Elon Musk went too far and ended up on the dark side

Trump had previously sharply criticized Ukraine’s strikes on Russian oil refineries, stating that Zelenskyy had the opportunity to reach an agreement with Russia, and then went so far as to suggest that Ukraine supposedly needed a different president. Musk effectively endorsed this line of thinking. Read more in an exclusive column for Channel 24.

What stands out most is just how much his position on Ukraine has changed in recent years. At the start of the full-scale invasion, Musk truly did a great deal for Ukraine.

It was Starlink that helped maintain communications at a critical moment, ensuring the operation of government agencies, hospitals, military units, and drone operators. Ukraine received tens of thousands of terminals, and the system itself became one of the most crucial assets on the front lines. This contribution was so significant that Zelenskyy later awarded Musk the Order of Freedom.

But at the same time, his political rhetoric gradually began to shift in a completely different direction. Back in 2022, Musk proposed his second plan for ending the war (the first, presented as early as March 2020, involved a fight between Musk and Putin in the ring – Channel 24). Musk’s plan called for effectively leaving Crimea to Russia, holding new referendums in the occupied territories, and granting Ukraine neutral status. In other words, the country that had been attacked was being asked to give up part of its territory and its future in NATO in exchange for an agreement with the state that started this war.

Then the stories about Starlink emerged. Musk himself confirmed that he had refused Ukraine’s request to expand the system’s coverage in the Sevastopol area when Kyiv wanted to launch an operation against the Russian Black Sea Fleet. He explained this by his reluctance to turn SpaceX into a direct participant in a major military operation and his fear of escalation.

Later, reports emerged of restrictions on Starlink’s operations in areas where Ukrainian troops were advancing. After that, Musk began repeating more and more often that, in his opinion, Russia would not lose this war, and that further Western aid to Ukraine would only prolong the fighting.

Now, Elon Musk has spoken out against new large-scale aid packages, emphasized the need for a compromise with Moscow, and has repeatedly made it clear that he considers the return of all occupied territories to be unrealistic.

And this is where the main paradox of his position becomes apparent. When Russia seizes Ukrainian territory, Musk says that its return is unrealistic and that a compromise must be sought. When Ukraine asks for the ability to strike Russian missile launchers that are firing rockets at its cities, he cites the risk of escalation. When Ukraine attacks Russian oil refineries – which are directly linked to the economy of the country waging war – he supports the criticism of Zelenskyy. And when Russia continues its attacks on Ukraine, the main emphasis in his public statements very often shifts anyway to the idea that it is Kyiv that must agree to peace more quickly.

Musk himself calls this approach pragmatic. But it seems very one-sided. Almost all of his prescriptions for ending the war boil down to concessions on Ukraine’s part. Give up some territory. Don’t count on getting back everything that was seized. Not to join NATO. Not to use Starlink for strikes deep inside Russia. Not to count on endless military aid. To agree to a compromise, even if Moscow does not back down from its demands.

He has far fewer public demands directed at Russia. This is particularly telling now thatTrump Negotiates with Putin on Russian Fuel is easing some restrictions while simultaneously pressuring Ukraine over strikes on Russian oil refineries. Following this, the U.S. president states that Ukraine needs a different president, and Musk writes that Zelenskyy “has gone too far.”

There is another very telling detail in this story. When Musk himself had a major falling-out with Trump at the time, posted harsh messages (including about Trump's Involvement in the Epstein Case – Channel 24) and called for his impeachment, he later apologized and wrote that some of his words had “gone too far.”

Now he’s using almost the exact same phrasing when referring to Zelenskyy.

Only, according to this logic, Zelenskyy “went too far” not because of social media posts or a personal feud, but because Ukraine continues to strike at the infrastructure of a state that is waging a full-scale war against it.

That is precisely why Musk’s position seems so cynical. He talks a lot about peace, but almost every version of this peace he proposes assumes that Ukraine, above all, must pay the price for it. Russia seizes territory – Ukraine must accept it. Russia attacks – Ukraine must not respond too harshly. Russia makes demands – Ukraine must seek a compromise. And now, when Zelenskyy refuses to simply accept the rules that benefit Moscow, Musk declares that it is Zelenskyy who has “gone too far.”