This brings me back to the discussion of the characters of MIC leaders. There is an extraordinary Russian movie on the topic: Beg (1971). Unfortunately, it will be extremely difficult for you to understand it, unless you use a qualified guide. The movie is an art work made in a cinematographic language which is very sophisticated and indirect. It was done at the height of Soviet censorship and made such that uneducated Soviet bureaucracy would not understand its meaning, while Soviet intelligentsia would. Nonetheless, the movie was not allowed to be shown to the public until much later, when the censorship weakened. This was the best work by two talented directors, Alov and Naumov. Ideally, you would need to see the movie with the eyes of a human who understands the topic of MIC leadership in Russia, and is literate in language of Soviet cinematography and in Soviet history. Also you would need a commentary. There still exist people who are qualified to guide you in understanding the movie. They are old soviet intelligentsia located mostly in Moscow, Petersburg, Israel and Brooklyn.
The movie is an artistic study of characters of MIC leaders. It is about the time period of 1918 - early 1920s but it was made to reflect the understanding of MIC in late 1960s and is so universal that its insights are valid in understanding modern MIC leaders. I watched the movie as many times as I could in my youth: starting from 1981. Together with Radio Svoboda and Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" the movie strongly influenced my worldview. Thanks to Beg, I was primed to the idea of emigration. The basis for Beg's plot is also coming from Bulgakov's books. The movie is a collective creation of great artists and is deeply rooted in best of human culture.
I will give you here a very brief guidance on characters of MIC leaders, just to prime you future research into the movie. The main idea is that all of the MIC leaders are nice people, traumatized, dysfunctional but with much niceness. It is only that they happen to be sucked in the center of the historical process and end up at the top. Some would be there by chance and some due to their drive and unique qualities.
The main character of Beg is Khludov, a military officer mainly responsible for much of cruelty not only in the battle to enemy but also in the rear to civilians. In the Russian Civil War his motivation was to serve with dignity and to maintain the order at any price in the army which was losing the war. He was clearly shown as an insane person, with fragmented personality and was largely inadequate. As the movie develops, the White army ends up losing the Civil War and MIC fleeing to emigration. The MIC leaders end up in conditions where they are not leaders anymore. There, their human qualities are tested again and some of them come up not so bad after all. Khludov ends up actually helping people and wishing to return home to Russia. His prototype in real life, General Slaschev, actually ended up returning to Russia and serving in KGB. That return is another illustration of integration of MIC across borders. The borders are only for show, only to confuse and separate the public. The true MIC is international, there is an exchange of information, people, funds, common planning, and commonly executed crimes against humanity such as wars and terrorism. Understanding the motivations and internal conflicts of Khludov will help you greatly understanding the MIC leadership. Some of MIC leaders are honestly trying to maintain order and prevent larger disasters, at least from their prospective. They are desperately guarding the world which is dear to them in the ways they have in their disposal.
Another MIC leader is General Chernota. His moral was low in the army, his reflected total decay in the army by engaging in adultery, alcohol and gambling instead of military operations. As a result he was responsible for much of the losses. Of course these characters are archetypical, there were many generals like Chernota. Yet, he was also a kind man with some of remaining dignity, he protested from Khludov's cruelty, and in emigration he was driven by dignity and humanism in a way he interpreted them.
Another MIC leader type is Korzukhin, a financial entrepreneur. At the time of great tragedy, his actions were greatly immoral driven by personal financial gain. In the emigration he ended up most financially successful among characters of the movie. He is shown to be constantly negative across the movie. Still he had some positive sentiments which also became his weaknesses; he lost some money due to old sentiments.
The movie has many other facets, it shows the tragedy and mechanisms of civil war, and how the good people are separated into fighting groups and fight each other for no good reason.
MIC leadership and distortions of characters in Red army are shown as well. Cavalry commander Bayev is driven by symbols of personal military glory and is neglecting damage to soldiers by his overly ambitious plans to take part in a decisive military action. As he dies in the battle, his last move is to search for a weapon to die symbolically as a good soldier with a weapon in the hand.
Here are at four typical types of MIC leaders I mentioned:
Khludov - cruelty due to the need of sustaining order.
Chernota - degraded and irresponsible.
Korzukhin - immoral behavior for financial gain.
Bayev - excessive ambition for personal glory at cost of others.
Of course, in real world, there are more types, but these are a very good starting point in researching the psychology of MIC leaders.
MIC = military-industrial complex