my question was rhetorical.

it is nonsense to say it was sovereign and at the same time belongs to ukraine since 1991

what it is, is an occupied territory of ukraine fully controlled by russia with russian military on it

that's whom starlink service in Crimea would benefit

I didn't say "it was sovereign" (all by itself). I referred to "its sovereignty", in terms of who it belonged to (both in 1991 and now). The two contexts are entirely different.

what it is, is an occupied territory of ukraine fully controlled by russia with russian military on it

And yet -- still entirely under Ukrainian sovereignty. It seems you're a bit unclear as to what the term means. It doesn't mean "military control".

Point mean: just because the Russian currently military sits on the Crimea, doesn't mean it's "part of Russia".

And no, it's not just a symbolic difference. It's a hugely, hugely important one.

my question was rhetorical.

Indeed, it looks like you're shooting into the wind here. I'll have to leave to explore these topics on your own.

▲

throwaway290 10 months ago | parent [-]

Whether to provide Crimea with Starlink or not depends on who sits there. Similar reason why all Crimeans got under sanctions immediately after annexation. Not just Starlink but every other Western company respecting sanctions stopped doing business with Crimea. Same with Donetsk and Luhansk.

No one cares if it's "legally" Ukraine. People care about the "effectively".

Legally always depends on who you ask. Some will tell you that Taiwan is part of PRC for example. Maybe at least half of the world will. However Taiwan is not under sanctions because effectively it isn't under PRC.

> Indeed, it looks like you're shooting into the wind here

I am just trying to reduce you some confusion by explaining some basics. Starlink was not yet in Ukraine when Crimea was annexed and the world mostly sat and just watched it happen. Therefore the musk-man could not "cut out crimea". There's nothing to argue about. Just don't spread misinfo please, there's enough of it.

▲

aguaviva 10 months ago | parent [-]

No one cares if it's "legally" Ukraine.

That's objectively just not true at all.

Legally always depends on who you ask.

Also not true at all.

Of course, you can always find people who say something wildly at odds with the overwhelming international consensus, and in any case completely lacking in any intrinsic substance.

But that doesn't mean what they're saying is even potentially valid, and that the matter "depends" on what they say.

See also: "Nothing is true" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42244709

Therefore the musk-man could not "cut out crimea".

I never said anything about Musk or Starlink. If you think I did, then we're definitely talking past each other.

▲

throwaway290 10 months ago | parent [-]

I replied to a guy who said Musk turned off Starlink in Crimea. Which is false. If we are not talking about that then I don't know what we're talking about.

> That's objectively just not true at all.

I'll clarify. For the purposes of doing business there no one cares if it's legally Ukraine.

> Of course, you can always find people who say something wildly at odds with the overwhelming international consensus

Yes I can find a Crimea full of them and probably half the world at large who will say it is legally Russia now.

I properly talked to one Crimean only in my life and he voted for Russia in referendum. he said most people did because higher salary etc. When war began he left the country tho. Maybe he realized his mistake but probably just didn't want to get killed.

International consensus is fluid and ephemeral (maybe even precisely because people like putler)

	▲	aguaviva 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		If we are not talking about that then I don't know what we're talking about. My assumption was it was simply the context I chimed in on -- in regard to the region's sovereignty status and the bogus 2014 referendum. Will hopefully get to the other stuff later. But just to get that squared away for now.