Hearted Youtube comments on Mark Takacs (@MarkTakacs-u1w) channel.
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Can you talk more about "soviet style" leadership and how it differs from leadership in other armies that are to 95% made up of conscripts? How do leadership needs differ between a largely proffessional/experienced army and a conscripted/inexperienced army? What is the difference between good leadership, soviet leadership, and bad leadership?
I realise these are huge questions but I struggle to just accept that Soviet style leadership = always bad, as it seems to me as if both the RAF and AFU pretty quickly got adjusted to the 2022 conventional war, while at the same time critical voices are heard about the training AFU personell recieves by NATO. With this in mind, and with NATO countries not having been in a relative symmetrical conventional conflict for a good while (I do not really count Iraq), how prooven is NATO leadership, especially after Afghanistan example?
My hypothesis (based on nothing) is that NATO level leadership has proven better at achieving results on tactical level, and coordinating efforts between tactical-operational level, while the Russian/Ukrainian Soviet hybrid leadership are better at the strategic level, mobilizing a nations combined military and civilian forces for a long term war effort
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3