I think it's more about strategic planning and logistics. Once Ukraine has aircraft, pilot training, and needed weapons they'll move forward. I wouldn't want to be the canon fodder sitting in those trenches waiting to be attacked.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think it's more about strategic planning and logistics. Once Ukraine has aircraft, pilot training, and needed weapons they'll move forward. I wouldn't want to be the canon fodder sitting in those trenches waiting to be attacked.
I see the article also says Hungary assents.Looks like roadblock removed now, so Sweden appears a go for NATO:
VILNIUS, July 10 (Reuters) - Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has agreed to forward to parliament Sweden's bid to join the NATO military alliance, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Monday, on the eve of a NATO summit in Vilnius."I'm glad to announce ... that President Erdogan has agreed to forward the accession protocol for Sweden to the grand national assembly as soon as possible, and work closely with the assembly to ensure ratification," Stoltenberg told a news conference.
NATO's Stoltenberg says Turkey agrees to move ahead with Sweden's NATO bid
Talk about narrow reading and cherry picking. You brought all this up. I responded with what I believe to be how this forum is working. I certainly didn't call you a troll or stupid. You have certainly been tolerated. There's no pleasing everybody.I say we are on the same side. Your response includes tolerate, Kremlin troll and stupid.
I will leave you all in peace for a few days or weeks.
EU aspect not involved.I see the article also says Hungary assents.
Much I post without screening first.
If you look back at my response I didn’t say anything suggesting that I was not expecting counter arguments.
Some other related thoughts:
Opposing views perhaps could be encouraged a little more. Some will find opposing the huge number of highly aligned experts here a little intimidating. Feel free to disagree with my posts - no need to respond as nobody is going to change their minds. We are all used to shouting down Tesla bears here. I feel this is slightly more warranted when 99% of climate activists agree. That is not the case on Ukraine.
I have just started reading "What we owe the future" which Elon has described as closest to his philosophy. Early chapter discusses the potential number of future people not yet born. 200k lost soldiers could equate to billions. I do struggle with how our culture deals with life. I don't think I am strongly pro life (except when on this thread ,and I'm not referring to abortion discussion) or even a pacifist (I do miss having a pacifist left wing to keep balance). Indeed, my preference would be for the UK to do a little more infrastructure development - much of which never happens because we are saving crested newts....
Benefits of opposing views; 1) makes this thread look less like an echo chamber. 2) those with opposing views get to see their side of the argument occasionally.
As a reminder, we are basically on the same side. I want Russia to be forced out. I think it is the most likely outcome. I just disagree that the many alternative outcomes add up to too high a risk and too high a likelihood. My career did involve a lot of engineering risk management which is why I tend to think in terms of severity x likelihood. Someone cleverer than me could draw up a decision tree which would illustrate my thinking better than I am able to.
I think it's more about strategic planning and logistics. Once Ukraine has aircraft, pilot training, and needed weapons they'll move forward. I wouldn't want to be the canon fodder sitting in those trenches waiting to be attacked.
Continuing the war until Russia is gone is ultimately the lowest risk option that keeps the largest number of Ukrainians safe.
I've described him as the world's most brilliant idiot.
Sometimes I wonder (hope) that Elon is simply saying pro Moscow talking points in order to balance himself out with the support he’s done for Ukraine. (Ie Starlink - which is absolutely massive because otherwise this war would probably be over already,
I think Starlink has been instrumental in the success so far.Would it be possible at all for the Ukrainian military (and society) to survive this long fighting Russian brutality without Starlink communication?
Somehow I thought Elon was first in being scared of nuke war (bad for business) and wanting peace, and Sacks was just parroting and then defending Elons position.Except he's mostly parroting Sacks and others who have done nothing for Ukraine that I'm aware of.