Your point about saving face is equally important. And it's definitely at work with him. I hope he figures it out, too. First night he threatened nukes i kept looking at my phone all night to assure myself Europe was still there.
This post was helpful to me, thank you. I didn't and don't study politics or history but can relate to the concept of "sunk costs" from other parts of life. Some people are more temperamentally inclined than others to honestly consider when it's time to cut your losses and let a dream slip away and consider that a win. It's interesting to contemplate what influences could be so strong that they might lead a person to pretend that the sunk costs aren't as extensive as they are--in order to keep a dream alive. In everyday life, I've been surprised as I've matured to discover how important saving face is to some people. It has never been that important to me but have had to learn how to work with people for whom it is almost essential to their existence. I sure hope Putin can figure out a way to cut everyone's losses while appearing not to be a loser.
This is an important lesson emphasized at National War College, though perhaps it merits more attention. It's especially hard to take an off-ramp when one, it be Pericles or Lincoln, insists the losses mustn't have been in vain. When the final version of the Primer* came to fruition, we ended with this admonition: "Changing one’s ends, means, and/or ways can be difficult. Scaling back one’s aims is especially challenging once force has been used. As history teaches us, loss of life makes it exceedingly difficult to moderate or change the political aim, lest sacrifices be perceived as in vain. That said, the principal consideration for assessing whether a strategy may need to be reassessed is whether it is achieving the desired political aim at an acceptable cost. If strategists and political and military leaders determine the costs to be 'sunk,' that is, they cannot be recovered because the political aim cannot be achieved, it is time—however painful it may be—to change the political aim, and, accordingly, the strategy that supports it."
Your point about saving face is equally important. And it's definitely at work with him. I hope he figures it out, too. First night he threatened nukes i kept looking at my phone all night to assure myself Europe was still there.
Thank you, Adam. I hope people examine the National Security Strategy Primer and engage with these ideas. They matter a great deal.
This post was helpful to me, thank you. I didn't and don't study politics or history but can relate to the concept of "sunk costs" from other parts of life. Some people are more temperamentally inclined than others to honestly consider when it's time to cut your losses and let a dream slip away and consider that a win. It's interesting to contemplate what influences could be so strong that they might lead a person to pretend that the sunk costs aren't as extensive as they are--in order to keep a dream alive. In everyday life, I've been surprised as I've matured to discover how important saving face is to some people. It has never been that important to me but have had to learn how to work with people for whom it is almost essential to their existence. I sure hope Putin can figure out a way to cut everyone's losses while appearing not to be a loser.
This is an important lesson emphasized at National War College, though perhaps it merits more attention. It's especially hard to take an off-ramp when one, it be Pericles or Lincoln, insists the losses mustn't have been in vain. When the final version of the Primer* came to fruition, we ended with this admonition: "Changing one’s ends, means, and/or ways can be difficult. Scaling back one’s aims is especially challenging once force has been used. As history teaches us, loss of life makes it exceedingly difficult to moderate or change the political aim, lest sacrifices be perceived as in vain. That said, the principal consideration for assessing whether a strategy may need to be reassessed is whether it is achieving the desired political aim at an acceptable cost. If strategists and political and military leaders determine the costs to be 'sunk,' that is, they cannot be recovered because the political aim cannot be achieved, it is time—however painful it may be—to change the political aim, and, accordingly, the strategy that supports it."
*https://nwc.ndu.edu/Portals/71/Documents/Publications/NWC-Primer-FINAL_for%20Web.pdf?ver=HOH30gam-KOdUOM2RFoHRA%3D%3D