I hear you, but if you are referring to the OP I think you are, that person has posted for years in other threads with informative pieces. Given that, I’m uncomfortable labeling them a “troll,” even though I strongly disagree with their views. There were other posters here for whom that designation fits more squarely.
Some people have access to bad news sources and allow that to shape their opinions. There are a few good sources from the US with good quality news about the war in Ukraine, but most of it is pretty bad. The best news sources are coming out of Ukraine itself.
It's more nuanced than that. People wanted to somehow punish Russia for its aggression, which isn't a bad reaction at first blush. But there are better options. In the interview, Elon articulated his position in much more depth and provided viable alternatives.
First, his stance on the Ukraine war was that a year ago he was predicting what we see now - WW1 style trench warfare where whoever goes on the offensive will lose troops at a 3-1 ratio. We saw that with Russian troops initially, and now we see it with Ukrainian troops. There is no solution from this state other than a negotiated peace. Had it been done a year ago, many lives would have been saved.
Second, his other point is that the way to win actual wars (as opposed to battles) is via conspicuous acts of kindness. He pointed to the Marshall plan and how the US uplifted and rebuilt Japan and Germany after defeating them militarily. This ensured lasting peace. For this segment he was talking about this in the context of the Israel/Hamas war.
Elon's points make a lot of sense. Putting them into practice is hard, but worthwhile to try.
Any sane person wants peace, but a naive approach to peace is a recipe for disaster. Nevil Chamberlain has gone down in history as the fool who tried to negotiate peace with Hitler. The truth is a bit more complex, Chamberlain was trying to buy time for Britain to rearm, but in the history books he's cast as a fool.
For any negotiated peace that is going to work, there has to be some key elements in place. Both sides need to be serious about actually wanting peace. To come to the negotiating table in good faith, each side either needs to be so sick of fighting they are ready to bury the hatchet, or one side is in such a poor position compared to the other that the weaker side is trying to claw something back from the negotiating process, but they are going to lose the war.
The Russians got out of WW I when a large portion of their population said "we're done with this" and continuing the war became untenable. In 1918 similar things were happening in Germany which brought them to the negotiating table.
Wars like the USSR in Afghanistan, the US in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and other failed invasions, the invading power realized that they were not going to get anywhere and cut their losses. Wars like the Mexican-American or Spanish-American wars ended when the losing side sued for peace and gave the US land in exchange for being left alone.
Wars like WW II or the American Civil War ended when one side completely collapsed and was occupied by the other side. Those sorts of war endings are rare and Ukraine is not going to occupy Russia to end this. Russia occupying Ukraine is not going to happen either because Ukraine is not going to allow it as long as there are Ukrainians still alive.
From the Nevil Chamberlain example, negotiated settlements with a certain type of dictator is a fool's errand. These types of dictators are ones what have proven territorial ambitions outside their borders and have the means to produce their own weapons. Saddam Hussein had territorial ambitions, but Iraq had virtually no weapons industry, so ultimately he could be contained. Orban in Hungary is a dictator, but he shows no signs of wanting to invade his neighbors.
Hitler was the double threat. Germany had a well developed arms industry, and Hitler had big territorial ambitions. Putin doesn't have quite the arms industry behind him that Hitler had, but he has demonstrated he does want to invade his neighbors and he does have an arms industry. Russia also has access to natural resources that Germany never had.
If Putin negotiates a settlement any time soon, he will just be doing it to give himself time to rebuild the army so he can do it again. Putin has also demonstrated that he will not abide by any negotiated settlement. He will stick to it just as long as it's convenient for him, then he will break it.
Reasonable people realize that when they make an agreement with someone, it's worth sticking to that agreement for many reasons. It establishes you as a trustworthy person, as long as the agreement is fair to both parties it's a win-win, and ethically it's just the right thing to do.
Not all people are reasonable. Robert Heinlein once said "never appeal to a man's better nature, he may not have one." (I would replace "man" with "person", but the quote otherwise stands up to time.) It isn't limited to personality disorders, but people with cluster B PDs (borderline, narcissistic, and antisocial) almost always consider other people to just be suckers when they try to negotiate, especially the last two. There are different mechanisms going on inside their heads, but they all lack empathy for others and they tend to think of themselves and their needs as at the center of the universe.
For these people negotiating with someone else is just buying time for their schemes. Having an agreement in place gives them time to work on their next scheme and they will break the agreement as soon as it is convenient to them. They think anyone who tries to negotiate with anyone else is weak and the people they make agreements with are just suckers who will become marks down the road when they pull the rug out from under them.
A lot of dictators and would be dictators have cluster B PDs. Especially narcissistic and antisocial. Putin has always demonstrated a lot of antisocial traits.
The only way to get Putin to stick to a negotiated settlement is if breaking the settlement would be much worse for him than sticking to it. But enforcement mechanisms for a negotiated settlement with Ukraine are going to be hard to come by.
As long as Putin is in power in Russia, a negotiated settlement is foolish. If Putin falls from power and the new Russian leader is making noises about blaming the whole thing on Putin, a workable settlement might be possible.
I cringe whenever I see pleas for Nevil Chamberlain style negotiated settlements from people like Elon. It's dangerously naive.
sverigesradio.se
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/ZWDVQBIUJBP3VKJZT5DSB7XWO4.jpg)
