You're viewing a single thread.
I am sure that piece of shit would have had absolutely zero problems helping Putin attack the Ukranians though.
There is a difference between blocking internet and switching it back on to kill people, it's a karma debt.
Nah, I get the hate he is getting, I personally develop a serious allergic reaction towards anyone and anything with a net worth of more than a few million dollars. BUT. I don't think he is with the Russians. Why would he be, it would destroy whatever reputation he still had. This one is not a good look either, but as someone who lives not even a thousand kilometers away from the frontline, I personally don't want the Russian fleet "destroyed at anchor" as it would, as Musk has put it "escalate the conflict" and probably by a lot. I want this war to end. And I underatand that some people who probably live very far from Ukraine want to see Russia get punished (as do I to some degree), but that won't happen, at least not without potentially the entire world ending up as collateral damage, or at the very least a few countries around Ukraine, and as luck would have, those would probably include my own.
Sinking the Russian fleet would cost very few lives and have outsized benefits to Ukraine. Stop sucking Elon's dick, bro.
It seems as it doesn't matter if I start my comment by establishing whether I hate the guy or don't, so this time I won't. The thing I hate, is war. And would bombing the fleet ever prolong that wouldn't it? I know it's not very nice of me to assume that Ukraine won't win this war, not even with the advantage the bombing could have given them, but the weight classes are not too balanced, even if Russia seems to preform a lot more poorly than we assumed before the war it would.
I hate war too, but Russia started a major war for internal political points, and now is enjoying the fruits of their miscalculated aggression. Their fleet should rightly be an artificial reef for the fish of the Black Sea. Musk should be prosecuted under the Logan Act and any other applicable law.
oh, a "I just hate war" appeasement pacifist.
Pacifism is pro fascist, to placate those who could fight against fascism to inaction is to aid the fascist. the fascist cares not for moral force, the only thing a fascist understands is physical force. to stop the fascist, you must fight him.
remember Czechoslovakia, remember Poland, France and Britain both followed your logic, the results? one of the greatest losses of human life we have ever seen, the slaughter of entire ethnic groups, the destruction of Europe, completely.
you know why? because the fascist does not stop until he is stopped, or has consumed everything.
The thing I hate, is war. And would bombing the fleet ever prolong that wouldn’t it?
Taking out the fleet would reduce Russia the aggressors capability of continuing this war. If you hate war, you should absolutely support the defending side. It should not pay to be the aggressor.
So assuming Ukraine ultimately wins, this would have done the opposite of prolonging the war.
It seems as it doesn't matter if I start my comment by establishing whether I hate the guy or don't,
It's not that.
There's a huge embargo on Ukrainian grains that the Russians are using to grab the world by the balls right now. They refused to renew the agreement to let ships pass last month after several months of being a pain in the ass iirc. The most affected are poor African nations on the verge of starvation and many Asian nations that gave seen skyrocketing prices. The Russians are using this as leverage, but in the meantime I don't think it's only soldiers who will be dying for this power move.
Even if Russia were to occupy Ukraine entirely they'd still lose in the end. They don't have the resources to successfully occupy a country of Ukraine's size and population if Ukrainians actively resist. Putin's plan depended on a quick installation of a puppet government and there being little to no resistance from the Ukrainian population. That didn't happen, Russia will ultimately lose. Whether they lose after a few years of a conventional military war or loses after decades of Ukraine conducting an asynchronous warfare campaign against an occupation, all paths lead to a Russian defeat.
Holding a country is significantly more difficult to achieve than invading a country. Russia hasn't even been successful in invading Ukraine, they haven't even gotten to the hard part yet.
So the idea that not supporting Ukraine will somehow lead to a faster resolution to the war is simply bullshit propaganda. The only way to end the war sooner is to expedite a Ukrainian victory. Anything else is promoting Russian occupation and very likely another Holodomor kind of situation.
Do you want another Holodomor?
Russia has already lost the war. Even if they take the entire country, they've lost.
-
They've turned the entire West against them, and they're feeling the ramifications from resultant economic sanctions.
-
NATO has been revitalized, at a time where a lot of the West was beginning to doubt its necessity.
-
Sweden and Finland have decided to join NATO as a direct consequence of the invasion.
-
The political left and center in the West are decidedly anti Russian now. Except for the extreme far right, the right is anti Russian as well. They've left a negative impression that Zoomers and Millennials won't forget easily.
-
Their military is seen as an international laughingstock. They can only make empty threats now, and their ability to project power is heavily diminished. Putin is no longer seen as a mastermind strategist.
-
You could even argue the government is as seen as weak with the Wagner coup and how far they got with little resistance.
-
Population collapse may be inevitable. COVID already took some of their working population. This war has taken even more of them, and they have a draft even. The working population may not be large enough to support the aging population nor the economy.
-
The draft and war in general led to a good number of intellectuals fleeing the country. Their best and brightest are gone.
I think we're going to look back and see this war as the beginning of the Putin regime's collapse.
-
Would removing Putin's ability to effectively wage war through what would have been a modern day pearl harbour potentially up to and including the nuclear retaliation have been a good thing?
Is that the question we should be asking?
Perhaps asking why it is up to a private citizen to provide vital military infrastructure is a better question.
Just understand this headline could have just as easily read: Venture Capitalist averts Global Nuclear War.
It's all about perspective. Your opinion of Elon Musk shouldn't matter because he should have never been in this position to begin with.
You just made the same mistake Elon made: assuming it was OK for a random civilian to make critical tactical decisions in the middle of a conflict. Please don't do that. Also, I think you can't end war by encouraging billionaires to play armchair general and flex unpredictably. There are paths to peace, but that isn't one.
I didn't make a tactical decision, I voiced my opinion. Musk didn't really make a decision either. They asked him for a resource he can provide, as far as I know without going through the Government of the USA, he politely refused. He only had to make a tactical decision, because they presented him one. Either way he was going to decide would have influenced the outcome of the war, so the way that is staying out of it does is the way he is influencing it.
I think you're still missing the key distinction. Everyone understands that every business in the world can make decisions about who they will accept as customers. If that were the only issue here, I don't think many people would be particularly upset with Musk. Of course many of us are concerned about the military industrial complex in general, but his company is only one piece of that puzzle.
However, he wasn't content to say yes or no to potential clients. He created a specific situation where he, and only he, had the power to turn on and off services in specific areas at specific times. In other words, he wasn't content to affect the war on a high level by deciding to sell or not sell his services, but rather he wanted specific control in a way that would allow him to influence the outcome of specific battles. So he wants to have the same power as a general, but without any of the restrictions or consequences. And that, my friend, is why people all right so critical of his actions here.
I don’t think he is with the Russians
Well he has used Russian talking points a lot. Including here where he argues that Ukraine defending themselves would be an escalation.
I belive so too. You know why? Because a war never ends with the weaker side bombing a military unit of the stronger. Lot of people say this would be like Pearl Harbor. Did Pearl Harbor win WW2 for the Japanese? Before you ask, Russia is nowhere as strong as we thought before the war, but if someone says Ukraine is stronger, they are clearly out of their minds.
For Ukraine to win Russia just needs to go home, Russia left Afghanistan who were way more ill equipped, and they will leave Ukraine.
The reason you have heard the tide is turning many times, is because it has happened continuously since the beginning. Russia attempted a blitz against Ukraine, but failed, and lost territories they gained already early on. They also lost Kherson, and now they are losing on the retracted fronts too, both in the east and south.
The Russian army has only lost and hasn't gained ground for a year now. The only place Russia gained a little bit, was Bakhmut, and that was Wagner and not the Russian army. Wagner is dysfunctional now, another loss for Russia due to internal disagreements.