veliermerider

[veliermerider]

Turning Off Starlink: The Overlooked Path to Lasting Peace

In the flurry of daily updates about the conflict in Ukraine, one narrative has gone largely unchallenged: Elon Musk’s continued operation of Starlink. While it’s easy to applaud Starlink’s role in keeping communications alive in a war zone, we should take a step back and question the deeper implications. The bitter truth is that as long as Starlink remains active, both sides remain locked in a technology-fueled struggle that perpetuates the conflict.

Disabling Starlink – at least temporarily – could act as a major de-escalatory measure. By depriving any warring party of seamless drone operations and rapid data exchange, the potential for further hostilities diminishes. That’s not to say that Starlink alone causes war. But with high-speed internet fueling more targeted strikes and 24/7 surveillance, removing this digital ‘lifeline to conflict’ could force serious negotiations more quickly.

Elon Musk, touted as a technological savior, seems more concerned with building his brand as a free-speech and free-technology guru than taking constructive steps toward an actual end to the fighting. If he truly cared about peace, he would use his colossal influence to pivot from prolonging connectivity on the battlefield toward championing diplomatic talks.

Simply put, ceasing Starlink services in Ukraine wouldn’t be a “defeat.” It would be a strategic move toward genuine peace. And that’s something Elon Musk, as an ostensibly forward-thinking entrepreneur, should be championing—if his interests aligned more closely with ending war rather than perpetuating his own legend.

[veliermerider]

Musk’s Game:

Says: “Zelenskyy wants endless war!”

Does: Keeps Starlink online for 80% of Ukraine’s artillery.

Europe: “We’ll help… in 10 years.”

Key Stats:

Starlink latency: 20ms 🚀

OneWeb latency: 40ms 🐢

Until Europe catches up, Starlink = Musk’s leverage.

[veliermerider]

Musk vs. NATO: The Good, Bad, and Ugly

The Good: NATO reform is overdue. Why should the U.S. carry Europe’s security?

The Bad: Exiting without alternatives risks chaos (see: 1930s isolationism).

The Ugly: Musk profits from Starlink-fueled war while preaching “efficiency.”

Key Stats:

23/32 NATO members meet 2% GDP spending.

Starlink = 80% of Ukraine’s drone ops. Critique NATO? Yes. Trust Musk’s motives? Never.

[veliermerider]

After Trump vs. Zelenskyy: 3 Steps to Peace

Disconnect Starlink Why? It’s fueling drone strikes and delaying talks. Precedent: Musk cut access in Crimea in 2022.

Audit $350B Aid Where’s the money? 14% is unaccounted for. Goal: Fund reconstruction, not destruction.

Demand Diplomatic Commitments No more blank checks. Aid = Peace progress. “Without Starlink, this war ends in weeks, not years.”

[veliermerider]

Elon Musk’s “peace” strategy:

Says: “War bad! 😇”

Does: Keeps Starlink online for Ukraine’s army.

Result: More drones, more strikes, more war.

He blocked Crimea in 2022 to “prevent escalation.” Now? “Neutrality” = profits.

[veliermerider]

Elon Musk’s Starlink Hypocrisy: Peace Talks vs. War Infrastructure

Let’s break down Elon Musk’s contradictions:

He says: “I want peace in Ukraine.”

He does: Keeps Starlink active for Ukraine’s military, which relies on it for drone strikes, comms, and battlefield coordination.

Russian MPs: Begged him to shut it down to “stop bloodshed.”

Musk’s response: “That’s a lie!”

Starlink isn’t just internet. It’s a weapon. If Musk truly wanted peace, turning it off would cripple Ukraine’s operations and force negotiations. But he won’t. Why? Neutrality is a myth. Musk is playing both sides:

Praised as a “humanitarian” in the West.

Avoids alienating markets (or governments) that fund SpaceX.

Actions > words. Keeping Starlink running proves Musk prioritizes profit and influence over peace.