5 ms·

US Weighs Security Reviews for Musk Deals, Including Twitter Buy

12 points by VagueMag 4y ago

photochemsyn 4y ago
The greatest risk to US national security would be to escalate the Russia-Ukraine conflict into a wider war with real risks of multiple nuclear exchanges (in which the US mainland would be a target). Avoiding this requires that diplomatic negotiations aimed at ending the conflict take place. Musk seems to be far more rational on this point than the advocates of continued escalation within the Biden Administration. The outcome of such negotiations would most likely involve the Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine leaving Kyiv's control, with a new (ideally demilitarized) border between Ukraine and Russia. That's a better outcome than global nuclear war. Note also, Russia's economic relationship with Europe is basically over, so it's hardly a 'win for Putin', if that's the argument against this rational approach.
- helsinkiandrew 4y ago
  I think the US and other western governments believe this would be seen as a military 'win' for Putin (the massive economic consequences can just be blamed on the 'evil west' attacking Russia) and although it would reduce tensions in the short term, would likely make it more likely that Russia would continue to threaten and/or attack other countries on its border or further afield.
  - cezart 4y ago
    Furthermore, it would be seen as a huge betrayal of Ukraine. From their eyes, it will be a repeat of 2014, Russia got in, took some territory, the big players intervened with some sanctions and so, and Putin/Russia got away with it. So probably in 8 more years, or way sooner, Russia will regroup, and attack again to take some more territory, and after that, probably some other country as well. Russian and Ukrainian military telegram channels these days discuss that behind the current olive branch from Kremlin, is a desire to regroup troops(they're having losses on the battlefield daily), wait for winter to pass in the meantime training well the conscripts and rebuilding the loss machinery, and attack again in Spring. So not even 8 years of peace as it was last time, but around half a year, in exchange for quite a bit of Ukrainian Territory.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  Neville Chamberlain wants his peace for our time back. Outcome of such negotiations can also mean expulsion of Russian population from Ukraine to Russia as it was done after WW2 with Germans in neighboring states.
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    The fundamental factor that undermines the Chamberlain meme is nuclear weapons. If Britain, Russia and Germany (hey, why not Poland too?) had ballistic nukes in 1938, Germany would not have invaded Poland or Russia, or launched attacks on Britain. This dynamic has had a fundamental effect on the course of military conflict ever since the end of WWII. India and Pakistan, for example, would likely have engaged in massive WWII-era tank battles over Kashmir without the threat of nuclear escalation holding them back. Israel's nuclear weapons have dissuaded the other regional powers from launching more wars on Israel. North Korea ensured it won't be regime-changed by building nuclear weapons. Also, if Iraq and Libya had possessed nuclear weapons, the US / NATO wouldn't have overthrown those governments, and they'd still be around in their previous form. This has resulted in an era of covert wars, or wars of superpowers against relatively defenseless entities, which often turned into proxy wars (Vietnam being one example, Syria being another, and now Ukraine being the latest example).
    - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
      Germans were eager to go through whole meatgrinder of Eastern front losing hundred of thousands of soldiers there and did not even flinched after firebombing of Hamburg. What is the difference from 30kT nuke? Nuclear weapons in 1930s would made war more destructive, but it would happened anyway.
helsinkiandrew 4y ago
https://archive.ph/wms4b https://archive.ph/wms4b

12 points by VagueMag 4y ago

The greatest risk to US national security would be to escalate the Russia-Ukraine conflict into a wider war with real risks of multiple nuclear exchanges (in which the US mainland would be a target). Avoiding this requires that diplomatic negotiations aimed at ending the conflict take place. Musk seems to be far more rational on this point than the advocates of continued escalation within the Biden Administration. The outcome of such negotiations would most likely involve the Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine leaving Kyiv's control, with a new (ideally demilitarized) border between Ukraine and Russia. That's a better outcome than global nuclear war. Note also, Russia's economic relationship with Europe is basically over, so it's hardly a 'win for Putin', if that's the argument against this rational approach.

helsinkiandrew 4y ago
I think the US and other western governments believe this would be seen as a military 'win' for Putin (the massive economic consequences can just be blamed on the 'evil west' attacking Russia) and although it would reduce tensions in the short term, would likely make it more likely that Russia would continue to threaten and/or attack other countries on its border or further afield.
- cezart 4y ago
  Furthermore, it would be seen as a huge betrayal of Ukraine. From their eyes, it will be a repeat of 2014, Russia got in, took some territory, the big players intervened with some sanctions and so, and Putin/Russia got away with it. So probably in 8 more years, or way sooner, Russia will regroup, and attack again to take some more territory, and after that, probably some other country as well. Russian and Ukrainian military telegram channels these days discuss that behind the current olive branch from Kremlin, is a desire to regroup troops(they're having losses on the battlefield daily), wait for winter to pass in the meantime training well the conscripts and rebuilding the loss machinery, and attack again in Spring. So not even 8 years of peace as it was last time, but around half a year, in exchange for quite a bit of Ukrainian Territory.
TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
Neville Chamberlain wants his peace for our time back. Outcome of such negotiations can also mean expulsion of Russian population from Ukraine to Russia as it was done after WW2 with Germans in neighboring states.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  The fundamental factor that undermines the Chamberlain meme is nuclear weapons. If Britain, Russia and Germany (hey, why not Poland too?) had ballistic nukes in 1938, Germany would not have invaded Poland or Russia, or launched attacks on Britain. This dynamic has had a fundamental effect on the course of military conflict ever since the end of WWII. India and Pakistan, for example, would likely have engaged in massive WWII-era tank battles over Kashmir without the threat of nuclear escalation holding them back. Israel's nuclear weapons have dissuaded the other regional powers from launching more wars on Israel. North Korea ensured it won't be regime-changed by building nuclear weapons. Also, if Iraq and Libya had possessed nuclear weapons, the US / NATO wouldn't have overthrown those governments, and they'd still be around in their previous form. This has resulted in an era of covert wars, or wars of superpowers against relatively defenseless entities, which often turned into proxy wars (Vietnam being one example, Syria being another, and now Ukraine being the latest example).
  - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    Germans were eager to go through whole meatgrinder of Eastern front losing hundred of thousands of soldiers there and did not even flinched after firebombing of Hamburg. What is the difference from 30kT nuke? Nuclear weapons in 1930s would made war more destructive, but it would happened anyway.

helsinkiandrew 4y ago

https://archive.ph/wms4b https://archive.ph/wms4b