Of course. But he still knew a thing or two about management.
Well, if threats of violence is management then yeah, but not really a sustainable management plan because groups will start to work against you... both in your head (paranoia) and in reality and lashing out at both of those can lead to friends and enemys getting in the way... which kinda makes even your friends think of helping your enemies just for personal preservation.
I guess if you take away the firing squads, forced labour under atrocious conditions, totalitarian control over society, purging of everyone who constituted a potential rival or didn't align closely enough to him - his methods and general approach would still be pretty effective today. There was rather more to them that just those things; and where a couple of those things might be neccessary, they can be replaced today with something more humane but still punishing enough.
Problem is that if you strip away those things it stops being Stalin and becomes Brezhnev or Gorby... and I don't think either would have cut it in the 1920s to drag Russia up the way he did. I would love to see what Putin could have done in such a situation... he seems to be a much more patient and much more sensible person less likely to lash out or act on emotion or anger.
Western experts will tell you that it was due to his decisions and purge of the army that the Red Army lost 90% of its 20,000-strong tank force within the opening months of the war, as well as almost the entire airforce.
They lost most of that tank force because they were two man tanks not designed to fight a modern war... they were effectively WWI tanks being sent in to WWII against the toughest opponent there was at the time. Not to mention most didn't even have anti tank ammo and it becomes clear they really didn't have much of a chance.
In many ways the airforce was lucky because while it was in a similar position with Polikarpov fighters that were fine in their day but obsolete for WWII, because most of their old obsolete vehicles were destroyed lined up next to runways, so their pilots survived and were not killed trying to fly obsolete aircraft against well trained Germans in modern machines.
And while there may be truth in that, a more serious expert will tell you that if it wasn't for Stalin's mass-industrialization of Russia and the Ukraine during the 30s, when it reached GDP growth rates of some 15% and started to produce its own equipment and weapon designs adapted for its own conditions, rather than importing everything from Europe as the Russian Empire had done - then the USSR wouldn't have had even 1/10th of those 20,000 tanks to lose in the first place against Germany, when the later inevitably invaded.
Even more so, the industrialisation meant Russians had seen an internal combustion engine and knew what it was... without Stalin, most of the peasants off the farm would think a tank was magic and not know how to maintain or service an engine or a large gun...
Russia could not rely on imports for WWII as the Germans and French and British were main suppliers and they were not likely to continue to supply the Soviets during a major war.
But it is responsibility. We in Russia, having come out of a worker's state not too long ago - have a natural disdain for managers. In the Soviet era, you had bosses and you had managers; but they weren't even allowed to fire you from your job, without very good reason. And they were always experienced technical specialists and former workers themselves; they didn't come out of some management degree at university like they do now.
Nowadays though, they get twice the pay of the common people - and seemingly all power in their hands. So then they should have the responsibility that comes with it too, else who the fk needs them? What, to provide motivational speeches and check that everyone is coming to work on time? No, then as well as now, they are to play a senior technical supervisory role, especially in industrial enterprises, and they answer for the practices or lack thereof of the people under their charge. It is their job to find problems with personnel ahead of time and take corrective measures, and their job to make sure standards are being followed. The managers above them, the ones sitting in the offices and directing business operations - their job is to select the technical and shift managers for competency, have enough knowledge to determine what makes a good one, and supervise them in turn, make surprise inspections of the work premises and so on.
Well that sounds like the fault of the education systems failing to train the supervisors and managers, and also an issue with procedure and safety codes... are they effective, and are they actually being applied properly.
Perhaps a compromise could be for the working staff to get to a level where they could become a manager and then be sent by the factory or workshop to university or polytechnic to get the qualifications for management and to then come back and become managers... then you will get the best of both worlds and a chance to rise up out off the factory floor to higher paying jobs if you have the people and technical skills of course...
If there is a clear failure that leads to deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage, then its clear that the whole chain isn't working as intended.
I don't see how you can say that... the incident needs to be investigated first to determine what actually went wrong before you decide who gets fired or what procedures need to be changed. If the procedures were fine but they weren't being followed then you look at who was supposed to be making sure things were done properly and those people should be at the very least demoted if not fired...
And even if he had succeeded, there surely wouldn't have been a complacent bufoon who had placed all the sawdust or whatever in a compartment right below the welding work being done, that turned what could have been a minor incident into a major disaster. Even then, the automated fire retardation systems would have sprung into action. But whoops, someone decided to remove or deactivate them so then wouldn't get in the way; someone gave that order and the workers did it without questioning its wisdom. See where I'm going with this?
I do, but I don't think you have fully thought it through. On building sites... which is basically what this is, the fire alarm and other systems are at least turned off for wielding... there is nothing like high voltage TIG wielding with a sprinkler being set off, or some vinyl layer using a gas burner to heat the vinyl so it can be fitted setting off the fire alarm and water flushing out the compartment that has just been painted or insulated that now needs to be completely redone...
If someone told you to wield some wires in a room you don't ask if the room downstairs is clear of rubbish... you just do your job assuming that people clean up their rubbish as they go.
By all means they should find the facts too. Find the facts so practices can be improved. And so that the guilty can be identified.
And then shake up the whole place and other places too, because in fact everyone is a little guilty when it comes to something like this. The faults are on many levels.
Do you still fire people when it turns out the people who made the mistake ran head long in to the fire to try to put it out and are burned to death?
Don't you have some of the blame... you haven't mentioned all this stuff about not being hard on safety every post you make here, so in a way the lax attitude to safety in Russia is partly your fault too..
He's like Santa Claus and Jesus rolled into one.
That is a good thing isn't it?
He has done a lot to transform opinion around the world regarding Russia, and to make things better for most Russians...
Yet if comparing him to Stalin, there are definately things he has done better - mostly in terms of solving problems and resurrecting, developing the country using far more humane means, but also plenty of areas where he has been too laid back and not active enough.
Areas where he has not done enough... well honestly I would expect that at the very least... nobody is perfect...
Why has there been no such effort for emergency services and industrial practices? Nevermind healthcare, education, etc... which have at best only improved slowly and incrementally.
No point buying a new big screen TV if you don't have a front door...
The system should be changed, it's all built around the idea of reaction, PR and finding scapegoats, not putting the right people in the right place to identify problems ahead of time.
But how do you know you have the right people in place?
There surely has been, in fact I know there has been, after a spate of mass fires. But clearly this incident as well as the forest fires this summer has shown that it's not enough. They may have reacted to the problems and failings that were visible. They probably decided to ignore the stuff that hasn't caught on fire just yet though.
Can't you appreciate that they can't fix everything at once... somethings they don't realise are problems till they happen... it is not that they don't want to fix everything, it is that they can only do so much and need to prioritise... some things will get fixed first... some may never get fixed because the cost to fix it more than the cost of failure... if you know what I mean.
But it's not normal, and the only way to change this culture is to change the conditions and system that underpin it. Shaking things up would be a good start, then finding some more competent people, then decentralizing things a bit.
I appreciate what you are saying about decentralisation, that leads to distant managers who don't give a shit.
I have a friend who works for a company based in Auckland who wanted them to go from one place in Dunedin to another place for work... they looked on the map and thought it was not that far away and gave them 15 minutes to get from one job to the other... in reality however there is no direct road from one place to the other and it was a 2 hour drive between those places, but the person in Auckland didn't know this.
But if the Kuznetsov was previously slated for a 2022 completion date, which may now be moved back by another year at least - then we're already looking at over 3 years and several hundred million dollars just to bring it back to order. And then you'll have it back, a still problematic ship, with probably not more than 15 years left in it anyway, that Russia is dependent on until further notice.
It says above that the cleanup will take an extra 6 months, but as the vessel is waiting for a dry dock to be built it was 6 months it was going to be sitting idle anyway, so this wont effect plans for the ship in any way.
If we have the option of building a new one within 6 years and a 3 billion dollar budget, then it begins to looks like a viable idea, especially as some of that 3 billion we can raise by removing the Kuznetsov from service along with all its associated operation costs, and scrapping it. The carrier airwing and infastructure we can reuse, no need to raise a new one.
But that is the point... they haven't decided on the new design yet and there are several technologies not ready for it either, but even assuming it was ready to lay down right now it will take 8 years to build and another four probably fitting out and getting everything working properly before it could be called operational... the K could be ready in 2023 which is much sooner. Second, removing the K from service and scrapping it would cost money... it wouldn't save a single cent.
Of course if it takes more than 6 years, or much more than 3 billion dollars, or a whole reshuffling of schedules and delays across the board due to no spare capacity, or no ready design and so on - then I agree, it's not worth it. It all depends.
I rather suspect it will probably cost 3-4 billion if they make two (ie 3-4 billion each), but there are no plans for new fixed wing carriers before 2030... not because they can't do it now, but because they don't plan to do it before then.
They will likely be laying down helicopter carriers over the next two years and then they will likely lay down 7K ton Gorskovs as a middle step... basically mini destroyers/ long range Frigates... based on the Gorshkov Frigate design... better armed with more endurance... and the next step will be the 20K ton cruisers which will be their first ships designed with an air defence system designed to defend the group of ships it operates with... the sort of ship you need with aircraft carriers...
That's a good argument, but then on the Kuznetsov they're not trying out revolutionary new technologies and can't anyway. They neeeeeed it, remember?
That is how valuable an eye in the sky is... not just the fighter planes but a platform that can operate 3-4 Ka-31s that can fly around and scan the skies from sea level and up.... the really high ballistic stuff can be detected at long range with ships radar, but the Ka-31s can see low out to extreme distances... 250km, and even the standard Ka-32s have decent radars for long range detection too, not to mention the MiG-29KR and Su-33s radars or Ka-52K with their AESA radars...
The Russian navy basically will have S-400 and S-350 and Pantsir and TOR batteries operating with their surface vessels, but the coverage and depth of protection is greatly expanded when you add AWACS and fighter aircraft in to the mix... and this is not battle of britain stuff, these aircraft and ships and satellites and helicopters and subs are all linked together and knows where each other is and can work together instead of each on its own like the old Syrian air defence that was like a sieve to all comers... working together sharing sensor information and a command and control structure meaning threats are defended against together rather than by individuals makes defence and offense much much more capable.
The carrier is there to protect the ships and subs, the ships and subs are there to do the job.
The carrier makes the ships and subs much safer and much more likely to be able to get their job done without losses or surprises from the enemy.
We saw the state of that ship when they removed the boilers to change them with new ones... and they didn't change all of them which suggests they won't keep them that long.
They didn't change all of them because all of them didn't need changing...
Without forgeting that the arresting wires broke in a deployement mission and most of the su33 missions in Syria were done from Hmeimim.
Arrester gear cables are like bungee cords... they break all the time. The problem they had was not the cables, it was the gear itself that was not tensioned and gave no give, so any cable would just snap like any cable system without arrester gear to absorb the energy would.
They will have fixed the arrester gear by now.
The navy has no interest in that ship. They need to start a new modern carrier ASAP and get ride of that costly training facility.
They have said they are not interested in a replacement to be started till 2030, so they clearly expect to use the K till then.
If China and specially India can make a homemade carrier and produce 2 or 3, its well within Russian capacity to make its own one.
Indias domestic carrier is late and over budget, and we don't know what China is spending on their carriers... but they seem to be throwing money at the problem... we really don't know what sort of product they will end up with or how effectively it will be used.
In sum, it's a lot cheaper to send a tug along the refitted Adm. K everytime it sails out then to scrap it & build a CVN that will stay in port/yard most of the time anyway.
The learning curve at work:
The cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" did not receive critical damage as a result of the fire - the head of the USC
It doesn't matter how expensive or how long the repair will take because building a new CVN just is not an option before 2030...
I was hoping 11435 Kuznetsov will adopt 11430 Vikramaditya's same route and go in for diesel fired unit. But almost all articles mention the new boilers as KVG-4.
Probably they wanted to keep it cheaper (again half arsed measure) and thus avoided KVG-3D which uses HSDF?
I suspect they want to keep the changes relatively basic and cheap because it will be more of a place holder to keep up skills and test tactics where possible, but not be the centre of a carrier group like US carriers... in the Russian Navy it is more of a support ship to protect other ships and subs...
Honestly if they were going to spend a bit of money on something I would like to see them take the whole propulsion system out of the Kirov class ship that had the reactor problem and replace it with one or two of their new reactors for their big ships (cruisers and carriers)... it would be a chance to test it properly and if it worked could replace the hokey setup in the Kirovs with the oddball propulsion...