Vladimir Kostyrev — about the billionaire's explosive proposals on Twitter, their significance and impactThe plan of the American entrepreneur, the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, for a peaceful settlement in Ukraine blew up
After a wave of critical statements in his address, Elon Musk created a new survey on whether the ownership of territories should be determined by the will of people. 2,433,392 people took part in it, 59% of them agreed with the opinion of the entrepreneur, 41% did not.
Thousands of Twitter users reacted to Musk's proposal, including Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, representatives of his administration, and Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Oksana Markarova. Elon Musk answered some of them, explaining his position. He recalled that there are many Russians living in the east of Ukraine who voted for the pro-Russian Party of Regions in 2012. He also noted that, in his opinion, the conflict will eventually end on approximately the terms that he is now offering. Musk also said that he does not refuse to support Ukraine, but is afraid of a possible escalation and a full-scale war with the use of nuclear weapons.
In the United States, Elon Musk's proposal also did not go unnoticed, a number of outside experts and senators expressed their opinion, although there were no comments from the current administration. The UN responded with a joke: "I am sure that many people have already earned a sore wrist in discussions on this issue, and no matter how much I would like to participate, I will not do it," said the representative of the UN Secretary—General Stephane Dujarric.
The rich have their own quirks
What goals did Elon Musk pursue when publishing his plan, how sincere are his aspirations for peace and fear of a major conflict between the leading world powers? Perhaps only he himself can answer this question. In recent years, Musk has increasingly become a "network celebrity", a person whose statements create epic "holivars" and bring down cryptocurrency rates. After all, he himself admitted that he had Asperger's syndrome, a mental disorder that caused him to "sometimes say and write strange things." The Washington Post, for example, directly expresses the version that the creator of Tesla just wanted to attract attention to himself and used an actual topic for this. He certainly succeeded.
The other version is more practical. At the end of last week, Tesla's quarterly report was published, from which it follows that the company has not achieved the expected indicators over the past three months and is unlikely to fully implement the goals set for 2022. As a result, the shares of the electric car manufacturer collapsed by more than 8% on Monday. However, after the publication of the "peace plan", this failure of the Mask faded into the background.
There are, however, circumstances that may indicate Musk's sincere interest in a settlement in Ukraine. This year, a new giant Tesla plant in Germany was finally launched, which should bring the company to a leading position in the electric vehicle market in Europe. However, the recession threatening the European Union poses a great threat to these plans.
Finally, this is not the first time Musk has shown interest in global issues. In the spring, he delivered Starlink satellite communication terminals to Ukraine. One of them was delivered to the "Azovstal" in Mariupol in the spring, providing communication to the detachments holding it with the "mainland". Part of the cost of delivering terminals was paid by Musk himself. Zelensky even had a video conversation with the entrepreneur at that time. When the protests began in Iran in September, Elon Musk expressed his willingness to provide a Starlink connection to the protesters in that country.
Whether the billionaire was sincere in his proposals or not, the plan he proposed, of course, is not realistic. It is difficult to imagine holding any "repeated referendums" in new regions of Russia that have already made their choice. But it's not even about specific proposals. No matter how good the peace settlement plan is, it can be implemented only if the parties are ready to do so. Kiev also stated that it does not intend to negotiate at all. Western diplomats are not only on the sidelines, but also openly say that the outcome of the confrontation will be determined on the battlefield.
Since the beginning of the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, several plans have already been put forward for its settlement: discussed at the talks in Istanbul at the end of March, then the initiative of Italy, the recent proposal of Mexico. All of them remained plans and proposals. I personally have no reason to believe that the Mask's plan is waiting for a different fate.
The struggle for peace
But in any case, at least by reaching the audience on Twitter, Musk's proposal has become part of a public discussion about the development of the situation in Ukraine. The question is not even about the possibility of implementing a specific idea, but about the very possibility of talking about peace, and not about the continuation of the conflict and some kind of "victory", the contours of which cannot be clearly outlined either in Kiev or in Washington. The initiative of Elon Musk is very indicative in this sense.
Even taking into account the numerous bots on Twitter and the fact that residents of not only the United States and its allies, but also many other countries of the world, obviously took part in the survey, we can say that there is a request for peace. In the end, about a million users voted for Musk's proposal. However, there were still more opponents.
The reaction of the establishment is indicative. The billionaire's proposal was criticized by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who said that the entrepreneur does not understand anything about the situation around Ukraine. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the House of Representatives, called the peace initiative "the worst proposal I've ever seen." Political scientist Ian Bremmer advised Musk to "stop doing geopolitics." As a definite result of the current situation, I see the words of the expert-political scientist Sagar Engeti: "That's the problem with discussions about Ukraine. Elon Musk offers a bitter diplomatic solution to the conflict instead of a nuclear war, and Zelensky accuses him of supporting Russia for the proposal itself. And he is echoed by the media and the foreign policy elite."
However, it is impossible to say that no one in the United States is thinking about ending the conflict and peace. Such voices are periodically heard. Back in May, an editorial column in the New York Times received a great response, where it was proposed to think about ways to end the conflict. In early June, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger spoke about the need for a settlement, including with certain concessions from Ukraine. In September, former US President Donald Trump spoke about the need to search for peace and even hinted that he could play the role of a mediator. There is a request for peace at a lower level, as evidenced by numerous memes on social networks after the hurricane in Florida, dedicated to the fact that the cities of the affected state are renaming themselves "Ukraine" in order to receive federal assistance.
But, as the story of the peace plan from Musk demonstrated, voices in support of peace are drowning in the chorus of supporters of the struggle to the end. According to the results of an Ipsos/Reuters poll published on October 5 (the survey was conducted on October 4-5, 1,005 people took part), 73% of Americans believe that the United States should continue to support Ukraine, 66% believe that it is necessary to continue supplying weapons to Kiev.
These data do not allow us to count on changes in the Biden administration's course towards Ukraine. Even among Republicans, the share of supporters supporting Kiev is 66%, according to the same poll. On the Ukrainian issue, the two main American parties from the very beginning differed more in tactics than in strategy, and so far there are no signs that the situation can change dramatically. Even if Congress one day, in the event of a Republican triumph in the midterm elections to be held in a month, resists gratuitous assistance to Ukraine, the White House has a way out — the lend-lease law, thanks to which Kiev will still be able to receive the required weapons, albeit with the condition to pay for them sometime in the future.
Washington's Choice
If we look at the situation on a larger scale, we can say that the old struggle between the two main approaches to foreign policy in the United States — realistic and liberal - continues on the issue of a peaceful settlement in Ukraine.
Supporters of the realistic approach, one of the most prominent representatives of which is the international relations specialist John Mearsheimer, call for taking into account the interests of various players on the world stage and the balance of power — that is, "real factors". Back in the 1990s, they warned about the danger of NATO's expansion to the east, to the territory of countries that Russia had long considered as its "security zone".
Representatives of the liberal approach advocate the need to adhere to certain principles in international relations, or, as some of its representatives like to say, "rules" that must be observed, often regardless of other circumstances and considerations.
At the moment, the tone in the situation around Ukraine is set by the latter. Such an approach did not imply compromises with Russia during the expansion of NATO to the east, and apparently does not imply them now. The very fact of the conflict in Ukraine serves as a confirmation for them of the impossibility of negotiating with Moscow, and at the same time the need to promote their own security system and a "rules-based world order."
This state of affairs, of course, is not set in stone. When the situation "on the ground" in Ukraine froze in August, the share of supporters of arms supplies to Kiev, according to an earlier survey Ipsos/Reuters, was only 51%. However, even here we have to admit that these changes are determined not at the negotiating table, but on the battlefield. A significant strengthening of the positions of realists in Washington can hardly be counted on under the current administration. The voices of peace supporters will be heard, but even such "influencers" as Elon Musk can hardly expect that their proposals will receive real development outside of Twitter.
