1030
Elon's got Putin's back. (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/enoughmuskspam@lemmy.world
232 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 84 points 3 years ago (3 children)

Alternate take: Elon Musk knowingly and intentionally prolonged the war in Ukraine. Sinking the Russian fleet at anchor would have been the most expedient way to end the war with as few casualties as possible. It's really really hard to fight a war without a navy.

The last time we capitulated to a dictator who invaded Europe, they didn't stop with just the first invasion. Just because Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons doesn't mean we have to roll over for him and give him an easy win in Ukraine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -36 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    If anything, Ukraine having control over the Black Sea means they can prolong their effort in the war, not end it quicker.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes because somehow Ukraine defeating Russia will lead to the war continuing... what the fuck is wrong with you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    That's not what I'm saying. Russia having control over the black sea means more for Ukraine than for Russia, as it's essentially the only route to deliver supplies to Ukraine. Russia has plenty of other routes to continue supplying the war effort. Taking back control over those waters means Ukraine can more easily import and export supplies and it extends their ability to fight the war, but it doesn't do much to actually push Russia out (except maybe cut Russia off from a quick retreat out of Crimea).

    Taking out the Russian fleet undoubtedly would have helped Ukraine, i don't dispute that, I just don't think it would have expedited any kind of end to the war because Russia has other options both for supplying their positions and in launching attacks and defenses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    If we believe Ukraine will win in the end, something that helps Ukraine should also help them win sooner. That is the opposite of prolonging as you claim.

    Seems to me that although this war is drawing out, the tides are turning to favor Ukraine more than Russia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago

    Yes, but I don't belive that. Sometimes good guys lose. And as inefficient and slow the Russian army is, it has multiple times the resources, and don't make the mistake of thinking they are stupid or something like that, because you would underestimate your opponent.

    "The tides are turning in favor of Ukraine" is something we've been hearing since the start of the war and I'm believing it less and less by the day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    This is a pretty wild claim, but if it's true then it's the best argument for a treaty I've heard. If all they want is access to the sea, no need to continue warring over Crimea or Donbas, just sign another lease to the port

    Though I've repeatedly heard their justifications for annexing Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, so I don't think anyone has any reason to believe they'd leave if they were just allowed to "protect their naval base"

    I'm getting the feeling this is more of a "vibes" conversation though, sorry for throwing off the vibes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 3 years ago

    I agree. A war usually ends with one of the sides overpowering their opponent. The bombing would have made Ukraine stronger and Russia weaker relatively, but in that process it would have only made the playing field more level. Something that doesn't happen when the end of a war is nearing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -42 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    While I hate elon, this is a bad take. Ukraine and russia boarder each other. Most of the fighting has been over land. What good is a navy in such a battle? The most I could think of is shelling but AFAIK russia has been doing it's shelling with traditional artillery. Further, Russia's navy is a hot garbage mess. They only have 1 aircraft carrier and it's been scuttled for pretty much the entire war (and has constantly caught on fire while being scuttled).

    The only wars that are hard to fight without a navy are wars where a significant portion of the warring nation and front-lines are near the water. That's not this war.

    Not to say there aren't advantages to Ukraine sinking the russian navy. But rather, it's unlikely that "the war would have ended tomorrow if they did".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    The russian navy can exert control and is a threat to the hundreds of kilometrrs of black sea cost as well as the ukrainian ports being absolutely crucial to the ukranian economy.

    Also dictators like their fancy navy. Blowing it up would damage Putins image tremendously

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -17 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    No disagreement, it would be a major blow to russia. I just don't think it would have ended the war. The navy simply hasn't played a major role in this war.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago

    They fire missiles from those ships. Also can prevent grain exports from Ukraine which has a major impact on the economic war.

    Significant damage to the Black Sea fleet would make it clear to many in Russia that Putin is weak which makes a coup more likely. Continuing this war is not in Russia's best interests it's only in Putin's interests (admitting defeat also makes him look weak. A coup in Russia likely ends the war.

    Certainly it's not something that would automatically end the war, but it significantly increases the probability of the war ending sooner. And there is significant strategic value to that fleet even if it's not directly engaged in combat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago

    the navy acts as mobile missile bases, they also allow Russia to move supplies by water, with there only being 2 land routes to most of the front, the ability to use shipping to bypass blockades, the sinking of the Russian fleet would also have allowed Ukrainians to more easily destroy the bridge between Russia and Crimea, this would make 80%+ of Russian positions in Ukraine untenable in terms of holding militarily, and since Putin can't afford to lose half his army in just a few months he would be forced to pull out and negotiate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent