Somebody claims that even Putin himself doesn't trust his generals.

Image: Reddit

There is claiming that there are no intelligent generals in Putin's military. Intelligent people are always threat, and Putin doesn't want threats around him. He wants people who are doing what he says when he says. And that denies the use of own brains. There is a tale in Novaya Gazeta that even Russian leaders don't trust their military. Putin's leadership style follows faithfully the same style. That was in use in the tsar and Soviet armies. The top thing in the Russian command system is political trustworthiness. That means the commanders have no right to say anything against their leaders. 

That kind of attitude doesn't favor initiative people. It favors people who are not willing to take responsibility for their actions. And that is the problem with the Russian military. 

And that lack of initiative actions and thinking gives a great opportunity to "yes men" whoever think themselves. The key element to earning political trustworthiness is just to make everything and only things that superiority officers or higher ranking officers are saying. And another thing is that the officers must not update their education. 

That thing caused a terrible loss to the tsars navy in the Tsushima naval battle in 1905, where Russian officers were not prepared for the Japanese torpedo boats. And that caused the entire fleet sank by Japanese torpedoes. If things like initiative education are forbidden. That causes problems. 

Another remarkable thing in the Russian-style command is that information goes only one way. The higher-ranking officers are giving orders, and they might not even want to hear reports that something goes wrong. That means the troops might try the same thing again and again causing terrible losses. The major problem in the Russian command culture is that commanders don't want to grant their mistakes. Granting the mistake is a weakness. And that's why the Russian military can make big losses on battlefields. 

This is one of the reasons why Putin started the invasion of Ukraine. The philosophy behind this kind of decision is simple. When a decision is made nothing can change it. If Putin would change or pull that order back that is against his authority. And that cannot be accepted, in that country. 

The role of people like ministers in Russia is just to give pieces of advice to Putin. And decisions are made by Putin himself. If Putin believes his advisors that shows that he cannot do everything. That is like giving the command to that advisor. Putin's philosophy is that the henchmen's role is just to please him. If that is not clear. The henchmen must go. 

So those advisors are told Putin just what he wants to hear. And there is the possibility that some commanders are giving false reports of the attack capacity of their troops. And there is the possibility that some commanders are inflated their success. The fact is that Putin is dependent on the reports that his henchmen are giving him. 

And that makes him vulnerable. If commanders are telling lies about their success, that causes the wrong estimation of the situation. And the problem is that. The commanders would not want to lose their jobs or die because they are making mistakes. So they are giving false information to their superior officers and Putin himself. 

 And this is one of the reasons why he continues his offensive without caring about losses. Accepting the reality that the mission failed is a weakness. And the Russian masculine military cannot accept weakness. So that's why the Russian military sends more and more men to war which is one of the saddest in history. 

Who is the leader of the nation?

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Everybody wants to be the rulers of the nations. But that thing causes the problems with private life, and that's why the power is easier to use out of the public eye, and sometimes in the history have been happening that the real users of power have been hiding in somewhere at the palace. Cardinal Richelieu might be the most well-known user of the power, and that very notorious person hide in the back of the king Louis XIII of France and breathed things to the ears of the king. But sometimes people have thoughts that the orders for the actions, what Richelieu made, came from the King,

And sometimes those things came from the head of cardinal, who mentioned that his own political enemies were planned something against the king, and that caused that they executed by the royal order.  Louis XIII  like other kings in that time was not a Democrat, and he was one of the most notorious and powerful people in the history, and maybe his propagandists made the role of Richelieu bigger than it really was because of those persecutions against political enemies of the Louis XIV, the Solar king.

Richelieu mission in the government was to support the King and leader of France, and the benefit of the successor of the Luis XIII was that the internal political crimes like the persecution of Huguenots. the Protestants, who lived in France, was made by Richelieu, what kept the King's reputation pure in the eyes of the citizens. Sometimes the privileges, what Huguenots had got from the Louis X were claimed to give for make hate against those religious minorities.

Sometimes this kind of things are happening also in democratic states, and somebody claims, that some officer or some other official would act against democratically elected persons.  "There is no democracy" is the words, what some people use when they are talking about the political situation, and sometimes I think that those persons may be partially right. In the constitution laws the state guarantee, that every person, who wants can become the candidate in the elections, and this is the best thing in the world.

But there is one thing, what is not handled many times in the public discussions. That thing is, the person, who would be voted must be in the list, and there are good and bad things with that. The good thing is that every candidate is voluntary for that duty, where they would be elected. But the bad thing is that just being on the list is not enough for getting votes. And that's why those candidates need publicity. That is the thing, what costs in the campaigns.

Also, the programs, where the commercial would be broadcast must be, that the targeted audience would watch it, and the commercial must be interesting, or the candidate would leave without votes. Those campaigns are very expensive, and that's why candidate needs financial support from the businessmen. This is the thing, what those "real democracy" persons are judged. We know that nobody gives money for campaigns without terms, and that means that the candidate must promise something to those persons. And here it goes a little bit more interesting.

There are two kinds of permissions, the things, what candidate would give for the great audience, and the permissions, what is given in some back office, and what are not told to normal people. There are men behind those public users of power, and when some person goes to meet them for getting the support for the election campaign would that be a similar situation with the job interview. Those financial supporters must know "the man" because they would give that person the great power.

 Of course in the constitution guarantees that the voters would give the mandate to use power, but if the candidate would not get publicity will that person ever elected to the place, where power is used in the state. When those supporters come, they must have the power for the man, who would become the man with power. They don't give support if they are not sure about their man. And in the real world, the politicians are the frontmen for their lobbyists.

This is the problem with democracy. Those men who give support for politicians are very powerful, but there are many lobbies in the top of the politics. And the thing, what makes things more complicated is, that the candidate must promise something to the ordinary people. There are more cleaners and hamburger workers that the top economists and bank leaders. And this makes difficult to plan those campaigns.

If ordinary people would not get anything, would that person leave out from parliament or congress, but if there would things, like broken promises, would that cause the damage to the trust of all political movement, what single politician would represent. And this makes the politics very complicated thing. And the complicated structure of the political field makes it a very interesting field to investigate things, like conspiracies and another kind of stuff, what makes the World very interesting place to live.

The problem of the dictators is, that their victims don't give votes

World's largest civil building The parliament house
in Bucharest
(Picture I) 

http://metsantarinoita.blogspot.com/p/the-problem-of-dictators-is-that-their.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The problematic execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu, and how it influences attitudes about the execution of Muammar Qaddafi and other dictators is very interesting. There are many people, who claim that the killing of those persons was illegal because they were the heads of the state, and that would give that kind of person right to flee them countries when the people get enough their methods to lead the country. There were only the leaders of the state, whose rights were concerning the people, and their human rights were so important thing, that the press was shocking about their fate.
The problem of the murderers is, that their victims don't give votes


There is the same kind of attitudes with the case of the Tsar family. Only the family members of the leader of the Russian empire are remembered and we must remember, that there were many more 17 years old girls in Russia than Anastasia Romanova, who was killed in the civil war. And many more 15 years old youngsters who were slaughtered in the concentration camps and shared the fate of Anne Frank. In the case of Ceausescu, there was nobody, who remember the victims of that man, but there were people, who said that Ceaucescu's human rights were violated because of this trial.


The fates of the dictators are sometimes very interesting, like Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, who lived in France as the political refugee after his family has been kicked off the power in Haiti, and this is very interesting part of international politics. Only thing, what concerns the people is the fate of the dictators, who wants the political safe places after they were ordered extortions and killings in their country, and when those persons were in the power, nobody care, what they did to their own victims.


There are people who have very big necessity to support everybody, who have superiority position. Persons who have this need would ever see anything wrong in the actions of the dictators because they are the head of the state. When I saw once on the writing of authorities, there was the form of the worlds, that the ADHD-children have problems with the people, who have the official authority and the people, who think that they are the authority.


The last one was a very interesting form because there were claiming, that those people should follow the orders from people, who just think that they are authorities. This means that everybody, like other child or boy from the neighbor, should give the orders to those persons if they are just thinking, that they have jurisdiction about that, or they just think that they have right to give orders to another people. The problem with the power is, that it would make people evil.


One of the reasons, why Joseph Stalin was able to make the crimes, what he made, was that the world left that man alone. The demonization of socialism caused, that the Soviet Union were isolated, and the leaders of that country dare to make, what they wanted because nobody even cares, what happened in the land of "red twilight". Here we must remember, that in the eyes of international law Joseph Stalin was not made any crimes, because in police actions the international law says, that they are internal affairs of some nation. And the international law is, that if some violations are made in the territory of some country, is that country's business to get those violators in the court of law. The attitude was that Stalin's place was in the Soviet Union, and nobody cares, what happened in there. The same thing kept Ceaucescu in the power of Romania.


That small country was the member of the Warsaw pack, and it was in the shadow of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union were not the only state, what kept political prisoners, but that country had the prime role in the policy of the United States, what kept Soviets as their main enemy. The attitude in Washington was that the Soviet Union was the only nation in the Eastern Block. Other governments of that side claimed, that Moscow forced them to make political arrests, what was not actually true. The Soviet Union was the thing, what was used for making fear in the mind of the people.


But the police forces were under national command. And there was the thing, that in the law books were texts, that every action in the parliament should follow the socialistic order or code. Even today are some historians arguing, that was the DDR, Hungarian and Czechoslovakian governments forced to ask their allies and the Soviet troops to stop the democratization movement, and in Hungary the Government claimed, that the Soviet troops were used force against people, who came to barricades.


And the Soviet Commanders claimed that the force was used by AVO, what means Hungarian secret police-troops, and the Soviets were only supporting the legal government. In the real world, the reason for using force could be, that some members of AVO The Hungarian secret police shot Soviet Troops because of provocation. Or that action could make by somebody, who didn't think about consequences. Or maybe those firearms were used against people because somebody claimed, that the force was used against the Soviet embassy. That kind of disinformation would justify the military actions against the demonstrators.


One of the reasons, why those information-operations are made, is that its mission is to make the shooting easier for young soldiers, who must go home after that kind of actions. So they must have the story, what justifies the use of force in the eyes of their families and other people, who they meet before they would go to the cadet- or secret police's school. And after that were much talking, that was the demonstrators really carry the guns, but those things lost in history.


The people like Ceausescu were kept the power in Eastern Europe until the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Soviet government could not support their allies by military force. But the improving telecommunications allowed people see, what was going on in those countries at 1989-1991, and that gave the breaks for the actions of the Soviet troops. If those demonstrations were not followed by the western media, the results could be different, because if the military and police leaders would be allowed to act without publicity, they would dare to give orders to shoot the demonstrators.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Duvalier


Picture I

http://acountryamonth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/parliament-palace-people-house-bucharest-romania-visit.png