Две версии сорванной атаки на российский флот в Крыму
Вернемся к фактической стороне дела, то есть к тому, что собственно произошло в октябре 2022 года.
Вот что Walter Isaacson написал в биографии Маска и сначала в своем op-ed в Wapo, "‘How am I in this war?’: The untold story of Elon Musk’s support for Ukraine", три дня назад: Although he had readily supported Ukraine, he believed it was reckless for Ukraine to launch an attack on Crimea, which Russia had annexed in 2014. He had just spoken to the Russian ambassador to the United States. (In later conversations with a few other people, he seemed to imply that he had spoken directly to President Vladimir Putin, but to me he said his communications had gone through the ambassador.) The ambassador had explicitly told him that a Ukrainian attack on Crimea would lead to a nuclear response. Musk explained to me in great detail, as I stood behind the bleachers, the Russian laws and doctrines that decreed such a response.
Throughout the evening and into the night, he personally took charge of the situation. Allowing the use of Starlink for the attack, he concluded, could be a disaster for the world. So he secretly told his engineers to turn off coverage within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast. As a result, when the Ukrainian drone subs got near the Russian fleet in Sevastopol, they lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly.
Эта версия доступна в архиве.
"[...] he secretly told his engineers to turn off coverage within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast"
Абсолютно никакой неоднозначности: связь была, но Маск распорядился ее отключить, чтобы помешать атаке украинских дронов. После того, как поднялся шум-гам, Маск затвитил, что, на самом деле, он ничего не отключал, он и не включал. И Айзаксон тут же сдал назад: запостил разъяснение в Твиттере и отредактировал статью в WaPo. Если вы зайдете на статью на сайте WaPo, то увидите, что второй абзац там сейчас выглядит сильно иначе: What the Ukrainians did not know was that Musk decided not to enable Starlink coverage of the Crimean coast. When the Ukrainian military learned that Starlink would not allow a successful attack, Musk got frantic calls and texts asking him to turn the coverage on. Fedorov, the deputy prime minister who had originally enlisted his help, secretly shared with him the details of how the drone subs were crucial to their fight for freedom. “We made the sea drones ourselves, they can destroy any cruiser or submarine,” he texted using an encrypted app. “I did not share this information with anyone. I just want you - the person who is changing the world through technology - to know this.”
Эта, вторая, версия прямо противоречит первой. Какой версии верить?
Фрум уже написал небольшое summary, так что я не буду тратить время на то, чтобы писать собственное, а просто скопирую его цепочку твитов. Я согласен с выводом Фрума, который я выделил жирным шрифтом. We have two version of events from Walter Isaacson, let's call them Isaacson 1.0 and Isaacson 2.0.
Isaacson 1.0 reports that Musk actively prevented a Ukrainian attack on Russian ships in Sebastopol. This is the version printed in Isaacson's book, excerpted in the Washington Post, and reported by CNN. Musk publicly objected to this version, at which point we got Isaacson 2.0
Isaacson 2.0 says, in effect, whoops, the most sensational story in my book is based upon my own misunderstanding - and that the truth is Musk's denial that he did anything active to thwart the Ukrainian attack.
Version 1.0 is supported not only by Isaacson's own reputation as a careful researcher, but also by physical evidence: the Ukrainian drones that washed ashore in October 2022 and that were photographed and reported.
Version 2.0 by contrast is supported by Musk's own claims and Isaacson's tweeted deference to the claims. If Version 2.0 is correct, the credibility of Isaacson's book goes up in smoke. If he got the most sensational story in his book wrong, why rely on the rest?
The more parsimonious theory however is that Version 1.0 is correct. We got Version 2.0 because Musk was surprised by negative reaction to 1.0. He apparently expected to be acclaimed as a savior of humanity, not derided as a dupe and enabler of missile attack on Ukrianian cities.
But Version 2.0 is inherently incredible. It asks us to believe that Ukraine launched an attack of potentially war-altering strategic importance without checking whether its drones could reach their targets. That seems ... unlikely.
The best way to decide whether 1.0 or 2.0 is correct is a searching DoD and congressional investigation of Musk's actions - that would of course take the testimony of the Ukrainians themselves.
In the meantime, we have only common sense to guide us whether Isaacson got it right in Version 1.0 or in his deference to Musk's wishes in Version 2.0.
ny_quant в комментарии к моей первой записи задал резонный вопрос: если связь изначально была, то как Маск узнал о планируемой атаке, чтобы вовремя связь отключить? Ответа я не знаю... в статье Айзаксона говорится, что Федоров по собственной инициативе написал Маску... в этом дело?
Конечно, интересна версия Украины, но, по понятным причинам, украинские официальные лица выражаются невнятно. Вроде, Подоляк что-то гневное вчера запостил, но я сейчас этого твита не вижу.
Американские же официальные лица... Послушайте эти две минуты с Блинкеном. Как я сказал в первый раз, оставляя в стороне моральный облик Маска, вот это "мы ожидаем, что Украина и дальше сможет пользоваться Старлинк" - это в высшей степени pathetic.
CNN’s @jaketapper blasts Blinken for refusing to criticize Elon Musk having shut down Starlink in order to successfully kill a Ukrainian attack on the Russian fleet. pic.twitter.com/Iz4Y9fS5lS
- John Aravosis 🇺🇸🇬🇷🏳️🌈 (@aravosis) September 10, 2023
. @jaketapper again calls out Blinken for covering for Musk. pic.twitter.com/3skCQg2UrR
- John Aravosis 🇺🇸🇬🇷🏳️🌈 (@aravosis) September 10, 2023
Эта запись в DW: https://yakov-a-jerkov.dreamwidth.org/2122069.html
Вот что Walter Isaacson написал в биографии Маска и сначала в своем op-ed в Wapo, "‘How am I in this war?’: The untold story of Elon Musk’s support for Ukraine", три дня назад: Although he had readily supported Ukraine, he believed it was reckless for Ukraine to launch an attack on Crimea, which Russia had annexed in 2014. He had just spoken to the Russian ambassador to the United States. (In later conversations with a few other people, he seemed to imply that he had spoken directly to President Vladimir Putin, but to me he said his communications had gone through the ambassador.) The ambassador had explicitly told him that a Ukrainian attack on Crimea would lead to a nuclear response. Musk explained to me in great detail, as I stood behind the bleachers, the Russian laws and doctrines that decreed such a response.
Throughout the evening and into the night, he personally took charge of the situation. Allowing the use of Starlink for the attack, he concluded, could be a disaster for the world. So he secretly told his engineers to turn off coverage within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast. As a result, when the Ukrainian drone subs got near the Russian fleet in Sevastopol, they lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly.
Эта версия доступна в архиве.
"[...] he secretly told his engineers to turn off coverage within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast"
Абсолютно никакой неоднозначности: связь была, но Маск распорядился ее отключить, чтобы помешать атаке украинских дронов. После того, как поднялся шум-гам, Маск затвитил, что, на самом деле, он ничего не отключал, он и не включал. И Айзаксон тут же сдал назад: запостил разъяснение в Твиттере и отредактировал статью в WaPo. Если вы зайдете на статью на сайте WaPo, то увидите, что второй абзац там сейчас выглядит сильно иначе: What the Ukrainians did not know was that Musk decided not to enable Starlink coverage of the Crimean coast. When the Ukrainian military learned that Starlink would not allow a successful attack, Musk got frantic calls and texts asking him to turn the coverage on. Fedorov, the deputy prime minister who had originally enlisted his help, secretly shared with him the details of how the drone subs were crucial to their fight for freedom. “We made the sea drones ourselves, they can destroy any cruiser or submarine,” he texted using an encrypted app. “I did not share this information with anyone. I just want you - the person who is changing the world through technology - to know this.”
Эта, вторая, версия прямо противоречит первой. Какой версии верить?
Фрум уже написал небольшое summary, так что я не буду тратить время на то, чтобы писать собственное, а просто скопирую его цепочку твитов. Я согласен с выводом Фрума, который я выделил жирным шрифтом. We have two version of events from Walter Isaacson, let's call them Isaacson 1.0 and Isaacson 2.0.
Isaacson 1.0 reports that Musk actively prevented a Ukrainian attack on Russian ships in Sebastopol. This is the version printed in Isaacson's book, excerpted in the Washington Post, and reported by CNN. Musk publicly objected to this version, at which point we got Isaacson 2.0
Isaacson 2.0 says, in effect, whoops, the most sensational story in my book is based upon my own misunderstanding - and that the truth is Musk's denial that he did anything active to thwart the Ukrainian attack.
Version 1.0 is supported not only by Isaacson's own reputation as a careful researcher, but also by physical evidence: the Ukrainian drones that washed ashore in October 2022 and that were photographed and reported.
Version 2.0 by contrast is supported by Musk's own claims and Isaacson's tweeted deference to the claims. If Version 2.0 is correct, the credibility of Isaacson's book goes up in smoke. If he got the most sensational story in his book wrong, why rely on the rest?
The more parsimonious theory however is that Version 1.0 is correct. We got Version 2.0 because Musk was surprised by negative reaction to 1.0. He apparently expected to be acclaimed as a savior of humanity, not derided as a dupe and enabler of missile attack on Ukrianian cities.
But Version 2.0 is inherently incredible. It asks us to believe that Ukraine launched an attack of potentially war-altering strategic importance without checking whether its drones could reach their targets. That seems ... unlikely.
The best way to decide whether 1.0 or 2.0 is correct is a searching DoD and congressional investigation of Musk's actions - that would of course take the testimony of the Ukrainians themselves.
In the meantime, we have only common sense to guide us whether Isaacson got it right in Version 1.0 or in his deference to Musk's wishes in Version 2.0.
ny_quant в комментарии к моей первой записи задал резонный вопрос: если связь изначально была, то как Маск узнал о планируемой атаке, чтобы вовремя связь отключить? Ответа я не знаю... в статье Айзаксона говорится, что Федоров по собственной инициативе написал Маску... в этом дело?
Конечно, интересна версия Украины, но, по понятным причинам, украинские официальные лица выражаются невнятно. Вроде, Подоляк что-то гневное вчера запостил, но я сейчас этого твита не вижу.
Американские же официальные лица... Послушайте эти две минуты с Блинкеном. Как я сказал в первый раз, оставляя в стороне моральный облик Маска, вот это "мы ожидаем, что Украина и дальше сможет пользоваться Старлинк" - это в высшей степени pathetic.
CNN’s @jaketapper blasts Blinken for refusing to criticize Elon Musk having shut down Starlink in order to successfully kill a Ukrainian attack on the Russian fleet. pic.twitter.com/Iz4Y9fS5lS
- John Aravosis 🇺🇸🇬🇷🏳️🌈 (@aravosis) September 10, 2023
. @jaketapper again calls out Blinken for covering for Musk. pic.twitter.com/3skCQg2UrR
- John Aravosis 🇺🇸🇬🇷🏳️🌈 (@aravosis) September 10, 2023
Эта запись в DW: https://yakov-a-jerkov.dreamwidth.org/2122069.html