What is the purpose of the meeting between Putin and Trump? (And something about leadership)

https://metsantarinoita.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are meeting in Helsinki, sometimes we are thinking, what is the purpose of those meeting? Why those men are meeting in Helsinki and if they would not be made any concrete things, why they would travel to this town, and talk together? The problem of those leaders is simple, they need foreign treats, and many of their supporters are in the military industry. That industry need treats for selling their products to other countries.


The purpose of making investigations and developments in those products is to create even more and more superior technology, what would increase the strike capacity of those products. And the advantages of the technology would be guaranteed the markets for new military equipment. And every leader in the world want of course peace, but if they will send their men to war, those persons must tell to mothers of their nations, that their sons were dying in the field.


Presidents and other highest rank politicians need public support for their campaigns, and in the world is one rule: who would pay your salary is the person, who makes decisions, what sings you are singing. And this is why every leader in the world must look strong. If some leader would give another side opportunity to speak before that side would be destroyed, that thing is mentioned as a weakness. Only thing what confesses people is the use of power. Everybody who would not satisfied must be kicked off from work.


Why must the leader tolerate persons, who have different opinions than the leader have?  This is the normal attitude in some talking about leadership. When other people come to meeting the leader would start to tell, what would be next things, what would be done. And after that, this leader would tell, that the decision of this conference is something.


This is, of course, the very nice way to lead, but why this leader calls the meeting if that person would not want to know anything that is different than own ideas? Why this man or woman would not send orders of the action to workplaces and start to work? If the person has made the decision before, the meeting is only a waste of time.


And time is money because those persons need salaries. So why not send the orders to the subleaders and stop playing democracy. The leader is responsible for the decision, and that gives this person the right to make those decisions alone, but in that case, should the report marked that the decisions are made by the leader alone. This is one very interesting point of view of leadership.