[flagged]

That link says the story was retracted.

	▲	throw0101d 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> That link says the story was retracted. Since the original comment was flagged, the original link with the 2023 story with retraction: * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk... A 2025 article, "Musk ordered shutdown of Starlink satellite service as Ukraine retook territory from Russia": > KYIV - During a pivotal push by Ukraine to retake territory from Russia in late September 2022, Elon Musk gave an order that disrupted the counteroffensive and dented Kyiv’s trust in Starlink, the satellite internet service the billionaire provided early in the war to help Ukraine’s military maintain battlefield connectivity. > “We have to do this,” Michael Nicolls, the Starlink engineer, told colleagues upon receiving the order, one of these people said. Staffers complied, the three people told Reuters, deactivating at least a hundred Starlink terminals, their hexagon-shaped cells going dark on an internal map of the company’s coverage. The move also affected other areas seized by Russia, including some of Donetsk province further east. […] > After the book was published, Musk denied a shutdown, saying that there had never been coverage in Crimea to begin with. He said he had, rather, rejected a Ukrainian request to provide service ahead of Kyiv’s planned attack. Isaacson later conceded his account was flawed. A spokesperson at Isaacson’s publisher declined to comment or make him available for an interview. […] > As Ukraine’s counterattack intensified, Russian President Vladimir Putin on September 21, 2022, ordered a partial mobilization of reservists, Russia’s first since World War II. He also threatened to use nuclear weapons if Russia’s own “territorial integrity” were at risk. Around this time, Musk engaged in weeks of backchannel conversations with senior officials in the administration of President Joe Biden, according to three former U.S. government officials and one of the people familiar with Musk’s order to stop service. During those conversations, the former White House staffer told Reuters, U.S. intelligence and security officials expressed concern that Putin could follow through on his threats. Musk, this person added, worried too, and asked U.S. officials if they knew where and how Ukraine used Starlink on the battlefield. > Soon after, he ordered the shutdown. * https://www.reuters.com/investigations/musk-ordered-shutdown...

▲

zamadatix 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The original claim:

> The biography, due out on Tuesday, alleges Musk ordered Starlink engineers to turn off service in the area of the attack because of his concern that Vladimir Putin would respond with nuclear weapons to a Ukrainian attack on Russian-occupied Crimea. He is reported to have said that Ukraine was “going too far” in threatening to inflict a “strategic defeat” on the Kremlin.

The amendment on the article:

> This article was amended on 14 September 2023 to add an update to the subheading. As the Guardian reported on 12 September 2023, following the publication of this article, Walter Isaacson retracted the claim in his biography of Elon Musk that the SpaceX CEO had secretly told engineers to switch off Starlink coverage of the Crimean coast.

So maybe Starlink did turn it off or maybe it was just jammed in some way or maybe, well... anything really. All this says is the source retracts the claim and The Guardian doesn't clarify beyond that. Edit: if you click the hyperlink for the name it actually clarifies it as a full on mistake in where there would be coverage.

▲

mcintyre1994 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

They link to their updated reporting: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/12/elon-musk-biog...

> On Friday, Isaacson tweeted a clarification, writing that “the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a major war.”

> On Saturday, Isaacson said that based on conversations with Musk, he “mistakenly” believed that the policy preventing Starlink from being used for an attack on Crimea had been decided on the night of the attempted Ukrainian attack. He added that Musk “now says that the policy had been implemented earlier, but the Ukrainians did not know it, and that night he simply reaffirmed the policy”.

	▲	zamadatix 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Good catch, I should have looked closer at the retraction link than I did!
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	throw0101d a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In July 2025 Reuters re-upped the claim of the shutdown: > KYIV - During a pivotal push by Ukraine to retake territory from Russia in late September 2022, Elon Musk gave an order that disrupted the counteroffensive and dented Kyiv’s trust in Starlink, the satellite internet service the billionaire provided early in the war to help Ukraine’s military maintain battlefield connectivity. > “We have to do this,” Michael Nicolls, the Starlink engineer, told colleagues upon receiving the order, one of these people said. Staffers complied, the three people told Reuters, deactivating at least a hundred Starlink terminals, their hexagon-shaped cells going dark on an internal map of the company’s coverage. The move also affected other areas seized by Russia, including some of Donetsk province further east. […] > After the book was published, Musk denied a shutdown, saying that there had never been coverage in Crimea to begin with. He said he had, rather, rejected a Ukrainian request to provide service ahead of Kyiv’s planned attack. Isaacson later conceded his account was flawed. A spokesperson at Isaacson’s publisher declined to comment or make him available for an interview. […] > As Ukraine’s counterattack intensified, Russian President Vladimir Putin on September 21, 2022, ordered a partial mobilization of reservists, Russia’s first since World War II. He also threatened to use nuclear weapons if Russia’s own “territorial integrity” were at risk. Around this time, Musk engaged in weeks of backchannel conversations with senior officials in the administration of President Joe Biden, according to three former U.S. government officials and one of the people familiar with Musk’s order to stop service. During those conversations, the former White House staffer told Reuters, U.S. intelligence and security officials expressed concern that Putin could follow through on his threats. Musk, this person added, worried too, and asked U.S. officials if they knew where and how Ukraine used Starlink on the battlefield. > Soon after, he ordered the shutdown. * https://www.reuters.com/investigations/musk-ordered-shutdown...

▲

bpavuk 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

there are enough Ukrainian sources that did not retract the claim. one of them might point to the original source outside Guardian, but I'm too lazy to search ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯

you might start with Mezha, Channel 24, and TSN. arm yourself with a translator.

	▲	zamadatix 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It was the original author who issued the retraction, The Guardian just had enough credibility to follow up on that. That other news organizations lacked retractions does not make the original reporting of the author's claim any less retracted. If there are reports showing the retraction was bogus and there was separate proof contradicting the original author's retraction that would be something else of course, but you can't just say "I swear you'll find them, just keep looking harder!" or anyone could just make any claim up they wanted. Thanks to mcintyre1994 for noting the link in the retraction does actually go into the details of why the author retracted the claim https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/12/elon-musk-biog...
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

rvnx 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But isn’t Iran under sanctions? Do sanctions not apply when you are the richest man in the world ?

▲

inglor_cz 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

There is an official exemption for Starlink, and quite logically so, because Internet access outside government control is actually bad for the mullahs and somewhat advantageous for the US.

▲

syncsynchalt 2 days ago | parent [-]

I didn't know this, so I pulled up a cite for anyone else interested: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-expands-sanctions-exception...

▲

rvnx 2 days ago | parent [-]

Thank you both! I understand it better now. This is not Elon bypassing the rules but rather that the US wants to support the protests so they make an exemption; so it makes sense from a foreign policy perspective.

I really didn't think it like this.

	▲	mrguyorama a day ago \| parent [-]
		It's the exact same reasoning that drove the NSA to build Tor. Like, enabling widespread internet use in Iran that cannot be censored has been policy for the US.

▲

helloaltalt 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I hate the guy but I will genuinely let it pass if this means that we outside people can know what the fuck is actually happening at ground level in Iran and starlink adds even a 0.1% contribution to it.

I hate Elon a lot. but I will hold my grudge some other day if that means that starlink can help outside world to know more and raise internal resistance and support.

Edit: thanks for the downvotes team, turns out that the world is really short and I was reading an forbes article sent to me by someone in here and Ima quote it

The protests inspired the U.S. Treasury and State Departments to provide an exception to sanctions for communications services, and three days later, Musk turned on Starlink service in Iran.

“It requires the use of terminals in-country, which I suspect the government will not support, but if anyone can get terminals into Iran, they will work,” he said at the time. Musk and SpaceX did not respond to a comment request.

So tldr: US made special exception considering the protests (the protests are of the "People had taken to the streets over the police killing of 22-year-old Mahsa"