So the whole “let’s not escalate to nuclear war” thing is what convinced you he didn’t want to save humanity.
He doesnt have control of arms shipments or policy decisions that the Western powers are making (sanctions, etc). Yet another example of how polarized the US (maybe the West) is, where if you say *any* that questions our unilateral support of Ukraine (even if that has to do with increased chances of nuclear war) you're an asshole.
I'm sorry, but this situation has a lot of nuance - quit acting like it doesnt. You can cautiously support Ukraine but also realize that the US has little to gain as each day goes by with Russia getting smoked by Western weapons and training.
Because peace at this point means the aggressor keeps territories.
If Canada moved troops into a bunch of US states - NY, NH, Maine, Pennsylvania etc. would you be willing to just cede that territory over so that everybody can have "peace"? Ok, let's have peace, I guess Canada gets New England now.
As a New Yorker... please? How soon after annexation do I get my healthcare?
Comparing Russia to Canada is in bad faith. Canada is a democracy, not run by a dictator.
Isn't that an even bigger reason to not let the dictator get his way? In Putin's latest speech he reiterated that Ukraine isn't a real state and that Ukrainians and Russians should live together in one country, Russia. Giving in to any of his demands will not deter him or bring peace, it will embolden him and prove that he was right to invade, and he will do it again.
You mean if Ukraine returns to their sovereign borders and has a crap ton of weapons and can physically repel any Russian attacks? Doesn't matter what Putin says.
> Comparing Russia to Canada is in bad faith.
What? Ok, how about just pretend Russia takes over the Alaska and the western seaboard. Does that work for you?
If Ukraine takes Crimea and Russia nukes Ukraine, it matters to everyone.
I think NATO or the West is playing a very strategic game here. They don't offer Ukraine 100% more firepower than Russia, which would end the war quickly. They offer them a bit more so that Russia is struggling. And notice that when Russia would try to subdue Ukraine with more powerful weapons like a tactical nuke, NATO already made it clear that they would move in. They are basically exhausting Russia to death. Right now, Russia is really scraping to throw everything they got into this war. If this war keeps going, it will totally destruct Russia's economy and society. Unfortunately, Ukraine is paying a very heavy price for this. But from a NATO strategic standpoint, we're now in an ideal scenario.
Do you know that Ukrainians are buying and paying subscriptions for that. I'm sure the return on investment is very well calculated.
Ok, so we give up a part of Ukraine to avoid nuclear war. Works very good for Russia. In a few years Russia takes the rest of Ukraine. Are you going to risk nuclear war then? No? Great!
Then Russia invades the Baltic states. Want to risk nuclear war now? Of course not. Then they take the rest of central Europe that was under their control.
Is East-Germany worth the risk of nuclear war in your opinion, or not?
I'm sorry, did the Starlink units not help ?
> Is East-Germany worth the risk of nuclear war in your opinion, or not?
Last time I checked, Germany was a member of NATO.
Of course, any business is a win-win for both parties. But don't act as if it's from of the kindness of the heart.
> Last time I checked, Germany was a member of NATO.
Funny, because last time I checked, the Baltic states are too. But I guess NATO could give those up to avoid nuclear war. You didn't respond to them being taken over by Russia, did you?
So give Crimea to Russia, yes. Donbas too? Baltic states you said no. Can they take the rest of Ukraine to prevent nuclear war?
For me, the line is pretty easy: Russia respects the borders as internationally defined. And I don't really give a shit how much they threaten with nuclear war.
For you and Elon, you seem to want to give Russia some stuff and hope it ends there. Well, it never ends there, so that's why I ask where you will draw the line.
Also the "cost" of keeping Starlink alive in Ukraine, while it clearly has or will have a return on investment. (Ukrainians are already buying and paying subscriptions for that).
Edit: What was also disgusting was to ask what Kasparov did except tweet. And after it became very clear that he was protesting the Putin regime for many years already, Elon had the guts to up the ante and state that he's an "idiot". Sorry, but such things reveal what kind of person you are.
I was never too bothered with other wars that were "far away", so I understand for US it's "far away'. But it was really strange to see all these rich US Silicon Valley guys wanting to share their uninformed opinion, and then get trashed by people who do know.
Any predictions for 2030?
Conceding territory isn't great if your main goal is to dissuade Russia, but nobody ever claimed that that was Musks goal. His purported goal is reducing the risk of human extinction, even from some less likely risks. It's a different risk assessment that leads to different priorities.
> and your suggestion
I didn't suggest it, I merely tried to show that Musk's suggestion is completely in line with "saving humanity" and completely in character.
So what lane mass of Russia the same size of Crimea does Ukraine get?. Or do they get nothing of value at all as their “victory”?.
You can't just immediately concede to bullies, or all that will be left are bullies. That doesn't save humanity.
Of course that's unpopular right now because Ukraine is winning the war and everyone wants to go with "let's push Russia out and hope they take it with dignity". But Musk has a different risk profile and would prefer de-escalation. And I'm not sure how you would deescalate without some concessions to both sides.
I wouldn't assume anything Musk tweets has anything to do with "risk profiles". He recently tried to commit fraud to get out of the Twitter acquisition, and when his lawyers told him it would go very badly for him he closed the deal. He is compulsively dishonest.
The New York times reports that Musk "suggested in a newspaper interview that China could be appeased if it were given partial control of Taiwan." You don't think he's trying to suck up to the Chinese government since he has business interests there?
Of course he's very good at inventing "plausibly deniable" motivations for his toxic behavior, but I wouldn't take anything he says at face value.
People are claiming he cares about free speech because he claims he does, which is laughable. He is suggesting free speech be taken from the people of Taiwan. And for realsies, not the "If I'm kicked off Twitter I'm oppressed" version of free speech.