- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 27,193
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
This has long been the case. There used also to be the dual leadership structure, in which every unit had to answer to a political officer who could overrule the military unit leader. That was intended to ensure everyone's loyalty to the communist party and adherance to its principles. Military officers always hated it, at various times even spoke out in favor of a single command structure, and the influence of the political officers waxed and waned. I don't know if that sort of dual structure has continued.I think @JAVO and I were more referring to stuff like the repeated reports of Russian troops crossing bridges or entering village lined up like ducks which made them easier to take down. You also keep hearing that the Russian army is very hierarchical, everything has to happen upon orders from above, there is little freedom of decision on the ground (I remember my brother explaining the difference between a "Befehlsarmee" (army of orders) and an "Auftragsarmee" (army of missions), two different military leadership styles, back when he did his service year*).
* I just saw on Wikipedia that the German term "Auftragstaktik" (mission command) has made it into several languages as a technical term.
Fun fact: The book and movie Hunt for Red October start with the submarine captain killing the political officer onboard, to clear the way for his defecting to the US with his boat and officers. The political officer's name was Putin.