>It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader
You didn't answer my question in my previous post. Do you hold this view with Israel? Israel is a US ally. Israel retaking the Palestinian land would be considered driving out an invader by both the US and Israel. Should Musk be forced in using Starlink in those attacks against the Palestinians?
If not, then you aren't being consistent. You only support forcing Musk to help Ukraine because you support Ukraine, not because of some greater principle that you seem to be espousing.
>And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing).
Agreed.
>The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on.
Perhaps, but we can't really know that.
>A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way.
That could explain it, but frankly, we don't have any proof. It is just conjecture.
The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't make things clearer. Musk doesn't have the most consistent or coherent world view.