Martin Reeves: Your Strategy Needs A Strategy

7 Replies to “Martin Reeves: Your Strategy Needs A Strategy”

  1. The last thing we need is a conflict between our own friends, that is between any European country, Russia or The U.S. The best strategy now is to think hard about why we should have a strategy at all. If we destroy ourselves to the point where civilization collapses, the next phase we’re going to see are IS troops invading our countries and taking them over, hanging and raping all our woman. I do not fear a nuclear war, I fear those people who will enter our countries after the nuclear war is over. If we’re not totally wiped out by a nuclear war, we’re going to face some unpleasant beheadings, rape, torture and hangings by these IS terrorists. We have to keep peace with one another and not give them that chance in the first place.We need to keep peace with our friends for the only sake of preventing creating holes for the terrorists to enter after we have no military capacity left to fight one another. It’s the aftermath that is dangerous, ofcourse a nuclear war is equally dangerous, but what comes afterwards is total destruction, if we give them that opportunity, we’re done and gone in the most ruthless way.So the first strategy we have to have is to never wage war against one another, that is Russia, EU and the US. We must have an absolute steadfastness on that. Even if incidences like what we saw in Turkey happens, if Russia decide to go to war with Turkey and if such an event happens again, something has to happen and that is what we have to avoid.Rather than settle it on the battleground, consider solving it economically. Whatever it is, only not in combat.But we also need to have borders, we have way too many country borders being trespassed, there have to be borders, unless the United Nations have a plan to get rid of national borders so that we don’t have to deal with borders anymore. But until then a border has a meaning. Rather than breaking those, why not make a deal to use their terroritory, which is the usual way to do things.

  2. So…. what he’s describing is simply using strategy. Just because many people use strategy poorly doesn’t mean strategy itself is lacking lol.

    Adaptability, intelligence gathering and analysis, testing and changing the strategy in light of new information IS strategic principles at work. He doesn’t seem to understand strategy. His whole point is that strategy is not one dimensional and we should use it multidimensionally but then he implies strategy is lacking adaptability and ingenuity. Wtf are you talking about?

  3. Martin Reeves talks about the issue of strategy and how he thinks that a strategy needs a strategy, but does that even make sense? Everyone has a strategy I’m sure, some people may have a more poor strategy than others, but does that mean we are lacking strategy at all? No. Martin Reeves made me think of an ethical component, known as nonmaleficence, which is don’t inflict/prevent harm or evil, remove harm or evil, and promote good. If people don’t have that well have a strategy that’s not inflicting harm on anyone or anything. Just because people are poor at having a strategy doesn’t mean they need a strategy needs a strategy. Everyone does things every differently, not all of us are the same person and we don’t do things the same way. Having a strategy is promoting good, and even if it’s a poor one, they are still promoting good and preventing harm. A strategy needing a strategy is way too confusing and too stressful, when people have a strategy it is good, even if it’s not a good one.

Comments are closed.