US paid for 1,500 of the Starlink terminals for Ukraine, plus all the transportation costs

butters

High on a Hill
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Posts
85,786
The United States Agency for International Development bought around 1,500 terminals at a cost of $1,500 each, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. It also covered transportation costs for all the terminals to the tune of $800,000, resulting in the agency shelling out over $3 million. In all, the agency and SpaceX sent more than 5,000 terminals to Ukraine, with a third-party contractor handling transportation and delivery.
It's unclear whether USAID paid over the odds for the terminals. SpaceX recently increased the price of a Starlink terminal from $499 to $549 for deposit holders and to $599 for fresh orders.

SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell said last month that France and possibly Poland helped get the terminals to Ukraine. “I don’t think the US has given us any money to give terminals to the Ukraine,” Shotwell said. SpaceX is said to have donated $10 million worth of terminals and Starlink service to the country, which is laudable enough, though the company wasn't exactly clear about where funding for other parts of the operation came from.
so musk took all the credit... probably part of the deal that he send them in the first place. he does love a spotlight.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...sedgntp&cvid=aa4ea0397b9a474caf4da244e4faafce
 

all while refusing, until called out and threatened by ngo's. to take in more that 200 refugees.

also:
I imagine how exasperated working-class Brits feel:
he did the same with British Essential workers: ++ applauses in Parliament, "our brave brave essential workers"
but he provided insufficient protective gear, and when it came to the requested pay rise: he declined it, while giving a pay rise to governmental employees.
 
all while refusing, until called out and threatened by ngo's. to take in more that 200 refugees.

also:

I can only imagine how exasperated working-class Brits feel:
he did the same with British Essential workers: ++ applauses in Parliament, "our brave brave essential workers"
but he provided insufficient protective gear, and when it came to the requested pay rise: he declined it, while giving a pay rise to governmental employees.
You seem upset

Please
Tell Us more.
 
omg!

when I first saw the blue/yellow colors framing Boris's picture,
I thought it was a parody account.
But it Actually belongs to Boris Johnson.
 
omg!

when I first saw the blue/yellow colors surrounding Boris's picture,
I thought it was a parody account.
But it Actually belongs to Boris Johnson.
You know you don't need to say the part where you get a clue out loud
 
You know you don't need to say the part where you get a clue out loud

it's not just that.
I'm also shocked about how clueless he is, re how tacky and opportunistic he comes across.

I used to like and be amused by Boris Johnson.
He looked nontraditional - a fat Nick Nolte, his haircut, he liked to party
but I now realize: he's not quirky, he's calculated on top of a a low-iish IQ
 
it's not that.
I'm just shocked about how clueless he is, re how tacky these tactics are.

I used to like and be amused by Boris Johnson.
He looked nontraditional - a fat Nick Nolte, his haircut, he liked to party
but I now realize: he's not quirky, he's calculated on top of a a low-iish IQ
It's almost as if he isn't clueless and that you are hung up on stupid shit. You really don't have any understanding of politics.
 
It's almost as if he isn't clueless and that you are hung up on stupid shit. You really don't have any understanding of politics.

please explain boris johnson?? to me

you seem to think he doesn't give two fucks about how the unwashed view his transparent tactics
I would argue that it's a bit of both
 
please explain boris johnson?? to me

you seem to think he doesn't give two fucks about how the unwashed view his transparent tactics
I would argue that it's a bit of both
Yes, you would.

Politics is hard.

Maybe take a class.
 
i only ever knew of him as 'boris johnson'

his full name is:

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson
 
Elon wouldn't do shit for moral reasons if it didn't involve his moral standard...money
 
While there could have been prior work already in progress (actually we know there was), I would rather believe it wasn't quite a coincidence the first batch of the Starlink terminals got to the Kyiv amid one of the most intense battlefields in history less than 48 hours after the public, rather desperate request by the Ukrainian government appealing directly to Musk.

Ego or not, at that exact moment it was of exceptional importance.

First, because it offered a critical lifeline. If Russians managed to cut Kyiv off communication they would have long won. Because wars are won and lost in information spaces as much and often more than in kinetic fighting on the field or streets.

I have no knowledge of how actively it's actually been employed in the role everyone first imagined -- for keeping contact with underground guerilla groups in occupied areas -- but defenders of the besieged for over a month and over 90% ruined Mariopol keep posting videos... Once again defying Russian repeated claims of control of the city and fake footage of surrender.

There's even proof they get continously resupplied (with while might have been militarily mistaken to brag about (3 helicopters were possibly lost in result) was important for morale of the larger effort). We also now know that extended forward drone operators use Starlink for backhaul to base and artillery directly.

Love or hate, but his support was significant victory, it should not lost that Elon Musk choosing sides such decisively and early on solidified significant additional support that provided other critical opportunities.

It wasn't without self interest, no doubt. Throwing the product in a space contested by top notch enemy electronic warfare equipment was a good test and ultimate marketing for some potentially lucrative clients. Especially, when the public reports on Russian best efforts on hacking and jamming sounds like, "several terminals experienced degraded service for couple of hours until a software update mitigated the problem." Musk later bragged Starlink is unjammable, glossing over the programming under fire that went into that result, but as of now it's apparently true indeed.

Finally, well... rich are rich for that they know (or have money to pay to those who know) how to hack the governing algorithms. Government isn't a person, it's a machine, and one with countless bugs at that. Elon Musk abuse the machine, of course he do, but his core passions are creative and valuable enough to be of a rare example why we should sometimes tolerate extreme wealth concentration.
 
Ego or not, at that exact moment it was of exceptional importance.

First, because it offered a critical lifeline. If Russians managed to cut Kyiv off communication they would have long won. Because wars are won and lost in information spaces as much and often more than in kinetic fighting on the field or streets.

I have no knowledge of how actively it's actually been employed in the role everyone first imagined -- for keeping contact with underground guerilla groups in occupied areas -- but defenders of the besieged for over a month and over 90% ruined Mariopol keep posting videos... Once again defying Russian repeated claims of control of the city and fake footage of surrender.

There's even proof they get continously resupplied (with while might have been militarily mistaken to brag about (3 helicopters were possibly lost in result) was important for morale of the larger effort). We also now know that extended forward drone operators use Starlink for backhaul to base and artillery directly.

Love or hate, but his support was significant victory, it should not lost that Elon Musk choosing sides such decisively and early on solidified significant additional support that provided other critical opportunities.
no arguments from me here
 
Back
Top