Posted on 10/13/2022 11:09:06 AM PDT by JonPreston
Elon Musk got in hot water again on Twitter—for proposing peace. On Monday, Musk proposed a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine, for which he was denounced as a pro-Putin puppet by the Twitter mob that has formed to police the discourse on all things related to Ukraine.
The president of Ukraine himself, Volodymyr Zelensky, accused Musk of supporting Russia—even though Musk's company SpaceX donated Starlink to Ukraine's war effort at an out-of-pocket cost of $80 million. (Full disclosure: Musk is a friend and I am an investor in SpaceX.) Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany Andrj Melnyk was less subtle, telling Elon to "f***k off," while David Frum tweeted without evidence that "Russian sources" had used Elon to float a "trial balloon" of a peace proposal because they're afraid of losing Crimea. Scores of blue-checks on Twitter followed their lead, ordering Musk to stay in his lane.
The online mob has decided that any support for a negotiated settlement—even proposals that Zelensky himself appeared to support at the beginning of the war—is tantamount to taking Russia's side, denouncing voices of compromise and restraint as Putin apologists. This removes them from acceptable discourse and shrinks the Overton window to those advocating the total defeat of Russia and an end to Putin's regime—even if it risks WWIII.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
War Hawks and Woke Hawks. A demonic duo for sure.
Where are all of the neocon shills? On lunch break?
Right about now is the point when the NORKS and Rocket Man will set off a nuke just because they want some of that money the war hawks are tossing around.
A lot of people are indoctrinated into believing two falsehoods:
1) All nukes are gigantic, multi-megaton bombs. This is not true, in that “tactical nukes” can be quite small, with a yield somewhere between 155mm and 8 in howitzer rounds. And unless a survey team is on site within 48 hours, almost all the isotopes will have decayed.
2) Any nuke use will lead to a worldwide thermonuclear exchange. Not true at all. There have been conventional explosions that have been confused with nuclear ones by satellites, and after an initial diplomatic huff, nothing came of it.
Finally, I will add that nothing could be gained by the Russian side with nuclear use, other than as a bitter “Parthian shot” at Ukraine as they leave. Probably the biggest troop concentration the Russians could target is a battalion sized unit. Not worth it.
Use of any nuclear weapon, even at sea, is to cross the nuclear threshold and that is a very big deal, period.
“he was denounced as a pro-Putin puppet”
Well, yeah, if you propose rewarding Russia for invading her neighbors, then that’s what is going to happen. Duh.
It’s not your business, Proud Boy.
“it brings together two forces that used to be sworn enemies of one another—the woke Left and the neoconservative Right. It turns out they share many of the same loathsome ideological and personality traits, and have a similar “slash and burn” approach to political engagement. It’s a new political marriage.”
The left and neocons have always been brothers in spirit.
Always.
You’re absolutely right. Irving Kristol was the “godfather of neoconservatism” and passed the mantle down to Dan Quayle’s brain. The conservative movement has never been the same.
hush, Irishman
It’s so hard to understand why Ukraine, NATO, and the US are going to launch nuclear weapons now.
Fortunately we have you all here to explain it all to us simpletons.
/s
Other than making diplomats go ‘harumph’, there are no international protocols or treaties involving first use, or establishing an escalation mechanism.
Realistically speaking, there are no protocols against “internal genocide” like the Uighars, and undeclared conflicts that are not called “wars” specifically. And the Russians have been *very* careful not to call the Ukraine conflict a “war”.
The UN is a dead end, since not only can Russia veto a security council resolution, but China would do so in their stead.
The worst punishment that could be levied are “economic sanctions”, which are already in effect.
You are completely correct, That is why such situations that enter the zone of possible armed conflict between nuclear armed nations are so dangerous. This is why the former Soviet Union and the USA were both careful about both their actions and language about such situations. There were only a couple of times when the Soviets made threats in this direction. The most notable was ostensibly to ‘protect’ Egypt at the time of the Suez war. In reality it was a thinly veiled threat to the US and NATO not to intervene in Hungary. The sensibly cautious attitude of American diplomacy on this topic during the Cold War has been succeeded by a sort of nuclear threats bargaining at its crudest. That this kind bellicosity seems to spark so little interest on both sides of the Atlantic is more disturbing still.
Waiting for the word from our dear leaders that tactical nukes are actually more planet friendly than conventional ones.
Very little fallout and what does decays fast, no blast zone, just a warm feeling from the neutron burst that wreaks havoc on living organisms, except maybe chickens and cockroaches.
Get some new memes, Travis, everyone’s seen you post that one 1000 times already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.