ygsmilo: As ususal you are relying on your experience in the worlds biggest horde (the Red Army) and trying to tell the rest of us how it is. Russian leadership usually means...
Raub is a vet and he knows - Leadership makes an army.
You generalise too much. First, I know about other armies than just russian one.
Second, russian army was quite a varied institution. Sure, the majority were a horde without any leadership. Russian leadership ment paperwork to show the brass. Nobody expected to actually have a shooting war - just like US.
At the same time the minority of units that had to operate in combat, especially on their own initiative, had to be staffed by warriors, even if they were serf warriors. There the leadership certainly matters - but the leadership in real life is not an institutional leadership or a top guy parading with a flag or a fake turkey but a personal leadership of a guy right next to you - not necessarily the top rank in a group but the natural leader.
Such natural leaders are not produced by the army.
Most likely the character traits contributing to the leadership are inborn but even if they can be affected, certainly not after the age that make one eligible to enlist.
To the extent that warrior abilities are malleable, they are somewhat affected by culture. That is why southerners produce more good soldiers than the rest of the country. Military academies working with children have good success rate even though lot of it is explained by the candidate selection.
For all practical purposes, the talk about leadership is the same BS as empwerment, intelligence, charisma, etc.
All those are inborn. Such people are selected and advanced, not created by institutions.
Sure, a leader with experience is greater than a leader without experience. But you cannot create a leader by training - just allow the natural one to expose himself.
Boroda, I have to disagree with you about the hunger in teh Ukraine.
The draughts/floods and losses of harvest happen regularly to all countries. Those result in famines only in countries where capitalism is not developed.
The russian famines before 1917 were publicised but theyw ere nothing compared to the famines afterwards.
The Ukraininan famine of early 30s was not even linked to the bad harvest - only to the policy of collectivisation.
miko
