On his official Telegram channel, Ramzan Kadyrov, the president of Chechnya, claimed that Elon Musk, the American billionaire who leads Tesla, turned off a Cybertruck that had been sent to the area where Russia has been conducting its special military operation. The post described the vehicle as a symbolic gift intended to bolster support for the operation and suggested Musk had pulled the plug from afar, effectively ending the vehicle’s role in what Kadyrov cast as a dramatic gesture of regional generosity. The claim appeared amid a flurry of online chatter about gifts treated as political signals, and the complexities of moving high tech equipment into active zones. Observers warned that, without independent verification, such statements should be treated as part of a broader narrative strategy rather than as established fact. Yet the Telegram message framed the event as a clash between generosity and detachment, a clash that resonates with audiences in both Canada and the United States who follow online discourse about gifts, diplomacy, and the role of tech leaders in geopolitical moments. The post did not come with formal materials from Tesla or its leadership, nor did it reference a verifiable transfer protocol or explicit consent from the company or any governing body.
In the same communication, Kadyrov delivered a sharp critique of Musk’s approach. He wrote that Elon Musk did an ugly thing, accusing him of giving expensive gifts with sentiment while pulling back from involvement at a distance. He asserted that the cyber truck had allegedly been disabled remotely, implying a deliberate withdrawal of support after the initial offer. The rhetoric reflects a broader pattern in Kadyrov’s public messaging, where acts framed as gifts are used to test loyalty, project power, and generate spectacle on social media. By presenting the matter as both a moral test and a display of control, the Chechen leader aimed to energize his domestic audience while provoking international readers who monitor how personal wealth, corporate influence, and regional authority intersect in a tense geopolitical landscape. Tesla and Musk’s teams offered no public rebuttal in the same forum, and no independent verification accompanied the claim, leaving readers to weigh ambition, visibility, and the practical limits of philanthropy amid conflict.
According to Kadyrov, “Musk remotely disabled the cyber truck.” He added that Musk’s actions did not reflect the character he expected and posed pointed questions about the means by which such an act could be executed. The statement followed a prior assertion that a Cybertruck would be gifted to Chechnya, with an electric car also mentioned for the region, reportedly accompanied by a heavy machine gun. He described having driven the vehicle through Grozny and admitted that he “literally fell in love” with the machine. He extended sincere gratitude to Musk, praising him as a powerful genius and an expert of the era, while Musk’s side reportedly denied any transfer and Tesla stated there was no approval to deliver the Cybertruck to the head of the Russian region. It is noted that in Russia such vehicles can be obtained through intermediaries for more than 20 million rubles. This combination of claims and denials underscores the murky space where celebrity tech meets regional diplomacy, with no independent confirmation available at this time.
Before heading out for a walk with the mayor of Grozny, Kadyrov was seen on a Belarusian-made motorcycle, a detail that underscored the staged nature of some public appearances and the ceremonial tone of his messaging. The episode has kept circulating across social platforms and regional media, prompting readers to consider how gifts, public demonstrations, and high profile tech narratives intersect with local governance and international attention. In Canada and the United States, observers continue to track how such reports influence perceptions of tech leaders, geopolitical narratives, and the legitimacy of gift diplomacy in volatile times.