I enjoyed this reasonable video analysis of Musk's peace proposal here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdcKIUjp4
I don't agree with everything, but it at least critically evaluates Musk's Tweet without getting hysterical, unlike the liberal media and political establishments in their responses to it.
It makes the following points:
1) There are settlements available that leave both sides better off than if fighting continues until one side's military goals are fulfilled. Experts agree that a negotiated settlement is the likeliest outcome of the conflict. (The proposal for a negotiated settlement to be sought in preference to further conflict, then, is not ridiculous at all.)
2) Ukraine and Russia's calculations of the cost of war are currently in disagreement as to the fate of Crimea, thus until that disagreement is resolved through further conflict, Ukraine conceding Crimea to Russia as part of a peace settlement is a non-starter. (Although Zelensky's public remarks early in the war suggested that its ultimate fate was at that point open to negotiation.)
3) Any settlement that leaves Crimea in Russian hands must include a guarantee of water rights, so Musk was correct on that point.
4) Musk's stipulation about Ukrainian neutrality is complicated by the fact that Russia has incentivized Ukraine to break a commitment to neutrality and seek a military alliance with the west at the earliest opportunity. This issue is kicked down the road, however, by the fact that Russia's invasion has compromised Ukraine's borders, making it an unsuitable candidate for NATO membership in the near term due to the organization's membership criteria.
5) Musk's proposal for UN-monitored referenda to decide the fate of contested territories in the south and east is unworkable, and unjust due to demographic changes wrought by the conflict.
I agree strongly with points one, that beneficial settlement possibilities exist and that a settlement is the likeliest outcome, and five, that Musk's referendum proposal is silly (however, the idea of Ukraine ceding territory to Russia is not).
There are some lessons there about the suitability of an internet 'micro-blogging' service (i.e. Twitter) for trying to communicate serious policy proposals to the public and world leaders. Also, how your opponents will seize upon the worst aspect of a proposal (the referenda), so it is best to avoid going into extraneous detail to make a general point (that mediation is preferable to open conflict), especially if the detail has not been thought through too carefully. The overlying wisdom of urging a peaceful resolution to the conflict is still sound.
I think that the video creator overlooks a crucial aspect regarding points two and four: the role of outside influence. Yes, Ukraine is currently acting with confidence that it will be able to re-take Crimea from Russia. However, the Ukrainians' calculation hinges on a continued high level of western military support. Currently that support is given with very few strings attached, affording Ukraine the luxury of testing whether it is able to re-take Crimea. If the conditions attached to that support, or the amount of aid, were changed, then Ukraine's calculations about the achievability of their military aims would have to change also.
Similarly with point four. He says that Ukraine's membership of NATO is a national self-determination question. Not so. Membership of NATO is both invitation-only, and is also contingent on unanimous decision of existing members, in accordance with the clauses of its founding agreement. To frame the issue of Ukrainian membership of NATO as a national decision for Ukraine (as, sadly, too many commentators do), is a misrepresentation.
The long and short of it is that the war in Ukraine goes on, and Ukraine postpones making peace with Russia, because the United States government wills it to be so. Yes, Britain and the European countries are sending aid to Ukraine, but it is a relatively paltry amount. The other countries are giving military aid to Ukraine because they look to America for direction, and follow. If America were not sending so much aid to Ukraine, then the pressure would be off the European countries to follow suit. If the US ever sought to impose conditions on the help Ukraine was given such that it would have to consider negotiation, then the war would end shortly. Similarly, if the US did not want Ukraine in NATO, then the matter of Ukraine being in NATO would no longer be a live issue. The policy of NATO expansion, and NATO's 'open door' to new members, are the result of a decision taken essentially unilaterally by the Clinton White House in the 1990s. The other countries assent out of obeisance to the US. At the moment, US foreign policy has one aim in the current conflict: bleed Russia dry. Hence, fighting goes on, along with the global economic chaos, and the looming threat of escalation, that come with it.