Elon Musk says he refused to give Kyiv access to his Starlink communications network over Crimea to avoid complicity in a "major act of war".
Kyiv had sent an emergency request to activate Starlink to Sevastopol, home to a major Russian navy port, he said.
His comments came after a book alleged he had switched off Starlink to thwart a drone attack on Russian ships.
A senior Ukrainian official says this enabled Russian attacks and accused him of "committing evil".
Russian naval vessels had since taken part in deadly attacks on civilians, he said.
"By not allowing Ukrainian drones to destroy part of the Russian military (!) fleet via Starlink interference, Elon Musk allowed this fleet to fire Kalibr missiles at Ukrainian cities," he said.
"Why do some people so desperately want to defend war criminals and their desire to commit murder? And do they now realize that they are committing evil and encouraging evil?" he added.
The row follows the release of a biography of the billionaire by Walter Isaacson which alleges that Mr Musk switched off Ukraine's access to Starlink because he feared that an ambush of Russia's naval fleet in Crimea could provoke a nuclear response from the Kremlin.
Ukraine targeted Russian ships in Sevastopol with submarine drones carrying explosives but they lost connection to Starlink and "washed ashore harmlessly", Mr Isaacson wrote.
Starlink terminals connect to SpaceX satellites in orbit and have been crucial for maintaining internet connectivity and communication in Ukraine as the conflict has disrupted the country infrastructure.
I do not find it difficult to hold him responsible. He himself petitioned and won the contract from the Pentagon in order to provide satellite connectivity to the Ukraine. He then got cold feet about it and revoked this connectivity without communicating that to the Ukrainian military and intentionally flubbed a counter attack that would have (and, thus, didnt) prevented the missile launches that destroyed the lives and property of a ton of civilians. In his twisted sense of morality, he and Starlink would have been responsible for the acts of war of the Ukranian military, but by revoking their access to Starlink, preventing their actions, he’s somehow not responsible for the immediate consequences of their inability to act. The consequences being the deaths of non-combatant civilians under attack from a foreign invader on sovereign lands. He is wrong. He is still responsible.
Imagine Smith and Wesson sold you an AI smart gun with aim assist on the notion that it could be used in defense of self and home. Later they decided that they didn’t want to be complicit in your decision to fire it at a person, and so they secretly sent out an update that made it so that you COULDN’T fire the gun at a person. Someone breaks into your home and attacks you, and you pull out your gun to defend yourself. Then it will not fire. It refuses to let you make the choice to defend yourself, so you are maimed or killed by your assailant. Please explain to me how Smith and Wesson wouldn’t be in any way responsible for your death.
It’s even worse than that in Elon’s case. He knows that Ukraine is under attack. He knows that Russia is invading and killing civilians. He knows that he is being paid specifically to provide connectivity to them in order to facilitate communications and military actions in Ukraine, and not only agreed to that but specifically sought out the contract to do so. And he knows that the inaction of the Ukrainian military will result in more deaths. Yet he chose to secretly remove their ability to make such actions after he made them reliant on him. He is responsible. “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Not just catchy lyrics, but truth.
All good points.