An analysis of how Musk's peace plan is buffoonish nonsense.
1) The UN does not have the ability to enforce a fair plebiscite. It is not a state, and it cannot magically bring the rule of law to a war-torn area. This shows he has a very poor understanding of the UN and international politics. Low IQ shit.
2) A fair plebiscite is impossible given that the war itself pushed pro-Ukrainian people out of those territories. My analogy is having the board vote on whether I should be made Tesla CEO after I just took over the corporate headquarters with guns.
3) The very fact that Russia invaded Ukraine, twice, implies that Russia cannot credibly commit to adhere to any peace agreement while Putin remains in power. After all, Ukraine made peace once and look at what happened.
Would Musk bargain with a person who broke a contract with him and whom he previously had had to sue? Of course not. How can Musk's common sense abandon him here simply because we changed the context slightly. Another low IQ move on the part of the obviously talented but far from universal genius.
4) Given Russian aggression, Ukraine cannot credibly commit to staying neutral. It is a lot like a criminal releasing you conditional on your not contacting the police. No sane criminal does this, because you will obviously break your promise once you are outside his clutches. And once NATO protection is given, Russia cannot use its military to enforce the deal.
In short, Elon Musk is a seriously autistic clown who does not understand humans very well. I would think he should have a better understanding of negotiation given his business success, but I think his success is due more to organizational talent than skill in negotiation as is evidenced by his many missteps in the Twitter deal.
The paragraph that I'm about to copy-paste is from a Michael Anton article posted at today's Amgreatness. "Bill" is Bill Kristol.:
--- {quote}
The only issue over which Bill has been consistent over the last 20 years is war. He’s for it! Here again is a grave issue where honest men can disagree. But Bill is not content to disagree, much less to give the benefit of the doubt to any of his former friends who question the wisdom of the last 20 years of war. You are either for maximalist interventionism—in the present context, that means arming Ukraine—or you are a wicked person. No leeway is allowed for genuine differences of opinion, or even prudential miscalculation. Bill is entirely Manichaean on this (and every other) topic.
---{unquote}
So, Michael Anton sees arming Ukraine as "maximalist interventionism." Anton is of course opposed to maximalist interventionism. Anton is therefore opposed to arming Ukraine. Anton therefore thinks that Russia should be allowed to conquer Ukraine.
Anton is generally regarded as articulating the Trump-movement's core commitments. Until Trump clearly indicates whether or not he thinks that the USA should enable Ukraine to defend itself against Russia,, it should therefore be assumed that Trump thinks that Russia should be allowed to conquer Ukraine.
I think that the USA's foreign policy should be principled. Therefore, given the USA's present liberal-corporate global hegemony, the USA should enable Ukraine to defend itself against Russia. If, on the other hand, the USA renounces this hegemony, then the USA can respectably allow the conquest of Ukraine by Russia.
(I say "liberal-corporate global ..." because the adjective "Western" is geographically restrictive; the USA's hegemony isn't unqualifiedly global, as China, Iran, India, Russia, etc., aren't included within its scope, but is more than Western, as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan ARE included within its scope.)