When a problem cannot be solved, it is always safe to let it be and not to force one's hand to solve it. In trying to solve an unsolvable problem one may end up creating greater problems.
This leadership blunder by Putin may have been at the heart of the Ukrainian crisis.
From Putin's perspective, Ukraine was a problem. But Putin lacked the character to ignore the problem and to deal with it in peaceful means. He ended up creating a global disaster.
Institutional culture is fundamental to the development of good leaders. Good leaders are humble, conscious of the collective and the indispensability of every member's role in the institution, and good leaders are accountable. Institutional culture contributes to individual character. A leader is often the product of the cultural environment within which he operates. If that environment values the characteristics of good leadership, s/he is most likely to have those characteristics. If that environment does not value those characteristics, s/he is unlikely to be radically different.
This again speaks to Putin and the Russian problem. Russia is a totalitarian state under ruthless oligarchic and paternalistic control. Male dominance, ruthlessness, fear-mongering, and exhibiting power and control are thought to be essential to good leadership. This environment fostered the rise of Putin from a mid-level KGB operator to occupying the highest office in the State. He couldn't have risen this high without nurturing these unpleasant traits over and above any of his competitors. Within the country Putin's absolute control led to the decimating of many an opponent. Dealing in such a manner was second nature to Putin. But out there in a more open world, Putin struggled to have his way and get his agenda across. And that led to things going out of control.
Comments