Meritocracy and emotional involvement in order to win, especially in war

The recognition of merit is a strategic lever to win in any context (sport, company, war, …) and the invasion of Ukraine in recent weeks by the Russian armed forces are the demonstration that, when the mentality of an apparatus is steeped in corruption, as soon as he has to prove his worth on the battlefield, it turns out that many generals who make the decisions are recommended incapable or that a part of the expenditure on armaments has ended up in bribes by delivering poor weapons and supplies to the troops.
It is not difficult to imagine in such a deprecated context how much rules, merit and transparency are taken into consideration and how low the engagement of military personnel can therefore be. In other words, certain behaviors on the battlefield are therefore also consequences of a certain mindset that moved from the Soviet Union “sic et simpliciter” to the Russian Federation (“natura non facit saltus”).
And in any case for meritocracy the public apparatuses of European countries are also in bad shape, if we think that European intelligence, which should be the spearhead of the public administration, up to the day before the invasion of Ukraine by the Russians, does not he believed the outbreak of the conflict, showing that the chain of command is full of inadequate personnel who have probably arrived in those roles of responsibility for the “relational” way of selecting the ruling class.
Also in this case, until the war broke out in Ukraine, the dust remained under the carpet and now in all likelihood everything will be done to remove from the collective imagination that enormous failure of the secret services to continue to carry on as if nothing had happened, according to the Latin phrase “canis canem non est” (dog does not eat dog).