm sure SpaceX has a team of lawyers that have looked at this.

I'm calling 100% BS.  Crimea is not recognized by the USA as part of Russia. 

I get tired of the Elon show spouting BS all the time.  From full self driving, to COVID, to Mars, he's constantly spouting BS and he is constantly wrong.  He is one of those people who should be assumed to be FOS unless proven otherwise. 

[Just Joe]

Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!

Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.

Is that a nuclear powered sub?

[Travis]

Ui, looks like the fire made the sub explode from inside out. That's one for the scrapyard!

Hitting those with sea drones would have been a lot cheaper though.

Is that a nuclear powered sub?

All the boats in the Black Sea are diesels.

[lemanfan]

At least in the EU, there were post 2014 but before 2022 some restrictions that applied specifically to disallow business which included or affected Crimea (and possibly the occupied eastern parts of Ukraine, I don't remember).  Don't quote me on details, as my work at that time did not include anything getting even close to providing communication services or anything else war related, but we had some historical sales to Russian companies made pre-2014 so I read up on parts of the restrictions.

That didn't mean that Crimea was recognized by the EU nations as part of Russia, but there was still legal hurdles regarding that land mass.  Bigger hurdles in fact than just doing business with say a company fully located in S:t Petersburg or Moscow.

I wouldn't be surprised if some legal text from the US also would put this at least in a grey area.  Laws often have unintended consequences.

[Michael in ABQ]

The bolded quote was about 7:30 in the video above. A convenient fact that all of the reporting on this subject chooses to leave out. I'm not an attorney versed in international law so I'm not sure exactly which sanction (there are numerous dating back to 2014) would cover the US not allowing Starlink service within Russian territory (and specifically within Crimea) but I'm sure SpaceX has a team of lawyers that have looked at this.

I'm calling 100% BS.  Crimea is not recognized by the USA as part of Russia. 

I get tired of the Elon show spouting BS all the time.  From full self driving, to COVID, to Mars, he's constantly spouting BS and he is constantly wrong.  He is one of those people who should be assumed to be FOS unless proven otherwise.

Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.


There are literally thousands of pages of sanctions between Executive Orders, the Department of State, and the Department of Treasury (probably some UN or EU sanctions as well). However, below are some key documents that seem to support Musk's claim that it would violate the current sanctions regime to provide satellite communication services to the Crimea region of Ukraine that is currently occupied by Russia. Most of the sanctions documents explicitly reference Donetsk and Luhansk (specifically the occupied portions that declared themselves the DNR and LNR) but also refer to other regions of Ukraine which are collectively the "Covered Regions" as determined by the Secretary of Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of State.

https://www.state.gov/ukraine-and-russia-sanctions/
https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/ukraine-russia-related-sanctions

https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/8976/download?inline

OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Executive Order 13685 of December 19, 2014
Blocking Property of Certain Persons and
Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine
GENERAL LICENSE NO. 9
Exportation of Certain Services and Software
Incident to Internet-Based Communications Authorized

(d) This general license does not authorize....

(3) The exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, of commercial-grade Internet
connectivity services or telecommunications transmission facilities (such as dedicated satellite
links or dedicated lines that include quality of service guarantees);

https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/918691/download?inline

OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Executive Order of February 21, 2022 [EO 14065]
Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect
to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of
Ukraine
GENERAL LICENSE NO. 19
Authorizing Transactions Related to Telecommunications and Mail

(2) This general license does not authorize:
(i) The provision, sale, or lease of telecommunications equipment or technology; or
(ii) The provision, sale, or lease of capacity on telecommunications transmission facilities
(such as satellite or terrestrial network activity).

I couldn't find any map or specific list of what those "covered regions" are currently. It's reasonable to assume Crimea and other occupied parts of Ukraine are included since the original Executive Orders the began the sanctions regime were written in 2014 when the DNR and LNR were the only occupied areas. This FAQ from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (US Treasury) dated March 2, 2022 explicitly includes Crimea.

https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/501

This general license does not authorize U.S. persons to engage in transactions with the Federal Security Service, except for the limited purposes described above, nor does it authorize the exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic” or “Luhansk People’s Republic” (DNR/LNR) regions of Ukraine, or such other regions of Ukraine as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, pursuant to Executive Order 14065, or to the Crimea region of Ukraine.

Executive Order 14065
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/02/21/executive-order-on-blocking-property-of-certain-persons-and-prohibiting-certain-transactions-with-respect-to-continued-russian-efforts-to-undermine-the-sovereignty-and-territorial-integrity-of-ukraine/

@PeteD01 @GuitarStv @Telecaster I think this lays it out pretty conclusively.

[PeteD01]

All the sanctions are against Russian concerns and interests in the occupied areas including Crimea and are put in place specifically to thwart Russia´s attempts to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty.

Ukrainian interests and concerns in the occupied areas are not mentioned anywhere that I can see.

Obviously, Starlink could not provide telecom services to Russian entities without running afoul of sanctions.

Interpreting the sanctions as applying to Ukraine as well seems nonsensical as there is no way Ukraine can undermine its own sovereignty while conducting military operations on its own, albeit temporarily occupied, territory.

Again, the sanctions are against Russia, not Ukraine.

[TomTX]

So what are the penalties for accepting a military support pentagon contract and then unilaterally making decisions that go against the interests of the pentagon?

You seem to have the timeline backwards.

We're rehashing something that happened a year ago. There was no Pentagon/DoD contract for Starlink in Ukraine.

Now that there is a Pentagon contract, we are not privy to the details.

Hopefully it has a mechanism to allow Starlink usage bu Ukraine in Russian-controlled territory, and integrated into weapons. But we would just be guessing.

[Telecaster]

Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.

Fair enough.  But I find it completely implausible that the US government would have punished Starlink for supporting a military operation that was supported by the US government.  It wasn't like Starlink was selling subscriptions in Crimea.


And let's apply the boy who cried wolf factor here.  Musk has a long history of tall tales.  Why is this the time he decided to tell the truth?

[jinga nation]

Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.

Fair enough.  But I find it completely implausible that the US government would have punished Starlink for supporting a military operation that was supported by the US government.  It wasn't like Starlink was selling subscriptions in Crimea.


And let's apply the boy who cried wolf factor here.  Musk has a long history of tall tales.  Why is this the time he decided to tell the truth?

He's been told something by USG that could bite his ass later once Starlink isn't required. So he's getting ahead and slowly telling facts in order to control narrative. Game of optics.

[PeteD01]

Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.

Fair enough.  But I find it completely implausible that the US government would have punished Starlink for supporting a military operation that was supported by the US government.  It wasn't like Starlink was selling subscriptions in Crimea.


And let's apply the boy who cried wolf factor here.  Musk has a long history of tall tales.  Why is this the time he decided to tell the truth?

He's been told something by USG that could bite his ass later once Starlink isn't required. So he's getting ahead and slowly telling facts in order to control narrative. Game of optics.

First of all, it is not Crimea that is being sanctioned but all activities and persons connected to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine - big difference:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/02/21/executive-order-on-blocking-property-of-certain-persons-and-prohibiting-certain-transactions-with-respect-to-continued-russian-efforts-to-undermine-the-sovereignty-and-territorial-integrity-of-ukraine/

Funny thing is that the withholding/turning off of critical Starlink services over part of Ukrainian territory (Crimea) during a Ukrainian military operation against Russia is precisely the kind of behavior that the sanctions are covering, because the failure of providing the service constitutes de facto recognition of Russian territorial claims, thus undermining sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Musk is trying to turn this on its head in the clumsiest way possible - he apparently thinks everybody is even more befuddled than he is.

[Sibley]

I'm going to point out the elephant in the room here.

Michael - You're a Musk fanboy/girl, and probably also a Russian fanboy/girl. Admit it. And if you want to dispute that, then you need to take a BIG step back and re-evaluate your thinking and positions. Otherwise, please stop hiding behind rationalization and just be honest.

There is a difference between Russia the country and Russians the people, so don't make that mistake. But Russia the country is NOT an ally of the US. And Elon Musk is also a fanboy of Putin/Russia.

[jinga nation]

And Elon Musk is also a fanboy of Putin/Russia.

I don't think fanboy of Putin, Musk is. I think there's kompromat. That is Putin's modus operandi.

[Michael in ABQ]

Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.

Fair enough.  But I find it completely implausible that the US government would have punished Starlink for supporting a military operation that was supported by the US government.  It wasn't like Starlink was selling subscriptions in Crimea.


And let's apply the boy who cried wolf factor here.  Musk has a long history of tall tales.  Why is this the time he decided to tell the truth?

He's been told something by USG that could bite his ass later once Starlink isn't required. So he's getting ahead and slowly telling facts in order to control narrative. Game of optics.

First of all, it is not Crimea that is being sanctioned but all activities and persons connected to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine - big difference:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/02/21/executive-order-on-blocking-property-of-certain-persons-and-prohibiting-certain-transactions-with-respect-to-continued-russian-efforts-to-undermine-the-sovereignty-and-territorial-integrity-of-ukraine/

Funny thing is that the withholding/turning off of critical Starlink services over part of Ukrainian territory (Crimea) during a Ukrainian military operation against Russia is precisely the kind of behavior that the sanctions are covering, because the failure of providing the service constitutes de facto recognition of Russian territorial claims, thus undermining sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Musk is trying to turn this on its head in the clumsiest way possible - he apparently thinks everybody is even more befuddled than he is.

The stated intention of the sanctions may be to stop "Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine" but when you get into the technical details it is not that simple - and rarely is with sweeping legislation, Executive Orders, and federal regulations by multiple departments/agencies. It's not like the federal government is known for excelling at taking a whole of government approach across different agencies and here you have at a minimum DoD, Treasury, State, and the White House.

I provided explicit examples directly from the sanction documents supporting the position the providing satellite internet services to Russian occupied territory (to include Crimea) would violate those sanctions. I'll leave it at that.

[Michael in ABQ]

I'm going to point out the elephant in the room here.

Michael - You're a Musk fanboy/girl, and probably also a Russian fanboy/girl. Admit it. And if you want to dispute that, then you need to take a BIG step back and re-evaluate your thinking and positions. Otherwise, please stop hiding behind rationalization and just be honest.

There is a difference between Russia the country and Russians the people, so don't make that mistake. But Russia the country is NOT an ally of the US. And Elon Musk is also a fanboy of Putin/Russia.

I'm definitely a fan of Elon Musk and have been for many years since he started SpaceX and revolutionized the industry. I would love to see us go back to the moon and land on Mars and at this rate, SpaceX will almost certainly do that before NASA gets around to it (and at a fraction of the cost). I also appreciate that the reason he bought Twitter was basically because they shut down the account for the Babylon Bee, a conservative satire site that I enjoy.

That being said, I've been serving in the US Army my entire adult life (over 20 years at this point) so I'm not a Russian fanboy. I fully support providing materiel to Ukraine so that they can fight Russia instead of using US troops to do that fighting directly. This is a core US military strategy going back to at least WW1 to have our allies provide the majority of the manpower to fight wars in Eurasia since the US can never deploy enough troops to fight a protracted land war in Eurasia where the bulk of the world's population lives. Our comparative advantage is not manpower, it's intelligence, logistics, and having a deep industrial base to product munitions/equipment - all the things we're using to support Ukraine and fight Russia.


I think there's a lot of hate for Elon Musk from the left because he bought Twitter and revealed how deeply it was in bed with the federal government/Democratic party when it came to suppressing information they didn't like.

It's quite the logical leap to say that he is a Russian asset/fanboy/spy because he provided a key tool to help Ukraine fight back the initial Russian invasion - and also destroyed their market for satellite launches which used to provided hundreds of millions of dollars a year in hard currency and provided Russia with global prestige and soft power. It was Elon Musk and SpaceX that started launching US astronauts back into space so we didn't have to pay $80 million a seat to get access to the ISS. With friends like those, Russia doesn't need anymore enemies.

[LennStar]

I'm definitely a fan of Elon Musk and have been for many years since he started SpaceX and revolutionized the industry.

Fake News!
The only revolution he did was to throw out security protocolls. Others private companies started before him, and - for example - China and India have way bigger programs.

I think there's a lot of hate for Elon Musk from the left because he bought Twitter and revealed how deeply it was in bed with the federal government/Democratic party when it came to suppressing information they didn't like.

Fake News.
Also "the left" does not hate him for revealing anything, but for being the biggest arsehole in this solar system after the Olympus Mons.
That he only talked about his clearly impossible "Hyperloop" to prevent ecology friendly and very much needed High Speed Rail service in the Bay area is only one of the examples for that.

[Vashy]

I think there's a lot of hate for Elon Musk from the left because he bought Twitter and revealed how deeply it was in bed with the federal government/Democratic party when it came to suppressing information they didn't like.

Just to weigh in on this - through European eyes, I'm a social democrat, so through US Conservative eyes, I'm a Molotov cocktail away from being a lefty wokerati. That said, me and those among my friends who I'd define as "lefties" hate him for union busting, worker exploitation, institutional racism, habitual lying, general amoral business practices (I mean, sure, it's a feature of unfettered capitalism, but he also flaunts regulator/SEC rules) and platforming and boosting of hard-right/neo-Nazi conspiracy theories. There's also his pumping and dumping of crypto currencies, even though he's smart enough to know they are not actually currencies/assets, and transphobia (his own trans* kid has disowned him). I think it's the combination of all of those factors that make us despise him. The Starlink stuff has thrown into stark relief that he also has the power to significantly weaken the USA's position when it comes to technology/foreign policy, and we see how long they let him get away with that. I have my popcorn in the microwave. 

[Vashy]

I'm definitely a fan of Elon Musk and have been for many years since he started SpaceX and revolutionized the industry.

Fake News!
The only revolution he did was to throw out security protocolls. Others private companies started before him, and - for example - China and India have way bigger programs.

I think there's a lot of hate for Elon Musk from the left because he bought Twitter and revealed how deeply it was in bed with the federal government/Democratic party when it came to suppressing information they didn't like.

Fake News.
Also "the left" does not hate him for revealing anything, but for being the biggest arsehole in this solar system after the Olympus Mons.
That he only talked about his clearly impossible "Hyperloop" to prevent ecology friendly and very much needed High Speed Rail service in the Bay area is only one of the examples for that.

Yep, India just did a successful moon mission, so it's not like NASA/SpaceTxitter is the only game in town. That hyperloop/The Boring Company nonsense is widely laughed at. So wow, Elon Musk invented tunnels - except less safe and with far lower capacity. Well done, what a genius.

[GuitarStv]

The bolded quote was about 7:30 in the video above. A convenient fact that all of the reporting on this subject chooses to leave out. I'm not an attorney versed in international law so I'm not sure exactly which sanction (there are numerous dating back to 2014) would cover the US not allowing Starlink service within Russian territory (and specifically within Crimea) but I'm sure SpaceX has a team of lawyers that have looked at this.

I'm calling 100% BS.  Crimea is not recognized by the USA as part of Russia. 

I get tired of the Elon show spouting BS all the time.  From full self driving, to COVID, to Mars, he's constantly spouting BS and he is constantly wrong.  He is one of those people who should be assumed to be FOS unless proven otherwise.

Sanctions can apply to Crimea without the US recognizing it as part of Russia.


There are literally thousands of pages of sanctions between Executive Orders, the Department of State, and the Department of Treasury (probably some UN or EU sanctions as well). However, below are some key documents that seem to support Musk's claim that it would violate the current sanctions regime to provide satellite communication services to the Crimea region of Ukraine that is currently occupied by Russia. Most of the sanctions documents explicitly reference Donetsk and Luhansk (specifically the occupied portions that declared themselves the DNR and LNR) but also refer to other regions of Ukraine which are collectively the "Covered Regions" as determined by the Secretary of Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of State.

https://www.state.gov/ukraine-and-russia-sanctions/
https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/ukraine-russia-related-sanctions

https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/8976/download?inline

OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Executive Order 13685 of December 19, 2014
Blocking Property of Certain Persons and
Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine
GENERAL LICENSE NO. 9
Exportation of Certain Services and Software
Incident to Internet-Based Communications Authorized

(d) This general license does not authorize....

(3) The exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, of commercial-grade Internet
connectivity services or telecommunications transmission facilities (such as dedicated satellite
links or dedicated lines that include quality of service guarantees);

https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/918691/download?inline

OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
Executive Order of February 21, 2022 [EO 14065]
Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect
to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of
Ukraine
GENERAL LICENSE NO. 19
Authorizing Transactions Related to Telecommunications and Mail

(2) This general license does not authorize:
(i) The provision, sale, or lease of telecommunications equipment or technology; or
(ii) The provision, sale, or lease of capacity on telecommunications transmission facilities
(such as satellite or terrestrial network activity).

After taking some time to study these documents, I think that this is on the surface a fair point but it starts to fall apart once you dig into the particulars of what has been going on.

First, based on the language used, it seems that Musk was following the law as written.  The document clearly states that it applies "to persons in the Crimea region of Ukraine".

But Musk had been providing these services with full support and approval of the US and the US military (who were instrumental and indispensable in distributing Starlink terminals to the Ukrainians)*.  It seems pretty unreasonable to assume that he would suddenly and out of the blue decide that this law was a major roadblock.  The first time that Musk indicated that there was any problem was after directly hearing from the Russian ambassador that Russia would respond with nuclear weapons if Ukraine attacked Crimea.  Again, Musk didn't cite any laws holding him back.  He explicitly said “If the Ukrainian attacks had succeeded in sinking the Russian fleet, it would have been like a mini Pearl Harbor and led to a major escalation,” and “Trying to retake Crimea will cause massive death, probably fail and risk nuclear war. This would be terrible for Ukraine and Earth.” when asked why he wouldn't enable use of Starlink in Crimea.

Then Musk cut his Starlink service to non-Crimea areas of Ukraine that were held by Russians.  This action was certainly not required by legislation.  An excerpt of the communication between Musk and Fedorov (the deputy prime minister of Ukraine) about this:

Fedorov: The exclusion of these territories is absolutely unfair. I come from Vasylivka village in Zaporizhzhia region, my parents and friends live there. Now this village is occupied by Russian troops, and there is complete lawlessness and outrage—the residents are impatiently waiting for liberation. . . . At the end of September, we noticed that Starlink does not work in the liberated villages, which makes it impossible to restore the critical infrastructure of these territories. For us it is a matter of life and death.
Musk: Once Russia is fully mobilized, they will destroy all infrastructure throughout Ukraine and push far past the current territories. NATO will have to intervene to prevent all of Ukraine falling to Russia. At that point, risk of WW3 becomes very high.

  - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/07/elon-musk-starlink-ukraine-russia-invasion/

I don't believe that Musk is a Russian operative . . . but it sounds very much like the Russians figured out what Musk was afraid of and successfully pressured him to stop supporting Ukraine by playing on those fears.  To me, this really highlights why it's important that unelected wealthy individuals should be handled through foreign affairs agency contacts - and not given free access to military secrets and free reign to make decisions over combat operations.



* As an aside, credit where credit is due - Starlink has proven to be pretty badass technology.  It is the only satellite communications system that was able to break through Russian jamming and be usable by Ukraine.  Musk is far from a perfect person . . . but in this instance his company was well ahead of any competitor.  That's why we're talking about it at all.

[LennStar]

* As an aside, credit where credit is due - Starlink has proven to be pretty badass technology.  It is the only satellite communications system that was able to break through Russian jamming and be usable by Ukraine.  Musk is far from a perfect person . . . but in this instance his company was well ahead of any competitor.  That's why we're talking about it at all.

Can I call that Fake News too?
It's not like this system was new. A German - who else ;) - wanted to build it years earlier. But he wasn't a billionaire, only a professor, and could not get others to pay for the huge upfront costs.

[Michael in ABQ]

I'm definitely a fan of Elon Musk and have been for many years since he started SpaceX and revolutionized the industry.

Fake News!
The only revolution he did was to throw out security protocolls. Others private companies started before him, and - for example - China and India have way bigger programs.

He developed the first reusable orbital rocket launch system with the Falcon 9 and cut the price of launching payloads to space by a huge amount. From roughly $7,000 per Kg to $1,000-2,000 per Kg. Once Starship is launching regularly it could drop by an order of magnitude down to $200 per Kg.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-cost-of-space-flight/

China and India launch less each year than SpaceX. They may spend more money, but that's the only measure in which you could say they're bigger programs. Also, those are government programs while SpaceX is mostly private launches with some contracted to the government through NASA or the Department of Defense.
https://payloadspace.com/2022-orbital-launches/

[GuitarStv]

* As an aside, credit where credit is due - Starlink has proven to be pretty badass technology.  It is the only satellite communications system that was able to break through Russian jamming and be usable by Ukraine.  Musk is far from a perfect person . . . but in this instance his company was well ahead of any competitor.  That's why we're talking about it at all.

Can I call that Fake News too?
It's not like this system was new. A German - who else ;) - wanted to build it years earlier. But he wasn't a billionaire, only a professor, and could not get others to pay for the huge upfront costs.

Nothing I wrote is fake.  Don't get me wrong - Musk isn't a super genius and has certainly been involved in terrible ideas and failures during his life.  But there's a sizable difference between developing a concept and making it reality - in this instance Musk's company was well ahead of any other competitor.

[Samuel]

I don't believe that Musk is a Russian operative . . . but it sounds very much like the Russians figured out what Musk was afraid of and successfully pressured him to stop supporting Ukraine by playing on those fears.  To me, this really highlights why it's important that unelected wealthy individuals should be handled through foreign affairs agency contacts - and not given free access to military secrets and free reign to make decisions over combat operations.

They clearly got him to err on the side of caution in the gray areas and work to eventually shift these kinds of decisions out of SpaceX's hands and into the US governments. Which I agree is how it should be.

I recall many "should we give Ukraine a specific advanced weapons system or will that antagonize Russia too much" debates in Congress since this war started. It's not exactly reassuring that the pace of technological change (and the slow pace of administrative responses) can lead a company and it's CEO to face similar decisions instead of the government, but here we are.

* As an aside, credit where credit is due - Starlink has proven to be pretty badass technology.  It is the only satellite communications system that was able to break through Russian jamming and be usable by Ukraine.  Musk is far from a perfect person . . . but in this instance his company was well ahead of any competitor.  That's why we're talking about it at all.

In fairness, we're also talking about it because SpaceX has contributed around $100,000,000 of their own resources to the survival of Ukrainians, with the first free terminals deployed just 2 days after the invasion started. The tech is badass but so was the willingness to rush it into the hands of the people who needed it.

[GuitarStv]

In fairness, we're also talking about it because SpaceX has contributed around $100,000,000 of their own resources to the survival of Ukrainians, with the first free terminals deployed just 2 days after the invasion started. The tech is badass but so was the willingness to rush it into the hands of the people who needed it.

Yep.  And a lot of Ukraine's success can be directly traced to their ability to communicate in the field.  That donation has really helped out.  Musk can be both a giant asshole, and a great humanitarian.  Like Shaft, he's a complicated man.

[partgypsy]

All-In Summit: Elon Musk on Ukraine, X, the creator economy, China, AI, & more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKqJ5-kkUGk

Elon Musk told the panel on the 'All-In' Podcast Summit yesterday.....

This point underlined the broader geopolitical considerations he takes into account in his business ventures, which brings us back to Starlink and the recent controversy over Ukraine demanding him enable the satellite web service for an attack on Crimea.

Musk made it clear that Walter Isaacson - his biographer - had misunderstood the situation and that the initial decision to not allow access to Starlink around the Crimean border was due to sanctions from the Biden administration.

"Starlink have provided connectivity to Ukraine since the beginning of the war and as the Ukrainian government has said, Starlink was instrumental in the defense of Ukraine - although the media forgets to mention that."

Musk explains that "at the time [the attack] happened, the region around Crimea was turned off... and the reason it was turned off was because the United States has sanctions against Russia, which includes Crimea, and we are not allowed to turn on connectivity to a sanctioned country without explicit permission - which we did not have from the US government."

The bolded quote was about 7:30 in the video above. A convenient fact that all of the reporting on this subject chooses to leave out. I'm not an attorney versed in international law so I'm not sure exactly which sanction (there are numerous dating back to 2014) would cover the US not allowing Starlink service within Russian territory (and specifically within Crimea) but I'm sure SpaceX has a team of lawyers that have looked at this.

yes this right here. He is saying that Crimea is part of Russia, not Ukraine, which is Putin/Russia's stance, since they have occupied it since 2014. All reports state that Musk unilaterally refused the ability for Ukraine to use Starlink in Crimea. He states because he is afraid of nuclear escalation. Another Putin talking point. And because of this, while the Pentagon is silent, is apparently: writing up contracts. And reassessing the idea of having it where private individuals can essentially shut down essential or critical components to US military strategy based on their whims, etc. I don't know whether he is a Putin asset (Putin is acting as if he is), or it's just a head game to him. I DO remember when he donated Starlink to Ukraine when their communications infrastructure was destroyed, and that was a great thing he did. 

Most military experts believe, that this is a war of attrition at this point. The shorter the war, the less bloodshed and loss and damage to infrastructure etc will take place. So Musk doing this, drags the war out longer, increasing the death count on both sides and reducing the ability for both countries to recover after the war. That's why in this situation, he's not a good guy. 

 And based on reports https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/elon-musks-refusal-to-provide-starlink-support-for-ukraine-attack-in-crimea-raises-questions-for-pentagon

[PeteD01]

...
And reassessing the idea of having it where private individuals can essentially shut down essential or critical components to US military strategy based on their whims, etc. I don't know whether he is a Putin asset (Putin is acting as if he is), or it's just a head game to him.
...

Musk is definitely a Russian asset.
Anyone who is afraid of or can be intimidated by Putin automatically becomes a potential asset to him/Russia.

At the most hands-off one can be an agent of influence (media figures, intellectuals, politicians etc.) and spread Russian propaganda or take Russian positions without direct contact and instruction from Russian agents. (examples: Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk)

Then there are actors that can be manipulated into acting on behalf of Russia based on monetary incentives, blackmail or threats of violence. (example: Elon Musk, the typical deep cover spy etc.)

And at the extreme end of closeness to Russia are those agents that are on the payroll often under diplomatic cover.

The categories of course overlap but Musk definitely makes it beyond the level of an agent of influence as he is using his wealth to actively create social media space for Russian interests varying from support of the war against Ukraine to political destabilization of the US.
He also has demonstrated that he is responsive to Russian threats which makes him very valuable for Russia without even being an operative on their payroll.


Donald Trump is also a valuable Russian asset - he was recruited over forty years ago:

‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy

The KGB ‘played the game as if they were immensely impressed by his personality’, Yuri Shvets, a key source for a new book, tells the Guardian
Fri 29 Jan 2021

Shvets, a KGB major, had a cover job as a correspondent in Washington for the Russian news agency Tass during the 1980s. He moved to the US permanently in 1993 and gained American citizenship. He works as a corporate security investigator and was a partner of Alexander Litvinenko, who was assassinated in London in 2006.

Unger describes how Trump first appeared on the Russians’ radar in 1977 when he married his first wife, Ivana Zelnickova, a Czech model. Trump became the target of a spying operation overseen by Czechoslovakia’s intelligence service in cooperation with the KGB.

Three years later Trump opened his first big property development, the Grand Hyatt New York hotel near Grand Central station. Trump bought 200 television sets for the hotel from Semyon Kislin, a Soviet émigré who co-owned Joy-Lud electronics on Fifth Avenue.

According to Shvets, Joy-Lud was controlled by the KGB and Kislin worked as a so-called “spotter agent” who identified Trump, a young businessman on the rise, as a potential asset. Kislin denies that he had a relationship with the KGB.

Then, in 1987, Trump and Ivana visited Moscow and St Petersburg for the first time. Shvets said he was fed KGB talking points and flattered by KGB operatives who floated the idea that he should go into politics.

The ex-major recalled: “For the KGB, it was a charm offensive. They had collected a lot of information on his personality so they knew who he was personally. The feeling was that he was extremely vulnerable intellectually, and psychologically, and he was prone to flattery.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia-asset-claims-former-kgb-spy-new-book

[partgypsy]

For me I knew Trump was an asset when he had a Russian actors p at his own inauguration! Not just the public events, but the private, only people close to him, parties. I believe they paid for some of the inauguration expenses as well. https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/special-counsel-eyeing-russians-granted-unusual-access-trump/story%3fid=56232847

[Dancin'Dog]

It seems like a lot of fighting activity and also political activity for Ukraine lately.  I'm surprised that this thread has been so slow. 


From what I've seen online Ukraine has hit Russia hard with massive drone and missile attacks.  Biden has approved fancier high-range missiles.  Congress seems a little wishy-washy about funding, but maybe that will give Putin false hope while encouraging Ukraine to hit them even harder.  I can't imagine the GOP really defunding something that the Military Industrial Complex wants. 

[Travis]

It seems like a lot of fighting activity and also political activity for Ukraine lately.  I'm surprised that this thread has been so slow. 


From what I've seen online Ukraine has hit Russia hard with massive drone and missile attacks.  Biden has approved fancier high-range missiles.  Congress seems a little wishy-washy about funding, but maybe that will give Putin false hope while encouraging Ukraine to hit them even harder.  I can't imagine the GOP really defunding something that the Military Industrial Complex wants.

I hadn't posted anything yet about the latest missile strike in Crimea because there's a lot of rumors going around about several of the casualties being senior Russian officers.

Essentially, Ukraine topped off a week of strategic strikes on Russian radars and air defense systems across Crimea and the destruction of two ships in port with 2-3 direct hits on the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. The first hit the center of the complex, and the second hit one of the buildings wings. There's some debate whether there was a third. If there was, it was a double-tap on the middle of the building. With Stormshadows being dual-warhead missiles to punch through bunkers, the detonations likely went all the way through the ground floor.


https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1705272408620277986?s=42&t=A7DytLVGBZcjjSW1SvVgEw Impacts


https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1705657899689681195?s=46 Aftermath


The rumors now are casualty figures. Depending on who is reporting, its several dozen. Amongst the rumored dead/wounded are the commander of the Black Sea fleet, and the senior ground commander for the Russian southern front. If the rumors turn out to be true, its possible Ukraine knew of their whereabouts and went after them.

While Zelensky was making his rounds in D.C. this week, his chief of intelligence Lieutenant General Budanov was also in the US and gave an interview on recent operations.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/exclusive-interview-with-ukraines-spy-boss-from-his-dc-hotel-room

This week's aid announcement from Biden included more tranches of small arms and artillery ammo, air defense systems and missiles, and the ATACMS ballistic missile. Supposedly that last one was supposed to be a secret until they started raining down on Russian positions, but someone leaked it. Also, US M1 Abrams tanks are supposed to be in Ukraine next week.