If Russia and Ukraine were Companies

I’m attempting to compare how companies operate, based on my experience, and my conjecture of how countries do.?

I could be wrong, however not completely.

Countries of the World and Companies in an Industry have a few things in common.

Amongst other things, both strive to increase their share of wealth, while improving the lives of their constituents, viz citizens and employees.

To achieve these objectives, countries and companies engage in trade deals, offer incentives, build barriers, and sometimes take aggressive steps to incapacitate, destroy and eventually take over other competing countries or companies.

These decisions are guided by the countries and companies themselves or by other affiliates with vested interests. These affiliations could be international alliances like NATO etc. in the case of countries and investors and ancillaries in the case of companies.

Some ventures, for both countries and companies, are initially loss making. These short-term losses are incurred to build businesses or weaken the competitors to the extent that they become unviable. This phase is expected to be followed by a profit run by the surviving country or company and their affiliates.?

Some competing countries and companies have adequate own reserves or have backings, that fund them if the loss-making run lasts longer than expected, for economic or prestige related reasons.

After a prolonged engagement, the country or company that has initiated this situation, must take one of the two calls.

Option 1:?Sit across the table with the country or company it was hoping would capitulate, explain how both are losing and propose a win-win formula that helps both survive and grow in the new normal. This requires both sides to conclude that neither would win eventually and leads to withdrawal of forces or discounts by both. Sometimes, this option requires the help of a mediator.?

Option 2:?Mount an aggression and go for the kill, to either destroy or take over the other country or company. This is based on the hope that it’s resources would last longer than those of the smaller country or company and its supporters.?

An underestimation often prolongs the operation and leads to more destruction than was initially expected.?

On most occasions, Option 2 leads to Option 1, with the two parties coming to the table and agreeing to survive together, after having destroyed precious productive resources.

Yet countries and companies often indulge in Option 2 as their first option.

History is a bad teacher, countries and companies have not learnt from it. Wars and hostile takeover attempts continue to be repeated, with similar outcomes, even today.