Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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
 
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
I see the article also says Hungary assents.
 
Take care how the EC responds. The Reuters article specifically makes no mention of Erdogan insisting his country gets membership as part of this demands. I'm suspecting many members aren't enormously overjoyed with the prospect of Turkey becoming a member of the EU. Schengen Accords may be a particular sticking point.

Regardless, this certainly appears to me to be a spectacular step, with little loss of face on either side.
 
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.
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.
 
Apparently trying to flank Robotdyne (with unfortunate vehicle losses, but seems not crew) so now at 'proper' first fixed trench lines, which UKR have now gained and held


1689025093749.png
 
Last edited:
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 making peace is ultimately extremely high risk to Ukraine because of the nature of the enemy. If Russia is allowed to retain the territory it captured, it rewards them for bad behavior. It also sends a message to other would be land grabbers that they might get away with it too.

And finally the cost to individual Ukrainians is very high. The Ukrainians are faced with the choice that some of their people will be killed or badly hurt while holding a gun or a much larger number will be hurt or killed by the Russians after the guns are taken away. We know this is true because of the way the Russians behaved in territory they captured and then the Ukrainians took back. Every place the Russians occupied civilians were tortured and killed.

Russia's stated goal in this war is to eliminate Ukraine as an identity. To make Ukraine a part of Russia. The way they go about wiping out Ukrainian identity is killing a large number of those who have it, then taking their children to be raised as Russians. The Russian goal is genocide.

According to a poll last fall 91% of Ukrainians don't want to stop until all of Ukraine is back in Ukrainian hands, including Crimea. That doesn't happen in a vacuum. Ukraine knows its history better than people who have never lived there. Whenever they have been unarmed and at the mercy of Moscow bad things have happened to Ukrainians. The west doesn't know what Holodomor was, but Ukraine understands as well as every Jewish person understands the Holocaust.

For the first time in almost a millennia they are able to stand up to Moscow and defeat them and they are taking that opportunity.

I'm an engineer too, but I also know a lot about history and a lot about warfare. All avenues Ukraine can take involve risk and people are going to die. Continuing the war until Russia is gone is ultimately the lowest risk option that keeps the largest number of Ukrainians safe.

And Elon Musk is a very low quality source for opinions about the war, and for pretty much anything beyond the areas where he has proven himself competent. He is a brilliant visionary in a few fields and he's done more than a lot of entrepreneurs, but just because he's brilliant at rocketry and electric cars doesn't make him an expert on world politics or the future of humanity. His opinions in those areas have proven he's way out over the ends of his skis, but because he got rich doing a couple of things he thinks he can be the world expert on everything. I've described him as the world's most brilliant idiot.

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.

Ukraine is never going to have enough aircraft to be decisive. They can't build an air force large enough. Ukraine started the war with about 100 combat pilots and they could probably scrape together another 50-100 between retired pilots and training a few during the war. They also only have enough trained ground crews to maintain about 100 combat aircraft and training ground crew on western jets often takes longer than training a pilot.

F-16s will help, but this is going to be primarily a ground war.

The Ukrainians aren't using cannon fodder though. They do have Territorial Defense Forces that are not as well trained as the assault brigades, but they are now getting some basic training and are integrated into units with experienced NCOs and officers. When fighting has been in static positions like it was in Bakhmut they were careful to rotate out troops on a regular schedule so they never spent more than a few days at a time in a trench.

This keeps the troops on the front line in better health, both physically and mentally.

The Ukrainian infantry are fighting a war and all the horrors that go along with it, but they are far better treated than the Russians who really are using cannon fodder.
 
Continuing the war until Russia is gone is ultimately the lowest risk option that keeps the largest number of Ukrainians safe.

Russia's military adventurism goes far beyond Ukraine. Appeasement is a terrible idea, not least because the other side is run by psychopaths. Has the Churchill lesson been forgotten ?
 
Last edited:
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, and SpaceX so the US is not dependent on Russia for astronauts). Imagine if he was solely pro Ukraine on top of all that. Talk about painting a major target on his back.

Or maybe he is just saying what he thinks. If so, he should probably go there to see it first hand and talk to the people directly.
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,

Would it be possible at all for the Ukrainian military (and society) to survive this long fighting Russian brutality without Starlink communication?