Putin is largely ignoring the expertise of his military advisors, US analysts said in a report. Instead, he is making most of the key decisions on his own, they said. The experts at the RAND Corporation said Putin has proved more cautious than many expected. Russian President Vladimir Putin is making key decisions about the Ukraine war largely on his own, without input from his generals, analysts said in a report published last week.

But while doing so, Putin has proven to be more cautious than expected, said the report from the US-based RAND Corporation.

"Putin [is] making key decisions largely on his own without substantial influence from the Russian General Staff," the analysts said in the report.

RAND said that was simply because Putin does not trust those around him — and so makes "little use of economic or military expertise" at his disposal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I mean, of course he is speaking ironically. Hitler famously bypassed his generals more sound ideas on how to proceed with the Soviet Union and instead for vital strategic locations he went for the prestige objects.

I suppose in retrospective we gotta be glad that he did. Germany still wouldn't have won, but it might have taken longer and every day more of that war was more dead and maimed on both sides.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

@TinyPizza is not speaking ironically.

They are speaking sarcastically.

And I am speaking pedantically. No, typing pedantically.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

And well done!

[–] CrabLord@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I believe sarcasm qualifies as a form of irony.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m a little rusty but I’m not sure that’s irony.

[–] CrabLord@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No worries my friend. We're allowed to disagree. I hope you have a nice day.

[–] thanksforallthefish 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks Alanis. 3rd time lucky on the definition then ?

[–] Countess425@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

At a certain point, the Allies stopped trying to assassinate Hitler because he would've probably been replaced with a more competent leader.

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While this is true, you have to remember that most of these generals survived the war and wanted to rescue their own reputations by blaming the dead guy (Hitler) for every setback. In fact, the Battle of Kursk---which was a disaster---was planned by the OKW against Hitler's preference. That battle wasn't well-known in the west until the USSR's archives were opened in the 1990s because the OKW generals decided to downplay a disaster they couldn't pin on Hitler.

[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Teue.

Also, there was some stuff that worked out, but was stupis. Like the raxe to the sea. Like, it turned out to be an amazing move,, butif the British and French reacted differently, they could've ended Germany's tanks then and there.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I have a theory that WWII had to happen at that time, with Hitler in charge of Germany. A decade later with someone more competent the Nazis would have had the bomb and things would have gotten real bad. This is why a time traveler hasn't killed Hitler yet: They've already taken out the even worse dictators.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just remember all the strange and weird deaths of leaders can always be chalked up to time travellers, after all we don't know where that would have landed us otherwise

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

John Titor, where are you when we need you?