> The NYT report provides a slightly different description of the incident near Crimea than the one in the CNN report based on Isaacson's book. While the book reportedly says Musk ordered SpaceX engineers to preemptively disable Starlink's network in the area, the NYT report said that Musk "refused Ukraine's request last year to provide Starlink access near Crimea, the Russian-controlled peninsula, so it could send an explosive-filled maritime drone into Russian ships docked in the Black Sea."<p>While markedly less dramatic, the NYT version of events seems much more realistic and defensible.<p>I'm very pro-Ukraine and anti-Musk, but I do think it's interesting the difference in coverage this is getting compared to the Googlers walking out over the DOD contracts
Starlink terms of service explicitly prohibits military use.<p><a href="https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64</a>
As a CEO, Musk is obliged to look out for the best interests of Starlink and Starlink's shareholders (mostly Americans), and not allow somebody to paint a target on Starlink's back. The Russians are very capable of blasting those Starlink satellites out of orbit.