StrategicExpert in a complex world

[strategicexpert]

#strategicexpert #strategyexpert2 #potsdam #cecilienhof #defence Colin S. Gray is one of the most remarkable strategists of our time. In his book National Security Dilemmas, he depicts the problems within American strategic decision making or rather the lack of. Gray depicts the western military circles as having “put their faith in systems engineering methods and technological means” with a disregard for the appreciation of military history. Central to western military thought is the will to quantify and rationalize everything. Clausewitz already stated though that war is a clash of wills. If that holds true, it surely cannot be rational. Thus, in Grays opinion strategy is partly an art with eternal rules. The book Security Dilemmas, written in 2009, already deals with Irregular warfare in a separate chapter. His opinion on the matter is rather straight forward: War is war and strategy is strategy. He makes a brilliant argument that war in whatever shape or form abides by eternal rules which disregard the current military means and stay the same. He brings back the very important aspect which many strategists and military leaders alike have forgotten: Tactical and operational excellence is always desirable, even if not always necessary to achieve strategic success. This is clear recommendation for anyone who wants to challenge themselves about their thinking on strategy. https://www.instagram.com/p/B8a4K4Pog4f/?igshid=3moru3surjzg

[strategicexpert]

#strategictuesdays #strategicexpert #strategyguide #china #defence The current discussion around the rise of the People’s Republic of China is mostly through a western analytical approach. This often takes into account historical lessons from western powers. The book China and Coexistence pursues a different avenue for the analysis of Chinese strategy. China’s official claim for peaceful coexistence is taken literally. By doing so Odgaad defines coexistence: it emerges in practical politics in areas where great power’s fundamental national interests clash with the interests of another thereby threatening International stability. Odgaard notices that China acts differently on the issue of land borders and sea borders. She further points to the legal basis of UNCLOS which gives China a wide range of interpretation for its claims. Rather than pointing fingers Odgaard explains the loopholes of UNCLOS, which are also used by other states when it comes to maritime borders. The book offers a daring analytical framework which every strategist who deals with China should bare in mind! (hier: Potsdam, Germany) https://www.instagram.com/p/B8I-LsXigUQ/?igshid=1igmtclz16kpk

[strategicexpert]

#strategicexpert #strategicexpert2 #defence #passionforstrategy When reading the classics in the evenings is inspiring your mate https://www.instagram.com/p/B761mU3onK0/?igshid=6tk4h6tlzyx1

[strategicexpert]

#strategictuesdays brought to you by #strategicexpert #strategicexpert2 #defence #strategy #coldwar Deterrence in the current debate surrounding grey-area warfare is often shaped by the perception that in order to deny Russia the possibility to act, more military hardware and rotational troops to the border areas are the answer. Thus, trying to solve a strategic challenge with a tactical/operational solution and by using mainly retaliatory measures. This book recommendation is for practitioners and military thinkers who are currently involved in creating plans to counter Russia or China. Patrick M. Morgans book Deterrence analysis the various theoretical mindsets in the realm of deterrence theory. He covers not only sole state actor deterrence but also the idea of collective deterrence. Minimum deterrence, Maximum deterrence as well as warfighting deterrence are covered by this book. Morgan raises one issue, that the concept of deterrence is way to often applied to areas where it was not meant to be applied. Great Power competition and Nuclear competition should be the main playing ground of this theoretical framework. Deterrence in his view should not be seen in simple retaliatory terms but rather in the tradition of Liddle Hart who advocated for an indirect strategic approach. https://www.instagram.com/p/B726njLCVHQ/?igshid=uzrwiurqatnj

[strategicexpert]

#strategictuesdays #strategicexpert #defencestudies #strategicstudies #airforce1 “Rhetoric and Reality in Air War” is a ground-breaking analysis of idea of strategic bombing. Tami Biddle manages to present the ideas as a product of their time and puts them into perspective. Ideas and the importance of the air force in World War I were overstated in all states who introduced these new weapons. The creation of the independent Royal Air Force in 1919 as the first independent air force in the world, was the result of overstating battle results. These were never seriously questioned by defence experts. Ideas such as “The bomber gets always through” or the idea to “bomb an enemy state into submission” are a product of the World War I as well as the interwar period. World War II clearly showed that the idea of strategic bombing of industrial targets proved difficult at best, due to the lack of accuracy. This in part explains the strategy of bombing city centres as an alternative for keeping up a purpose for the bomber force of General Arthur Harris. This is a clear recommendation of the book for air force professionals as well as practitioners of operational and strategic planning. It demystifies the concept of strategic bombing and should be a reminder that the bombing of a target for psychological is mostly one thing: a myth – at best it stiffens the resolve. https://www.instagram.com/p/B7k40_2iElS/?igshid=1mjm5245xn7mw

[strategicexpert]

#strategictuesdays #strategicexpert #strategyexpert2 #gerasimanov #strategy #cecilienhof #potsdamconference1945 Current Russian operational thought is the product of nearly 100 years of consecutive military operations. Originating in the years of the Russian civil war, operational art is the centre piece of the understanding of war. Different to the western focus on Clausewitz and his book which leaves more then enough room for any kind of interpretation, Russian operational thought builds on thinkers such as Svechin or Yegorov. The Decisive Point is not attributed the same importance as within western military thought; rather the focus of operational art is not only the battle itself but also the built up before outbreak of a potential war. Svechin is often referred to as the Russian Clausewitz. His writings probably ensured soviet victory during the Second World War. He created the idea of a deep battle. One which has a fluctuating front line and adopts a more dynamic approach to dominating the battlefield. While his ideas were ultimately successful, Svechin himself found an early death, before the war, in Stalin’s purges. The book with primary translated sources offers a great insight into the Russian military science approach to warfare. https://www.instagram.com/p/B7S3dXeIgKl/?igshid=k0gu9uvh5r9n

[strategicexpert]

Defence specialist, Strategic Studies expert