Uh-oh.Almost as if handing over responsibility for key aspects of infrastructure to private individuals, corporations and 'philanthropists' rather than funding them from taxes is a bad idea.
Musk talking to Putin at all would be a violation of his security clearance and likely also a violation of sanctions, regardless of the exact reason for it.It's still just innuendo without the context. We can't pooh-pooh Times reports about communication the government has had about the 115, without doing the same to this just because it's convenient to believe it. That is the rabbit hole the cartel fans have gone down.
Realistically, world leaders will want to stay close to Musk for many reasons and little snippets of conversations out of context, even if they are real, don't mean anything.
And @Alvin-blue-qhd is right. Xi doesn't need Putin to give messages to Musk.
Musk talking to Putin at all would be a violation of his security clearance and likely also a violation of sanctions, regardless of the exact reason for it.
As is, by the way, Trump speaking with Putin, especially given Trump actually currently receives classified security briefings as the major party candidate for the presidency.
And I am not really sure how a Wall Street Journal article about Musk speaking with Putin is related to a New York Times article about the UK government testing the temperature of the UAE government regarding the PL’s charges against City.
I'm not sure musk needs security clearance as such, but if he has influence over a presidential candidate and also ties to the head of a hostile state then he'll be very closely watched at the very least.Fair enough, I wasn't aware that Musk would need a security clearance to do whatever he thinks he is doing for Trump. I didn't think sanctions covered communication either, but I may be wrong.
The point about the Times report on government/FO discussions about the 115 is that it is almost certainly nothing dressed up with selected, or at the most charitable incomplete, out-of-context quotes. It could very well be the same with this WSJ article. That was all. Just trying to be consistent here: not putting down the Times article while getting excited about the WSJ article.
I'm not sure musk needs security clearance as such, but if he has influence over a presidential candidate and also ties to the head of a hostile state then he'll be very closely watched at the very least.