[hervature]

The point of their comment is that the statement is tautological regardless of the subjects.

"I could change in the coming decades."

"The most stable rock formation could change in the coming decades."

"Even under the best possible leadership, EU and US relations could change in the coming decades."

[freeopinion]

If you are Boeing or Northrup Grumman, etc. most of your focus is on the coming decades. A huge part of your budget is getting governments to sign procurement deals that are 20 years out. They know that will guarantee revenues 40 years out.

Boeing's string of disasters over the last couple of years isn't so much a concern for its short-term health as it is for Boeing's ability to land any long-term payouts. They hire people today to deliver a product twelve years from now. If there is no prospect for twelve years from now they start caving in today. You just don't see the dust cloud for a few years.

[XorNot]

Except the reason people say decades is that's how long military procurement programs run for. Companies have order books past 2035 for many systems and standing up new programs takes time.

You start making yourself look unreliable now, then you prompt a transition away and by the time it's underway there's no reason to switch back anyway - i.e. traditionally stable companies "suddenly" are having trouble finding sales.