Agree, context is key here. Leadership ain't a one-size-fits-all deal. Military and civilian jobs are like apples and oranges at times. Military leaders gotta shape up their team with what they've got. In private business, bosses can usually swap folks in and out based on their performance. So, comparing these two is a bit like comparing apples to bowling balls.
A leader's worth ain't just about their style—it's about getting results. The Military needs to run a tight ship, while a manager at a startup might want fresh ideas and risk-takers. Military folks might be better at building a team because they're drilled to be disciplined and unified. But that doesn't mean civilian leaders are lacking necessarily.
It does not make sense to use the same tools in the two settings. Some folks have found ex-military bosses to be good at growing a team and their careers. There are good and bad leaders everywhere. Let's not box leaders into military or civilian corners, and judge 'em on their own merits and how effective they are.
Removing Russia from SWIFT is the financial equivalent of a nuclear option. It will block Russian banks and businesses to receive or pay for goods and services in the short term, effectively cutting them from the rest of the world.
The message that weaponizing SWIFT will send is that the platform is no longer as reliable for financial purposes. In the long term, it will increase the interest for alternative solutions that will further fragment payments and markets.
Bankers do not like uncertainty. They will find ways around this restriction and likely keep the alternatives. If this happens, SWIFT is not coming back to Russia when this is over.
If what you said were true, western countries would not be divided on this issue. It just so happens that Germany are being cowardly over this issue, and the Germans are dependent on Russian energy.
A leader's worth ain't just about their style—it's about getting results. The Military needs to run a tight ship, while a manager at a startup might want fresh ideas and risk-takers. Military folks might be better at building a team because they're drilled to be disciplined and unified. But that doesn't mean civilian leaders are lacking necessarily.
It does not make sense to use the same tools in the two settings. Some folks have found ex-military bosses to be good at growing a team and their careers. There are good and bad leaders everywhere. Let's not box leaders into military or civilian corners, and judge 'em on their own merits and how effective they are.