Apologize for tactical variations? Why?

Over the last few days, I have seen at least two persons, one Matt Taibbi writing on Substack, and the other George Friedman of Geopolitical Futures, apologizing for being wrong about the assumption that Russia would NOT invade Ukraine based on analyses of the situation. Why?

Overall assessments were essentially there in the ballpark. Russia was clearly in a position for a possible invasion. Whether or not it did invade, simply based on the possibility, were the local preparations and foreign assistance/ actions up to the situation? Has “Disney planning”, where the Dreamer, Realist and Critic are all at play, become “obsolescent”? Yes, nobody likes to be the Critic, or to include the Critic, but we exclude the Critic at our peril because we tend to exclude the Critic especially at the critical moments. The leadership and readership being fed such analyses is responsible to take action based on all these factors and also include many other factors. There is a need for an NSF (No Single Factor) mindset.

Battles are dangerous affairs. He who struggles for victory with naked blades is not a good general.

No need to apologize, friends. Reorganize and carry on! As for the rest of us, do what we can to help, but no need to point the finger.

Skip to toolbar