https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HGQqPwbsyo

As is typically the case, Kofman is initially shy about making pronouncements about what the future of the Ukraine-Russia war might herald. Rather, this is a retrospective of what happened over the first few months of the war. If you want to skip Kofman's retrospective of the war to date, you can skip ahead to 28:00. There's about an hour of Q&A after the talk, starting at 36:30 (so yes, he only talks about the current situation for 8 minutes). The Q&A contains more speculation about how the future of the war might evolve.

General highligts from the talk:

• Kofman gives credit to HIMARS' M31 while typically he's been fairly dismissive of wunderwhaffe. Does try and stress that the 'software' part of a military aparatus is more/as important as the 'hardware' part like HIMARS. Software in this case means doctine and operations methology.
• Fairly caustic comments about Russian devoting its main effort to Bahkmut which he considers to be of little strategic significance.
  • Bahkmut is important in terms of political symbolism.
• Stresses that the formations NATO has trained have received very abbreviated training and are not combat tested.

From the Q&A:

• Reinforces that he thinks Putin believes this is a contest of wills between him and the West. Points out that great power leaders prefer to think about cases where their nation overcame great odds (e.g. "Great Patriotic War) and ignore those where they lost.
  • Probably the Russian military won't be able to reform itself until Putin has left power. They are currently moving away from the Western model and towards the Soviet model. Kofman thinks this will fail because fundementally Russia is not the Soviet Union and lacks all of the USSRs strengths.
• Rambling question about peace process. Dismisses it due to the evidence uncovered of Russian war crimes in Bucha making the peace process null and void.
• What assumptions did Kofman have to update after visiting Ukraine in person? Suggests that following the war on Twitter and assuming it's giving you an accurate representation is about a credulous as watching Lord of the Rings and believing it's a documentary. There is a big missing observation problem.
• Q about Russia coup-proofing policies. Says there was some return to the political commissar model but that's not the cause of Russian planning failures for the war. However, reinforces that political loyalty trumped competance for promotions in the Russian high command. The lack of punishment for poor performance in the Russian high command is part of why they have failed.
• What is the threshold for success by the Ukrainian offensive for Russia to recognize that it's lost?
• What is the strategic goals of Russia? Initial goal was to install a Russian-friendly regime in Kyiv to create a political union between Russia, Ukraine, and Blyeorussia. Compares the unrealistic Russian goals to those of Bush in Iraq. Thinks the current goal is to annex the territory they have now and destroy Ukraine as viable state.
• Another rambling question about the division between Wagner and MoD (some people don't understand how to pose a question without trying to impose their own views). Stresses that Wagner is two different groups: professional contractors and convicts. Does think the Russian military was sabatoging Wagner. Compares the current Russian forces to the White Russians during their civil war post-WW1.
• Effect of sanctions. Says the price caps have been the biggest problem and that's a relatively recent. Says sanctions are a form of excommunication from the global economy but it takes years to see the effect.

http://www.scspi.org/en/dtfx/%E2%80%9Cfreedom-navigation%E2%80%9D-claimed-united-states-not-%E2%80%9Cfreedom-navigation%E2%80%9D-under-international-law?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

This article by Lei Xiaolu, (an associate professor in China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies at Wuhan University, so very relevant expertise) lays out China's perspective on FONOPS. Essentially they argue that Article 25 of UNCLOS allows for "non-innocent" travel to be barred. Right or wrong this is an interesting perspective on how China views territorial disputes at sea and explains their recent actions

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The combined anti missile systems above Kyiv have become downright impressive, with every incoming missile destroyed on many days.

I do realize that for a MIRV or saturation attack it's enough that just a few go through, and that intercontinental ballistic missiles are different from the wide array targeting Kyiv. But still, Russian high speed ballistic missiles are in real time being shot down over Kyiv. The umbrella is more effective than we would have guessed a year ago.

Does anyone have an article for where we currently stand on ICBM defence? Is it today more feasible?

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

I've followed the war in Ukraine and have been surprised at just how effective AA systems are against missiles and drones. And not just high end systems like Patriot, but even Russian/Ukrainian tech and older systems like the Gepard seem to be very effective in stopping incoming attacks. Much more effective than I would have imagined them being in a high intensity conflict.

Even though most of the missile/AA fight has happened on land, it all makes me think about the implications for naval warfare. The conventional wisdom seemed to be leading up to the Ukraine war that missile systems would turn large swathes of the oceans into no go areas for surface vessels. The Chinese have gone all in on this, and the US seems to be following suit with the USMC in particular putting major effort into the concept of mobile box launched AShM's. In part I think with the assumption that ship AA systems were of dubious effectiveness against incoming AShM's.

But the war has led me to believe that surface ships may fare better than was expected in this regard. While the Russian navy has been a mixed bag in the Black Sea, I don't think comparing them to a US or even European naval task force is a good comparison, the latter two I would rate as much more capable. I tend to think that a US carrier battlegroup for instance, with a half dozen ships networked together with their radar, satellites, and air cover, bristling with advanced AA missiles and decoys, and presenting a non-stationary target, would probably have a good chance of surviving even a massive AShM attack that only China could really attempt. Depending on loadout, such a force could have several hundred AA missiles between them and with various ship and airborne radar would likely see everything coming at them.

Curious what other people think.

Russia’s Use of Uncrewed Systems in Ukraine

by Jeffrey A. Edmonds, Samuel Bendett

• Consistent with Russian military doctrine, the Russian military has used uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) extensively in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations in Ukraine. This has enabled them to play prominent roles in artillery, counter-battery, and precision strikes missions.
• While ISR drones play a central role in much of the Russian military’s targeting process, it appears that the rate of response is slow, making it challenging to engage targets that are mobile.
• The lag in detection and targeting time highlights the lack of military-grade uncrewed combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) in Russia’s arsenal. These systems would enable a faster detection to kill time. While the Russian military is clearly investing in these systems as evidenced by military announcements before the war, they are not likely to appear on the battlefield anytime soon.
• Commercial drones have come to the fore in the Russia-Ukraine war to address pressing ISR needs and to serve as rudimentary loitering ammunitions. The Russian military and leadership were slow to accept the roles of the drones but are now encouraging their use by Russian forces.
• Despite the acknowledged importance of these drones, the Russian military industrial complex has been slow to produce them in the significant numbers required by Russian forces. Some of the lack of production likely comes from a lack of domestic capabilities, inter-organizational competition and lack of communication, and a lack of central Russian government leadership on this issue.
• One emergent solution to the commercial drone shortage is the rise of groups within Russia that are funding drones and drone parts for Russian units and acting as thought leaders in how to integrate and use commercial drones in military operations.
• Tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) for using drones have been developed through experience on the battlefield. Observations of Russian and Ukrainian use of drones by domestic groups in Russia have prompted initiatives to provide Russian soldiers with standardized training and TTPs for drone use.
• Inexpensive commercial drones that are rigged with munitions are, in many ways, becoming more like munitions in their employment and loss rate; many are seen as expendable, single-use platforms for inflicting damage on military sites and platforms. This use has the added effect of making them expensive targets to counter for air-defense systems, producing potential Ukrainian air-defense employment compromises between protecting military units and critical infrastructure.
• To address their military UAV challenges, the Russians are using Iranian-produced military drones extensively. With ranges in the hundreds of kilometers and antijamming systems, these drones have proved effective at targeting Ukrainian military platforms and critical infrastructure.

​

Jeffrey Edmonds is an expert on US national security, especially as it relates to Russia. He works full time for CNA's Russia Studies Program. His research focuses on the Russian military, foreign policy, Russian threat perceptions, and Russian information operations. Most recently, Jeff served as the Director for Russia on the National Security Council and acting Senior Director for Russia during the 2017 presidential transition. While on the NSC, he advised the president and his senior staff on Russia-related national security topics. Prior to the NSC, Jeff served as a senior military analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency, covering Eurasian militaries. He has served in the U.S. Army on both active duty and the reserves for 22 years, with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Edmonds holds an M.P.A. from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, an M.A. from Boston University in Religious Studies, and a B.S. from the United States Military Academy at West Point.

Samuel Bendett*’s research focuses on Russian defense and technology developments; uncrewed, robotic and autonomous military systems; artificial intelligence; and Russian military capabilities. Bendett’s analyses, views and commentary on Russia’s military robotics, autonomous systems and artificial intelligence capabilities have appeared in numerous global publications and news outlets.*

Prior to joining CNA, Bendett worked at the National Defense University on emerging and disruptive technologies to aid the Department of Defense (DOD) in responding to domestic and international crisis situations. His previous experience includes working for the U.S. Congress, the private sector and nonprofit organizations on foreign policy, international conflict resolution, and defense and security issues.

Bendett is also an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, an honorary “mad scientist” with the Mad Scientist Initiative of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, and a Russian military autonomy and artificial intelligence subject matter expert for the DOD’s Defense Systems Information Analysis Center.

Bendett received a Master of Arts in law and diplomacy from the Fletcher School at Tufts University as well as a Bachelor of Arts in politics and English from Brandeis University. He has native fluency in Russian.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

Australia and New Zealand are two of the closest allies in the world who maintain nearly identical security interest. However due to politics and population size neither are able to effectively equip their militaries to a high level.

A solution would be the creation of ANZAD - Australia-New Zealand Auterea Defense It would composed of:

ANZAA - Australia-New Zealand Auterea Army. This itself will be compromised of:

ANZAC - Expeditionary Capable Forces. Mononational at the Battalion level and below for combat elements, platoon level and below for non-combat elements, to allow a single nation deployment in case of foreign policy agreements. Deployment packages drawn from this.

ANZAHD - Australia New Zealand Auterea Home Defense. Non-Expeditionary capable forces designated for home defense and support to civil authorities.

Combined Training Command - Combined training element, removes single nation training sites and makes them all both nations. Redundant training locations will be closed reducing cost.

Combined Medical Command - same as above but for medical

Combined staff - Combines administrative, Procurement, and other staff functions for both nations.

ANZAAF - Australia - New Zealand Auterea Air Force. Basically same as Australian Air Force except New Zealand additions to air mobility Command and maritime patrol Command. Single staff for both Air forces reduces redundancies. Single maintenance depot helps save money along with slight advantages in Procurement.

ANZAN - Australia New Zealand Navy. Mostly a merger of fleets, with Australian and New Zealand Auterea patrol zones. May help reduce redundancies at the headquarters level, but also helps ensure that all patrol zones have coverage.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP-130-The-Mosul-Study-Group-and-the-Lessons-of-the-Battle-of-Mosul.pdf

Preface
Operation Inherent Resolve’s Battle of Mosul (October 2016–July 2017) was one of the most pulverizing battles in recent times, and it resulted in the tactical defeat of the Islamic State. Looking to capitalize on it, U.S. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) commissioned the Mosul Study Group to provide a report. The goal of the report was to glean lessons from the battle and get them back out to the force as quickly as possible. TRADOC and the Mosul Study Group succeeded in this endeavor, publishing What the Battle of Mosul Teaches the Force a mere two months after it had formally concluded.
However, TRADOC and the Mosul Study Group’s haste resulted in missing that Mosul was decisive in relation to the larger campaign to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq. Further, the report failed to articulate the paradoxical role that precision-strike capabilities and precision-guided munitions played. Lastly, the report failed to highlight that it was a block-by-block positional battle of attrition in which steel, sweat and blood saved the day—not new doctrinal concepts, Facebook “likes” or Twitter branding.
In its haste, TRADOC’s report, which reads more like narrative reinforcement than actual lessons from the battle, runs the risk of de-legitimizing future “lessons learned” work. The faulty research methods exemplified here—such as issuing a report on lessons learned a mere two months after a battle concludes and reporting that reinforces existing doctrinal predilections at the expense of challenging and assessing doctrinal utility—need to be addressed. Otherwise, reports like this run the risk of telling the Army what it wants to hear and not what it needs to hear.

I found this to be a brief, informative, and insightful read that pulled no punches in criticizing The Mosul Group's initial report about the battle. With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it's important to keep in mind that many of the lessons initially learned will be the wrong ones, and it should be lauded to admit that.

There are interesting perspectives on decisive action, urban warfare, and proxy wars, but what I'd like to highlight is what the authors call the "Precision Paradox" in which precision weapons fail their promise of reducing collateral damage by one shot, one kill. Instead, destruction of buildings were often unsuccessful in killing their targets, allowing them to flee to other buildings that are also eventually destroyed in precision strikes. This also drove enemy combatants to tunnels, further degrading the ability of strikes to complete their objective and amplifying the destruction of the city.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

I just finished On Infantry and Warfighting, and I was wondering if there was a good book (particularly in the same vein as the former) on the subject of air warfare and its evolution on a tactical, operational, and strategic level?

Thanks!

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/meatgrinder-russian-tactics-second-year-its-invasion-ukraine

I am posting summaries in the comments.