Incidentally, the indecisiveness is a great illustration of why command structures matter. When a centralized system like Russia’s encounters a problem, the government makes a plan, and everyone down the chain of command executes it. Militaries always have hierarchical organization for the same reason. Imagine if a platoon in a firefight had to take a vote on what to do next. The chain of command exists to turn a big-picture strategy into immediate, coordinated action, even when things are chaotic.
That’s exactly where NATO’s weakness starts to become apparent. It’s a giant alliance where 32 different peers are trying to agree on what to do. Everyone has to agree, or at least not veto the plan. Getting consensus is slow, messy, and often leads to watered-down decisions that try to make everyone happy but aren’t actually the best move. The whole thing has been held together by the US acting as the de facto decision maker, but now the US is starting to pull back and chaos reigns.
I think one core issue could be that buerocratism reigns unchecked in the western empire for decades and that this leads to massive mistakes, cruelty and indecisiveness.
It is what happens if someone is de facto leader without mandate and uses thinly veiled violence to keep others from challenging them. Its the same that happens in any “horizontal” structure i have ever been in. The hierarchy is there, it is just covert and the mechanics holding it in place are vile.
This is why every group needs to determine a leader who is also able to be voted out.
To be clear I agree with you, I’m just thinking out loud. Feel free to correct me.
Absolutely, hierarchies solve a structure problem because they facilitate division of labour. The only question is whether they formed explicitly and consciously, or they form implicitly. And you’re completely right that in the case of NATO, there is the obvious leader which is the US, but since the role is implicit, other members see themselves as equals. This leads to a lot of bickering where the leader has to continuously reassert themselves within the hierarchy. And of course, when the leader starts behaving selfishly there’s no process to eject them from the position of power.
Incidentally, the indecisiveness is a great illustration of why command structures matter. When a centralized system like Russia’s encounters a problem, the government makes a plan, and everyone down the chain of command executes it. Militaries always have hierarchical organization for the same reason. Imagine if a platoon in a firefight had to take a vote on what to do next. The chain of command exists to turn a big-picture strategy into immediate, coordinated action, even when things are chaotic.
That’s exactly where NATO’s weakness starts to become apparent. It’s a giant alliance where 32 different peers are trying to agree on what to do. Everyone has to agree, or at least not veto the plan. Getting consensus is slow, messy, and often leads to watered-down decisions that try to make everyone happy but aren’t actually the best move. The whole thing has been held together by the US acting as the de facto decision maker, but now the US is starting to pull back and chaos reigns.
I think one core issue could be that buerocratism reigns unchecked in the western empire for decades and that this leads to massive mistakes, cruelty and indecisiveness.
It is what happens if someone is de facto leader without mandate and uses thinly veiled violence to keep others from challenging them. Its the same that happens in any “horizontal” structure i have ever been in. The hierarchy is there, it is just covert and the mechanics holding it in place are vile.
This is why every group needs to determine a leader who is also able to be voted out.
To be clear I agree with you, I’m just thinking out loud. Feel free to correct me.
Absolutely, hierarchies solve a structure problem because they facilitate division of labour. The only question is whether they formed explicitly and consciously, or they form implicitly. And you’re completely right that in the case of NATO, there is the obvious leader which is the US, but since the role is implicit, other members see themselves as equals. This leads to a lot of bickering where the leader has to continuously reassert themselves within the hierarchy. And of course, when the leader starts behaving selfishly there’s no process to eject them from the position of power.
The EU has the exact same problem.
I very much agree, and now we’re seeing just how poorly the whole thing works in times of crisis.