First surface vessel attack on Crimea failed as Musk turned off connection

No I have heard all that before. I saw at least one news report that it was not known by the Ukrainian that starlink had geofences. They had not been informed/had a misunderstanding to the extent of their access to starlink. It was not a thing of Musk hearing about the attack and turning the system off, but one of that it was never on in that area and Musk refusing to change that in the moment.

From what I can gather from various sources (most detailed one here: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9?op=1)

1. Elon's biographer Isaacson says he turned it off as the Ukrainian ships were approaching Sevastopol, following a call with the Russian ambassador who he told about it(!!?), resulting in a nuclear threat. Ukrainians begged him to turn it back on and he refuses.
2. Elon has denied the first part, saying it was never turned on, only acknowledging the call to turn it on and his refusal to do so.

I'm not sure which to believe. Isaacson's account is detailed and I doubt it's made up, but perhaps he misunderstood something. At the same time, turning it off seems to require Elon to have foreknowledge of the attack which seems unlikely, though plausible.

Ask the man himself

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4193788-musk-acknowledges-he-turned-off-starlink-internet-access-last-year-during-ukraine-attack-on-russia-military/

Musk's official biographer explained that there was a point where he had to take a decision of either allow it or not, and a Russian official discouraged it on the basis that there would be a nuclear escalation.

Allegedly, someone in a 5 point building got super pissed by the fact that a rich guy got to call it off, jumping over them and the Prez himself.

That is exactly what happened. The US prohibits US companies (including SpaceX) from operating in Crimea. Nothing was switched off, the attack vessel simply left the area it works in, and they couldn't switch it back on either.

Furthermore, SpaceX are not authorised to sell weapons or participate in military actions with foreign forces. They're already on shaky legal grounds by turning the other way to Ukraine's use (which the US supports, of course, so they're generally willing to let it slide). If SpaceX started operating in Crimea and actively supporting the war effort, that would open them up to liability.

Except it was cleared for military use so it doesn't add up, it also wasn't the reasoning given by the guy who refused to provide connection.

He's a crook and a snake.

This doesn't make much sense...starlink was already available for military use by the Ukrainians. That was the whole reason Musk was "donating" use of the system to them.

Even if this were the underlying reason, the behavior I would expect from any US company that doesn't have ITAR clearance would be to cite said lack of clearance for the decision instead of the CEO coming out and saying he did it for war strategy reasons (like being worried about a nuclear response).

No, their first mistake was launching a military operation that depended on Starlink connectivity to a region that they knew was already cut off from Starlink due to sanctions on Russia on the assumption that they'd be able to convince an American company to turn it on for them in the middle of the attack, thus violating some very serious American laws preventing that sort of thing from happening.

I know the overwhelming narrative on the Internet is "Ukraine good, Elon bad", but in this case it really seems to me like the screwup was on Ukraine's side here.

Why would you get banned? You still got Reddit mod PTSD?

Maybe it's the sentiment that's the problem, not the wording?