Musk and Ukraine War

[PeaceMaker 03]

Musk has spent $100 mil helping Ukraine

Space: Starlink Sustainability In Ukraine

Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX and Starlink, recently agreed to continue paying for Ukrainian use of his Starlink satellite communications system after openly trying to persuade the United States to pick up the cost Musk has kept Starlink operational

www.strategypage.com

 

[Bassoe]

Ironically, Musk has been a voice of reason for the whole war, though his motives for doing so are indeterminate.

• Proposing a viable peace treaty, which was promptly called 'dangerous' by the very same media propagandists calling for WW3.
• Refusing to remotely sabotage all his company's products in Russia, though this might've been practical on his part rather than ethical, demonstrating they could sabotaged while alternatives were available wouldn't be good marketing.
• Wanting to be paid upfront for letting Ukraine use his company's satellites. Considering the sheer amount of western aid money available to Ukraine, Russia possessing orbit-to-surface weaponry capable of destroying all his satellites (as well as any other hopes of human progress in space for generations) and that Ukraine is rapidly ceasing to exist and victorious Russian conquerors would be unlikely to pay debts ran up by their defeated enemies, this was simply good business.

Charitably, he's upset that the collapse of the western oligarchy's financial empire couldn't have been delayed a few more decades so he could've finish getting himself, his buddies and the infrastructure necessary for them to sustain themselves out of the blast radius, uncharitably, he's upset that his company is losing money and stands to lose a lot more money. Every penny spent on building satellites and orbital launch infrastructure is wasted in the event of kessler syndrome, public awareness that they could be remotely sabotaged isn't good marketing for his cars and in event of nuclear apocalypse and the destruction of human civilization, he's as screwed as everyone else.

 

[Marduk]

Ironically, Musk has been a voice of reason for the whole war, though his motives for doing so are indeterminate.

• Proposing a viable peace treaty, which was promptly called 'dangerous' by the very same media propagandists calling for WW3.
• Refusing to remotely sabotage all his company's products in Russia, though this might've been practical on his part rather than ethical, demonstrating they could sabotaged while alternatives were available wouldn't be good marketing.
• Wanting to be paid upfront for letting Ukraine use his company's satellites. Considering the sheer amount of western aid money available to Ukraine, Russia possessing orbit-to-surface weaponry capable of destroying all his satellites (as well as any other hopes of human progress in space for generations) and that Ukraine is rapidly ceasing to exist and victorious Russian conquerors would be unlikely to pay debts ran up by their defeated enemies, this was simply good business.

Charitably, he's upset that the collapse of the western oligarchy's financial empire couldn't have been delayed a few more decades so he could've finish getting himself, his buddies and the infrastructure necessary for them to sustain themselves out of the blast radius, uncharitably, he's upset that his company is losing money and stands to lose a lot more money. Every penny spent on building satellites and orbital launch infrastructure is wasted in the event of kessler syndrome, public awareness that they could be remotely sabotaged isn't good marketing for his cars and in event of nuclear apocalypse and the destruction of human civilization, he's as screwed as everyone else.

TL;DR he's a reasonable CEO when it comes to own company's interests, but a poor diplomat and strategist, easily manipulated by veterans who know this stuff way better than he does. No, that treaty was crap, not viable, would last few years, maybe. Makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Cherico]

TL;DR he's a reasonable CEO when it comes to own company's interests, but a poor diplomat and strategist, easily manipulated by veterans who know this stuff way better than he does. No, that treaty was crap, not viable, would last few years, maybe. Makes sense, doesn't it?

people have areas where they know a lot and areas where they don't musks handled himself about as well as any neophite reasonably could considering he's been thrown head first into a war with out much warning.

 

[Bassoe]

veterans who know this stuff way better than he does.

The same 'experts' who just lost to the Taliban and are now claiming nuclear war can be won?

No, that treaty was crap, not viable, would last few years, maybe.

Why not? Seemed to me to adequately accomplish the following:

• Direct conflict between nuclear superpowers is at least delayed.
• Delays equal more time to escape.

Sure it does nothing for secondary concerns like Ukraine not getting conquered or NATO's credibility or the military-industry complex's opportunity to steal a few trillion more from the American taxpayer, but those concerns are secondary and in the long run, irreverent, assuming there is a long run.

 

[Marduk]

The same 'experts' who just lost to the Taliban and are now claiming nuclear war can be won?

Stop spinning, you aren't a looted washing machine.
I understand the desire to make fun of democrat's bungled handling of abandoning the mess, but losing implies showing up to a fight. Meanwhile, the whole problem here is that there was nothing to fight for, and no realistic objective at all, only hope and dreams of somehow turning Afghanistan into a liberal socialdemocracy, even though it neither can nor wants to be one, or even afford to be one. Obviously that's not a military objective, no amount of military power can make it happen. It just wasn't worth keeping, and was kept far longer than it was worth. Second case of "nation building in islamic shithole, forget about it".

Why not? Seemed to me to adequately accomplish the following:

• Direct conflict between nuclear superpowers is at least delayed.
• Delays equal more time to escape.

Sure it does nothing for secondary concerns like Ukraine not getting conquered or NATO's credibility or the military-industry complex's opportunity to steal a few trillion more from the American taxpayer, but those concerns are secondary and in the long run, irreverent, assuming there is a long run.

This analysis is so shallow that there are deeper puddles on my yard.
And to make it somehow even less credible you just had to throw in one regurgitated talking point that's straight out wrong. What fucking trillions? What are you smoking? Did you confuse Ukraine with Afghanistan?
Where do i start?
Firstly, it delays jack shit. There are no guarantees in any of these scenarios. For any realistic "escape" Musk needs decades, the treaty probably wouldn't last even one and may well have the war come back worse when least expected. Secondly, it could make the work environment for his company far worse if the shitheels of world stage take this as a sign of weakness from the West and start settling all the old scores, which in turn vastly increases risk of a nuclear conflict. World economy is crashed due to escalating mess in ME and Chinese moves on Taiwan, which also causes an electronics crunch, also something Musk's endeavors absolutely need to go anywhere. Long story short, world logistics and economy get messed up even worse than COVID and current fuels crunch combined, and Musk's business is hurt as collateral damage like most other businesses big and small. Besides funny dilemmas like trying to not get sanctioned by the West while also not getting sanctioned by China for lithium supply and few other things.

It would serve Musk (and all the other westerners) far better if the current world order of West staring down everyone (what a happy coincidence that his company is in the USA) continues as long as possible. None of the new shit with promises of "multipolar world", even dumber than usual hippie kumbayah bullshit, these idiots don't even understand the implications of what they are cheering for.

 

[WolfBear]

The same 'experts' who just lost to the Taliban and are now claiming nuclear war can be won?

Why not? Seemed to me to adequately accomplish the following:

• Direct conflict between nuclear superpowers is at least delayed.
• Delays equal more time to escape.

Sure it does nothing for secondary concerns like Ukraine not getting conquered or NATO's credibility or the military-industry complex's opportunity to steal a few trillion more from the American taxpayer, but those concerns are secondary and in the long run, irreverent, assuming there is a long run.

What exactly makes you think that Russia would accept free and fair referendums in places such as Kherson and Zaporizhia that it would be guaranteed to lose?

 

[WolfBear]

It would serve Musk (and all the other westerners) far better if the current world order of West staring down everyone (what a happy coincidence that his company is in the USA) continues as long as possible. None of the new shit with promises of "multipolar world", even dumber than usual hippie kumbayah bullshit, these idiots don't even understand the implications of what they are cheering for.

FWIW, a multipolar world could be useful if it helps combat Wokeness in the West. But we don't want any of the poles in this multipolar world behaving like little shits like Russia is currently doing in Ukraine.

The Western security architecture that was built after the end of WWII has successfully survived for almost 80 years, which really is quite extraordinarily impressive. The Western world is now more united and harmonious than ever before. For all of those Russian nationalists who complain about their country becoming a Western appendage post-color revolution, would they really prefer to become a Chinese appendage instead? Because that's the only realistic option for them in this century and possibly the next century or two as well.

 

[Zachowon]

All or nothing at this stage.
He is an idiot about diplomatic issues.
He is....scared of nukes.
Sure.
Guess what? Tac nukes dont cause WW3.
Strat nukes do.
Unless we invade mainland Russia Strat nukes will not flt.

So him trying to make these peace deal shit is going to make it worse and just make our enemies go "if we threaten nukes they give up. Let's take Taiwan!"

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

This whole war is a gigantic globalist psyop so that a bunch of blood traitors and human traffickers can enrich themselves.

Musk did nothing wrong.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Musk did nothing wrong, certainly not to earn the ire he's received. But that's par for course for popular discourse nowadays.

The only thing Musk did that triggered people was post a poll ASKING people if they'd agree with a fair referendum for voting of the occupied territories and their future. Never did he invoke the Minsk Accords, discount the Ukrainians, endorse Putinism, or anything. And he was excoriated for it by all of the harpies in the public sphere and social media.

When he stated he was pursuing options for "peace" people just attacked him more. Government officials posted memes about him, mainstream publications posted articles about how Elon Musk was somehow being selfish for wanting the Pentagon to pay for Starlink and fuckheads like David Frum and others were stating his company should be nationalized.

NOW shockingly... Elon Musk hasn't cowered in social media and is posting about and RT'ing posts referencing criticism of NATO Expansion, and making (IMHO) far more moronic posts like how he thought Taiwan should accept an arrangement similar to fucking Hong Kong for peace.

Reap what you sow. Moderate and mild (if naive) opinions that are so offensively contrarian aren't allowed. It marks you as an extremist and you'll be pushed into that camp. Seen that story before...

 

[WolfBear]

NOW shockingly... Elon Musk hasn't cowered in social media and is posting about and RT'ing posts referencing criticism of NATO Expansion, and making (IMHO) far more moronic posts like how he thought Taiwan should accept an arrangement similar to fucking Hong Kong for peace.

This is coming from the same guy whose father had two children together with his stepsister (dad's stepdaughter) lol! So smart and yet also so wacky and nutty lol!

 

[Agent23]

I think he is trying to create enough controversy around himself that he can weasel out of buying twitter, and maybe get the US government to force him to sell Starlink to them.
Musk is a snake oil salesman and a PR expert, so I think he knows this is a good way to get Brandon to block a very bad deal he got himself into.

The same 'experts' who just lost to the Taliban and are now claiming nuclear war can be won?

Why not? Seemed to me to adequately accomplish the following:

• Direct conflict between nuclear superpowers is at least delayed.
• Delays equal more time to escape.

You do realize you are speaking with somebody who suffers from Polish Russia Derangement Syndrome, right:

To quote a Polish meme, famine, cold and nuclear war are a small price to pay for Russia's destruction.
You could say this is a joke, the problem is that this is the current state of mind of many Poles, yes there is a vociferous group opposing it but on Twitter and strangely supported by Russian bots.
So no, we in fact right now are just looking very focused on one goal, to break Russia.

And the price? The price is of little importance. Disasters do happen.

As with nuclear wars, the best move is not to play.
Woke War 3 - The American Conservative

David Sacks published an excellent column at Newsweek decrying the ideologues who are preventing us from discussing a way out of the Russia-Ukraine war. Excerpts:

David Frum set the neocon standard for this tactic when he branded the small number of pundits on the Right who opposed the Iraq War as "Unpatriotic Conservatives" at the outset of that strategic disaster. Fast forward to today and anyone who suggests that NATO expansion could have been a contributing factor to the current Ukraine crisis, or that the sanctions imposed on Russia are not working and have backfired on a soon-to-be-shivering Europe, or even that the U.S. must prioritize avoiding a world war with a nuclear-armed Russia, is denounced as a Putin stooge.
Warping the debate in this way allows delusional and contradictory thinking to go unchallenged. Thus, we get the argument that Putin is a madman who will kill indiscriminately to achieve his aims—but he is also somehow definitely bluffing about using nuclear weapons. And he's only using that bluff because he's losing the war—but if he's not stopped in Ukraine, he will go on to conquer the rest of Europe. Putin's regime must fall because he has killed or jailed all the liberal reformers and yoked himself to a hardline Far Right, but somehow he will be replaced by a liberal reformer when his regime collapses.
It's nonsensical, and a real debate would expose some of the delusions in this thinking. But we aren't allowed to have one.

More:

As long as this woke-neocon alliance is allowed to set the terms of the debate, we will continue to see a one-way ratchet toward greater and more dangerous escalation of this conflict.

You can add RDS afflicted to that alliance, IMHO.

Musk is just trying to get labeled a security risk so he wont be "allowed" to buy twitter anyone notice right after the sale was ordered to go thru he's suddenly been very keen on making public plays that weaken the US geopolitical position, like the whole western Taiwan thing

That and war and inflation will sink Tesla's price even further.

China is a huge market for him.

 

[shangrila]

It's funny how the dumbest thing Musk has ever said is that one country two systems could work in Taiwan after how that turned out in Hong Kong, but it barely comes up. A few reasonable critiques and that's it. Instead it's all nonsense about helping Putin, or Emerald Mines, or "snake oil", or Hyperloop . . .

It's become obvious why that is. Musk has developed an extraordinary power of having all the right enemies. These include all the most ridiculously deranged people: mostly woke leftists and their NPCs nowadays, but also deep staters, assorted authoritarians, Putinists, corrupt politicians, and generic America haters.

It's amazing how you can get the arch-Putinist who thinks the Russians can end the woke and a woke NPC troll to agree. It's so rare that we can put all the most wrong people into one basket when most of the time we have to accept the idiots on our side. Even Trump had only a weaker and less reliable version of this power.

 

[Agent23]

It's funny how the dumbest thing Musk has ever said is that one country two systems could work in Taiwan after how that turned out in Hong Kong, but it barely comes up. A few reasonable critiques and that's it. Instead it's all nonsense about helping Putin, or Emerald Mines, or "snake oil", or Hyperloop . . .

It's become obvious why that is. Musk has developed an extraordinary power of having all the right enemies. These include all the most ridiculously deranged people: mostly woke leftists and their NPCs nowadays, but also deep staters, assorted authoritarians, Putinists, corrupt politicians, and generic America haters.

It's amazing how you can get the arch-Putinist who thinks the Russians can end the woke and a woke NPC troll to agree. It's so rare that we can put all the most wrong people into one basket when most of the time we have to accept the idiots on our side. Even Trump had only a weaker and less reliable version of this power.

Now, now, I have always hated Musk because he is a snake oil salesman, Ukraine or Nokrane, that will never change.

 

[shangrila]

Now, now, I have always hated Musk because he is a snake oil salesman, Ukraine or Nokrane, that will never change.

Yes, that's the point of what you quoted, the reliability of the Musk based wrong on everything detector. It's honestly amazing how well you can predict general wrongness by looking solely at hatred of Musk who is himself often wrong. You wouldn't think that would work, but it does.

 

[Agent23]

Yes, that's the point of what you quoted, the reliability of the Musk based wrong on everything detector. It's honestly amazing how well you can predict general wrongness by looking solely at hatred of Musk who is himself often wrong. You wouldn't think that would work, but it does.

Maybe because he is a fake populist and a fake supporter of common sense, and while he is a snake oil salesman and PR whore, you don't get as rich and as successful as he is with multiple ventures like Tesla, PayPal and SpaceX for decades without being able to sense from where the wind is blowing, and in our case it is blowing against the Ivory Tower wokies and the nomenclatura.

 

[Terthna]

Yes, that's the point of what you quoted, the reliability of the Musk based wrong on everything detector. It's honestly amazing how well you can predict general wrongness by looking solely at hatred of Musk who is himself often wrong. You wouldn't think that would work, but it does.

To be fair, he's not wrong about Musk being a snake oil salesman. The guy sells overpriced and poorly-designed electric vehicles to naive environmentalists his company deludes into thinking are good for the environment.

 

[shangrila]

To be fair, he's not wrong about Musk being a snake oil salesman. The guy sells overpriced and poorly-designed electric vehicles to naive environmentalists his company deludes into thinking are good for the environment.

That's poorly made. The design ranges from acceptable (user interface) to brilliant (power pack). And there's no such thing as overpriced as the market bears. Stripping money from leftists virtue signaling is a public service. Nor can anyone deny that his rockets and satellites are the best in the world at the lowest price.

Elon Musk is a nerd autist who got his political views from pulp science fiction, i.e. a Heinleinian Libertarian. You know, the guy wrote Starship Troopers for people used only to pot and open borders modern libertarians. They and he believe in big technological solutions to every problem. Sometimes that's right and sometimes that's wrong. The attempts to engineer big tech solutions to public transit with the libertarian desires for privacy and personal autonomy are probably hopeless. Nonetheless, Musk gets people to buy on to big tech ideas good and bad by believing himself and clearly communicating that. He's so awful at public speaking that it's hilarious the haters that think he's some brilliant manipulator.

I respect a man trying to use technology to solve problems, even if some of the ideas are poor, and some have already turned out better than I expected. Hell of a lot better than the people trying to solve the same problems through social engineering, i.e. turn us into propertyless peons ruled by elite nobles.

 

[Terthna]

That's poorly made. The design ranges from acceptable (user interface) to brilliant (power pack).

I stand by what I said.