Thanks for this Tom. Really not knowing about DR Congo being invade so much times, ot anything about Sri Lanka. Going to try to read.
For me, the war in Ukraine was very similar to the Perdían gulf Wars at least the phase between the russian withdraw of 2022 amd the begginings of the russian offendive in the winter of 2024.
The fact that military establishments are out of touch is not unusual. Ever since the 'victory by the British' over Napoleon - always forgetting crucial allies - and fortified by endless myths about wars won at home and abroad (please don't mention Indians or Zulus or many another contrary instance), the British in general believe implicitly in the superiority of their armed forces. So why on earth would they want to try to learn something new from some ignorant foreigners who live somewhere else?
At the beginning of the last two World Wars the British establishment was still fighting previous ones. Now the western 'allies' are busy preparing a Munich for Ukraine, wilfully ignoring deliberate, targeted and ongoing provocation by a Russian president obsessed with his paranoid delusions. Instead of taking unpopular decisions to fortify military expertise and materiel - explicitly, at least to supply ever more relevant arms and ammo to Ukraine, desperately attempting to hold the line for the West - European leaders witter and prevaricate like elderly vicars too terrified of offending either Pudding or Dump.
Obviously the USA has cut and run, a coward of a president too preoccupied with a grandiose view of himself as deal-maker to actually face truth, and can be largely written off for the next four years at least. Which means an essential and urgent task for Europeans is to unite behind a formidable and clear-sighted leader...
Thanks Tom. I posted one of the links to the issue raised in the media a few days ago about the "incompetence" of both NATO and Ukrainian military. It echoes the topic of your article.
Michael Kofman and Phillip Karber have been my go-to "opfor" analysts since before the war started. They seemed to have kept the (military) "Sovietologist" tradition alive but certainly never referenced any of the outside the box examples Tom has; although Karber was a big proponent and admirer of Ukrainian deep raids behind Russian lines after the initial invasion of Donbass. Part of the problem I think is that Sovietology/Russian studies was busted as a discipline on the political side for failing to predict 1989-1991. It then got taken over by hubristic types plotting the reform of the 1990s from afar who then got busted by Putin's rise. At that point it was all-but paralysed.
The challenges for any analyst integrated into the Beltway or similar place are groupthink and speaking truth to power. Worse, this being tacitly understood, the analyst may play the plain speaking critic while subtly tailoring his prescriptions to official expectations.
The truth-to-power phrase you have used is my takeaway today on Trump. Whilst Trump's policies were fully signposted and are mostly being enacted. I don't think anyone predicted how Trump becoming president would result all the politicians, the media, industry, or for that matter, anyone who has a public profile effectively self-neutering themselves. So pretty much no one has the balls to stand up to Trump and call out his nonsense. Hopefully this will change as the dust settles. But for now people seem to be very scared of the orange man.
The 'military side' of Sovietology was neither responsible nor guilty for 'failing to predict' the downfall of the USSR. That was not their job.
But, they were excellent scapegoats - and 'so beautifully surplus' (and that already in 1989, around the time... don't recall any more if it was Weinberger or Carlucci (?) who toured...was it Ustinov (?) into the cockpit of a B-1...).
Yes, we saw this with Sullivan et al, experten who may have spent a semester in Leningrad before moving on with advanced degrees. Who among them spent any time at a Kolxhoz, or a mill, or with the people? Those that did could see the machine was out of gas and rolling downhill.
I'll tell you a word on the state of the Ukrainian official military science. There's a book we (as ZSU officers) have to study, the last edition is year 2024. There's a table there for combat effectiveness calculations based on the main weapon type. The table is filled with such Enemy Weapon Systems as... MGR-1 Honest John, M60 MBT and АН-1S Cobra TOW (sic).
I have zero understanding of wars in general. Tactics, history and all. But I have some obscure, half confirmed, half based on rumors, but some sources too, understanding that ru military doctrine, besides what they learnt from WW2 and beyond, were looking for other ways to dominate western military.
And while Western military focused on OODA loop as a means to overcome enemy, ru military, or rather military-political class, were looking to overcome enemy through planned manipulation of frame of reference.
What we can call propaganda, but it is more complex then that :) In truth "propaganda" is a term that helps to obscure the real meaning of approach, as "we all know what propaganda is", means it is not worth our focused attention.
Basically among some means is regulating intensity of conflict (slower/faster), creating distractions/shifts, manipulating narrative, but many others. And first and foremost planning these things in advance. So that enemy always forced to react to those.
So in the current disposition Europe is forced to react, so is led by the action. And US considering what current administration supports, is almost fully affected by that design.
And ru will continue to push in that direction with all they have. While commenters are saying that they are "exhausted" or looking for a "peace deal". Means, they would play their role as much as necessary, happy to manipulate the agenda and narrative, while participating in "peace talks", while preparing other plans.
As example "we are not even fighting you" narrative, is the way to decrease enemy concentration on fighting back, by sowing doubt. At the same time maximizing fighting efforts without ever disclosing the real scope of internal tension.
But things like "credibility of the leadership" of the opponent are all very helpful.
So in this First World War for the Minds, I know the only way to highlight shortcomings of defending party is to always put those side by side with the things they are doing right. And not be tired to credit those while addressing the shortcomings.
Thanks, Tom, a really excellent review. The “stickiness” of national military theories (NATO manouverist doctrine, for example) based on a limited successful application (Gulf War) to the detriment of any hard learned alternative seems to be a lesson that needs hard learning again and again!
Do you think there’s any real appetite for this or, as we might say it, is that Turkey’s voting for Christmas?
it's almost an axiom that current militaries are studying the last successful action/doctrine, and are prepared to repeat it (ready to fight the previous war).
On the other hand, how many could envision the widespread use of drones and their domination of the battlefield? I am looking at the new designs for main battle tanks like the KF51 and the Eurotank, see their projected price point and I am saying "nope". Same for frigates and sea drones like the Magura.
I would expect a new kind of vehicle for a war of movement: a wheeled drone launcher, which would carry multiple drones and loitering munitions along a mechanized brigade on the move and supporting groups of Leopard 2 and IFVs in a battle of movement, plus a modern day version of the Gepard for protection from drones.
*shrug* who knows? Nobody really knows. It is certainly possible, but, on the other hand, it may be pure self-flattery. There are signs of both; I can argue for both sides :). Certainly some percentage of population will emerge, may be unexpectedly for themselves, as vicious and warlike, but how large a percentage?
Eighty years ago, nobody would believe that the Germans would become commerce-minded and industry/export-focused instead of Prussian militarists. And nobody would expect the Hebrew commerce people to become eternal warriors of the Middle East.
Nothing can prepare us for future changes of stereotypes again. History can be quite unpredictable.
I get the feeling you believe your interest in the "incompetence" issue is something your readers are tired of reading about. That's not true for me. And I don't believe true for others. What you struggle with I struggle with. Why isn't it an issue for Ukraine? Putting aside whether your position is correct, on what is good or bad leadership and operations, why are those who question, like you, ignored? I have some theories too. I just wanted to make a quick comment that my reaction is NEVER "oh no, not this again."
I first learned of this problem reading Camus in High School. A guy hears a scream near the river. Should he go back, keep walking, go back? He goes back and forth in his head and then the screaming stops. Did he do the right thing? Is he guilty of not looking into it? Ukraine is screaming and most of the World keeps walking. You know what's going on at the river and it's driving you (and me) mental they won't look into it.
Because everyone and his brother questions, and 98% of people questioning either repeat each other, ask questions that are already answered many times or are, in turn, incompetent themselves and ask wrong questions.
As in any other field, you need to actively engage in the expert community, participate in discussions - within community's limits at the start, build your status little by little and then carefully challenge set trends and beliefs of that community.
Sorry, I'm very confused about the point you're making. Does Tom need to get status to challenge beliefs of the Ukrainian military community? Do I need to build status? I mean Tom has been going into some insanely complex and detailed arguments about what is competent and what is incompetent in a military organization. He pointed out in this story that the community of public-facing military experts has shrunk as those experts begin to work within secretive government organizations; that is, many who might agree with Tom are not in a position to make a public opinion about it.
Most people in a community will, as you point out, follow agreed on beliefs--not "challenge set trends." So if Tom was part of the Ukrainian military how would he effect change? Could he?
Well functioning governments rely on outside critics to talk about things they can't talk about. Indeed, it is the general function of any consultant. To analyze something without political bias (because they are not trying to advance themselves within that organization). The issue here, IMO, is that Ukraine is suffering from a poor communications, which Tom has pointed out. He's not making up incompetence, he's only articulating what competent soldiers in the Ukrainians military are telling him! How does he know they're competent? Because he's an expert. I am not.
I say that nobody, Tom included, can just come to an institution from the street and challenge institution's experts. That doesn't mean only Ukrainian military - Tom is talking, in his article, about a number of different communities who ignore his questions.
I say that it is completely normal for any expert community (and any other community, but especially institutional) to ignore people from out-group, people without existing status in the community. First Tom needs to build status, to become a part of in-group, only then he can challenge existing experts in the community.
Ukrainian government or military can't know if Tom is an expert or not. He has no status within that military. They should listen to voices from the outside, yes, but there are HUNDREDS of those and Tom's isn't the loudest. And everyone shouts different things.
Oh, okay! I understand now! I agree with you that Tom weakens his position a bit by hammering on his opinion that Ukraine is doing it wrong. But it's a disconnect for me. He's not like some opinionated person without substance. I think I've figure it out. I can sit here and dispassionately analyze and talk about what's going on. People aren't dying around me. It's like he's watching people die on the battlefield from wounds because each time an ambulance driver needs to go out he has to fill out forms for 60 minutes. He talks to soldiers and others involved and it fires him up because the solution seems to obvious. Again, I don't know if it is or not. But I do believe, because I share Tom's tendency to get, um, overwrought, that his emotions shouldn't be used to discount his argument.
Something similar happens in Flight of the Phoenix. When they learn the guy is a model airplane builder they don't want to follow him anymore. He's passionate. That works against him even more. Fortunately, in the end, they listen to him.
Nice post, interested always in the small wars or not popular wars. Everybody who wants to learn, should be allowed to man learn in the ZSU especially the commanders of Bde's, Bns, etc about the lessons learned in other recent conflicts.
Maybe you and like minded people should establish a mini command and gen staff course for the ZSU🙂🙂🙂.
Re: 50 vs 800 Exocet. I got your two books on the Naval War between Iran and Iraq and the figures reported in the different chapters do not add-up to nearly as high a number as 800 Exocet missiles fired. Can you clarify?
Yup. If you've got the Volume 2: the (Exocet-)-party has only started. I.e. if you count missiles fired/counted by Iranians and mentioned by the end of the Volume 2, you should come up to around 100+. And then (in 1984, where the Volume 2 ends), the things only really kicked in, because the Iraqis got their primary Exocet-carriers: Super Etendards, followed by Mirage F.1EQ-5s.
Unsurprisingly, we're currently working on Volumes 3 and 4.... and are not sure if we might manage to end that mini-series with 5... (and if not, we'll have to have add-on/separate volumes on specific operations).
Perhaps the only important issue regarding military (in)competence is the Ukrainian armed forces. Only Ukraine has RECENT ACTUAL EXPERIENCE fighting the Russian bear. Not even the Germans! **LOL** Certainly none of the other NATO signatories, especially retired U.S. army generals with their own youtube channels (also one or two retired colonels and lieutenant colonels) who pontificate on the Russo-Ukrainian War. What do they know about actually fighting Russians compared with Ukraine?
What needs to be fixed is not the incompetence of the military and civilian leaders of the European West. It's all about Ukraine! The West needs to send Ukraine as much artillery, etc. as they can. Ukraine does not need peacekeepers who won't fight anyway except in self-defense. Correct me if I am wrong, but peacekeepers aren't for fighting principally in terms of the strategic or tactical defense; they are for keeping the peace. There ain't no peace in Ukraine to keep right now, and IMHO not likely to be available to keep as a result of that orange haired glory hound's desire to negotiate with Putin.
That's not that simple, actually: one of biggest ironies of the current war in Ukraine is that - actually, and especially on the Russian side - it's full of tactical methods and problems well-known to the Soviets (but also, and at least, to US-Americans) since 1941-1945. I'll get to that point, too.
I will step out of my competence (in what???!!!) and into your career area of expertise, air warfare, to say that if it is possible, the Western "allies" of Ukraine should help Ukraine's ZSU gain air supremacy to total air supremacy over the battlespace. Is this possible? ... Is this realistic? Of course I recognize that victory for Ukraine requires boots on the ground in any case.
It would require a quite large effort and spending of money and resources to build a world-class air force (essentially) built from scratch.
Let's say that Western countries decide to donate 120+ jet fighters to Ukraine, which would need at least 1.200 new support personnel and 250 trained pilots. Let's suppose that there are already bases with hardened shelters to host them (not a safe assumption).
And lots of training (time), and spare parts flowing (logistics), and a complete amount of weaponry.
Seriously, I don't see the western states be ready for such a large project (I am speaking about donated jets, because producing such a large amount of brand new jets involves a huge lead time of 2+ years)
I would add that I have strong feeling that Russians are still using what is called a "Polevoy Ustav-41" aka. Field manual, model 1941. Sounds crazy, but "they won the WW2" so their experience is valid, with just mild updates. It was years ago when I was reading Viktor Suvorovs "inside Soviet Army" and the basic of tactic and strategy described there is still used today, so such that it is mindblowing.
Thanks for this Tom. Really not knowing about DR Congo being invade so much times, ot anything about Sri Lanka. Going to try to read.
For me, the war in Ukraine was very similar to the Perdían gulf Wars at least the phase between the russian withdraw of 2022 amd the begginings of the russian offendive in the winter of 2024.
Waiting the 2nd part!
thanks bro.!
Thanks! Really a refreshing view point.
The fact that military establishments are out of touch is not unusual. Ever since the 'victory by the British' over Napoleon - always forgetting crucial allies - and fortified by endless myths about wars won at home and abroad (please don't mention Indians or Zulus or many another contrary instance), the British in general believe implicitly in the superiority of their armed forces. So why on earth would they want to try to learn something new from some ignorant foreigners who live somewhere else?
At the beginning of the last two World Wars the British establishment was still fighting previous ones. Now the western 'allies' are busy preparing a Munich for Ukraine, wilfully ignoring deliberate, targeted and ongoing provocation by a Russian president obsessed with his paranoid delusions. Instead of taking unpopular decisions to fortify military expertise and materiel - explicitly, at least to supply ever more relevant arms and ammo to Ukraine, desperately attempting to hold the line for the West - European leaders witter and prevaricate like elderly vicars too terrified of offending either Pudding or Dump.
Obviously the USA has cut and run, a coward of a president too preoccupied with a grandiose view of himself as deal-maker to actually face truth, and can be largely written off for the next four years at least. Which means an essential and urgent task for Europeans is to unite behind a formidable and clear-sighted leader...
Oh dear...
https://www.unian.net/war/v-nato-kritikuyut-taktiku-vsu-smi-raskryli-prichinu-12917082.html
Thanks Tom. I posted one of the links to the issue raised in the media a few days ago about the "incompetence" of both NATO and Ukrainian military. It echoes the topic of your article.
Michael Kofman and Phillip Karber have been my go-to "opfor" analysts since before the war started. They seemed to have kept the (military) "Sovietologist" tradition alive but certainly never referenced any of the outside the box examples Tom has; although Karber was a big proponent and admirer of Ukrainian deep raids behind Russian lines after the initial invasion of Donbass. Part of the problem I think is that Sovietology/Russian studies was busted as a discipline on the political side for failing to predict 1989-1991. It then got taken over by hubristic types plotting the reform of the 1990s from afar who then got busted by Putin's rise. At that point it was all-but paralysed.
The challenges for any analyst integrated into the Beltway or similar place are groupthink and speaking truth to power. Worse, this being tacitly understood, the analyst may play the plain speaking critic while subtly tailoring his prescriptions to official expectations.
The truth-to-power phrase you have used is my takeaway today on Trump. Whilst Trump's policies were fully signposted and are mostly being enacted. I don't think anyone predicted how Trump becoming president would result all the politicians, the media, industry, or for that matter, anyone who has a public profile effectively self-neutering themselves. So pretty much no one has the balls to stand up to Trump and call out his nonsense. Hopefully this will change as the dust settles. But for now people seem to be very scared of the orange man.
The 'military side' of Sovietology was neither responsible nor guilty for 'failing to predict' the downfall of the USSR. That was not their job.
But, they were excellent scapegoats - and 'so beautifully surplus' (and that already in 1989, around the time... don't recall any more if it was Weinberger or Carlucci (?) who toured...was it Ustinov (?) into the cockpit of a B-1...).
Yes, we saw this with Sullivan et al, experten who may have spent a semester in Leningrad before moving on with advanced degrees. Who among them spent any time at a Kolxhoz, or a mill, or with the people? Those that did could see the machine was out of gas and rolling downhill.
I'll tell you a word on the state of the Ukrainian official military science. There's a book we (as ZSU officers) have to study, the last edition is year 2024. There's a table there for combat effectiveness calculations based on the main weapon type. The table is filled with such Enemy Weapon Systems as... MGR-1 Honest John, M60 MBT and АН-1S Cobra TOW (sic).
Nobody cares to study this trash, obviously.
MGR-1 Honest John, so not that current!
Dear Tom,
A disconnected topic maybe, but...
I have zero understanding of wars in general. Tactics, history and all. But I have some obscure, half confirmed, half based on rumors, but some sources too, understanding that ru military doctrine, besides what they learnt from WW2 and beyond, were looking for other ways to dominate western military.
And while Western military focused on OODA loop as a means to overcome enemy, ru military, or rather military-political class, were looking to overcome enemy through planned manipulation of frame of reference.
What we can call propaganda, but it is more complex then that :) In truth "propaganda" is a term that helps to obscure the real meaning of approach, as "we all know what propaganda is", means it is not worth our focused attention.
Basically among some means is regulating intensity of conflict (slower/faster), creating distractions/shifts, manipulating narrative, but many others. And first and foremost planning these things in advance. So that enemy always forced to react to those.
So in the current disposition Europe is forced to react, so is led by the action. And US considering what current administration supports, is almost fully affected by that design.
And ru will continue to push in that direction with all they have. While commenters are saying that they are "exhausted" or looking for a "peace deal". Means, they would play their role as much as necessary, happy to manipulate the agenda and narrative, while participating in "peace talks", while preparing other plans.
As example "we are not even fighting you" narrative, is the way to decrease enemy concentration on fighting back, by sowing doubt. At the same time maximizing fighting efforts without ever disclosing the real scope of internal tension.
But things like "credibility of the leadership" of the opponent are all very helpful.
So in this First World War for the Minds, I know the only way to highlight shortcomings of defending party is to always put those side by side with the things they are doing right. And not be tired to credit those while addressing the shortcomings.
Thanks, Tom, a really excellent review. The “stickiness” of national military theories (NATO manouverist doctrine, for example) based on a limited successful application (Gulf War) to the detriment of any hard learned alternative seems to be a lesson that needs hard learning again and again!
Do you think there’s any real appetite for this or, as we might say it, is that Turkey’s voting for Christmas?
it's almost an axiom that current militaries are studying the last successful action/doctrine, and are prepared to repeat it (ready to fight the previous war).
On the other hand, how many could envision the widespread use of drones and their domination of the battlefield? I am looking at the new designs for main battle tanks like the KF51 and the Eurotank, see their projected price point and I am saying "nope". Same for frigates and sea drones like the Magura.
I would expect a new kind of vehicle for a war of movement: a wheeled drone launcher, which would carry multiple drones and loitering munitions along a mechanized brigade on the move and supporting groups of Leopard 2 and IFVs in a battle of movement, plus a modern day version of the Gepard for protection from drones.
Tanner wrote "They also don’t realize what happens when Europe, the most vicious and warlike region on the planet, wakes up the way Ukraine has".
Wouldn't this be wishful thinking? Is modern Europe still the way he describes?
*shrug* who knows? Nobody really knows. It is certainly possible, but, on the other hand, it may be pure self-flattery. There are signs of both; I can argue for both sides :). Certainly some percentage of population will emerge, may be unexpectedly for themselves, as vicious and warlike, but how large a percentage?
Eighty years ago, nobody would believe that the Germans would become commerce-minded and industry/export-focused instead of Prussian militarists. And nobody would expect the Hebrew commerce people to become eternal warriors of the Middle East.
Nothing can prepare us for future changes of stereotypes again. History can be quite unpredictable.
I get the feeling you believe your interest in the "incompetence" issue is something your readers are tired of reading about. That's not true for me. And I don't believe true for others. What you struggle with I struggle with. Why isn't it an issue for Ukraine? Putting aside whether your position is correct, on what is good or bad leadership and operations, why are those who question, like you, ignored? I have some theories too. I just wanted to make a quick comment that my reaction is NEVER "oh no, not this again."
I first learned of this problem reading Camus in High School. A guy hears a scream near the river. Should he go back, keep walking, go back? He goes back and forth in his head and then the screaming stops. Did he do the right thing? Is he guilty of not looking into it? Ukraine is screaming and most of the World keeps walking. You know what's going on at the river and it's driving you (and me) mental they won't look into it.
Because everyone and his brother questions, and 98% of people questioning either repeat each other, ask questions that are already answered many times or are, in turn, incompetent themselves and ask wrong questions.
As in any other field, you need to actively engage in the expert community, participate in discussions - within community's limits at the start, build your status little by little and then carefully challenge set trends and beliefs of that community.
Sorry, I'm very confused about the point you're making. Does Tom need to get status to challenge beliefs of the Ukrainian military community? Do I need to build status? I mean Tom has been going into some insanely complex and detailed arguments about what is competent and what is incompetent in a military organization. He pointed out in this story that the community of public-facing military experts has shrunk as those experts begin to work within secretive government organizations; that is, many who might agree with Tom are not in a position to make a public opinion about it.
Most people in a community will, as you point out, follow agreed on beliefs--not "challenge set trends." So if Tom was part of the Ukrainian military how would he effect change? Could he?
Well functioning governments rely on outside critics to talk about things they can't talk about. Indeed, it is the general function of any consultant. To analyze something without political bias (because they are not trying to advance themselves within that organization). The issue here, IMO, is that Ukraine is suffering from a poor communications, which Tom has pointed out. He's not making up incompetence, he's only articulating what competent soldiers in the Ukrainians military are telling him! How does he know they're competent? Because he's an expert. I am not.
I say that nobody, Tom included, can just come to an institution from the street and challenge institution's experts. That doesn't mean only Ukrainian military - Tom is talking, in his article, about a number of different communities who ignore his questions.
I say that it is completely normal for any expert community (and any other community, but especially institutional) to ignore people from out-group, people without existing status in the community. First Tom needs to build status, to become a part of in-group, only then he can challenge existing experts in the community.
Ukrainian government or military can't know if Tom is an expert or not. He has no status within that military. They should listen to voices from the outside, yes, but there are HUNDREDS of those and Tom's isn't the loudest. And everyone shouts different things.
Oh, okay! I understand now! I agree with you that Tom weakens his position a bit by hammering on his opinion that Ukraine is doing it wrong. But it's a disconnect for me. He's not like some opinionated person without substance. I think I've figure it out. I can sit here and dispassionately analyze and talk about what's going on. People aren't dying around me. It's like he's watching people die on the battlefield from wounds because each time an ambulance driver needs to go out he has to fill out forms for 60 minutes. He talks to soldiers and others involved and it fires him up because the solution seems to obvious. Again, I don't know if it is or not. But I do believe, because I share Tom's tendency to get, um, overwrought, that his emotions shouldn't be used to discount his argument.
Something similar happens in Flight of the Phoenix. When they learn the guy is a model airplane builder they don't want to follow him anymore. He's passionate. That works against him even more. Fortunately, in the end, they listen to him.
I believe strongly this is an issue. It's part of the reason I have started writing again, and why I continue to read your updates 👍
My hope is the right people will see your points and actually act on them. We can't go on like this. We need to learn, re-learn, from any source.
Institutional arrogance and incompetence will get everyone killed if we're not careful 🤦🏼♂️
Nice post, interested always in the small wars or not popular wars. Everybody who wants to learn, should be allowed to man learn in the ZSU especially the commanders of Bde's, Bns, etc about the lessons learned in other recent conflicts.
Maybe you and like minded people should establish a mini command and gen staff course for the ZSU🙂🙂🙂.
More part 2, 3, 4, etc..
Thank you, Tom.
Re: 50 vs 800 Exocet. I got your two books on the Naval War between Iran and Iraq and the figures reported in the different chapters do not add-up to nearly as high a number as 800 Exocet missiles fired. Can you clarify?
Yup. If you've got the Volume 2: the (Exocet-)-party has only started. I.e. if you count missiles fired/counted by Iranians and mentioned by the end of the Volume 2, you should come up to around 100+. And then (in 1984, where the Volume 2 ends), the things only really kicked in, because the Iraqis got their primary Exocet-carriers: Super Etendards, followed by Mirage F.1EQ-5s.
Unsurprisingly, we're currently working on Volumes 3 and 4.... and are not sure if we might manage to end that mini-series with 5... (and if not, we'll have to have add-on/separate volumes on specific operations).
Perhaps the only important issue regarding military (in)competence is the Ukrainian armed forces. Only Ukraine has RECENT ACTUAL EXPERIENCE fighting the Russian bear. Not even the Germans! **LOL** Certainly none of the other NATO signatories, especially retired U.S. army generals with their own youtube channels (also one or two retired colonels and lieutenant colonels) who pontificate on the Russo-Ukrainian War. What do they know about actually fighting Russians compared with Ukraine?
What needs to be fixed is not the incompetence of the military and civilian leaders of the European West. It's all about Ukraine! The West needs to send Ukraine as much artillery, etc. as they can. Ukraine does not need peacekeepers who won't fight anyway except in self-defense. Correct me if I am wrong, but peacekeepers aren't for fighting principally in terms of the strategic or tactical defense; they are for keeping the peace. There ain't no peace in Ukraine to keep right now, and IMHO not likely to be available to keep as a result of that orange haired glory hound's desire to negotiate with Putin.
That's not that simple, actually: one of biggest ironies of the current war in Ukraine is that - actually, and especially on the Russian side - it's full of tactical methods and problems well-known to the Soviets (but also, and at least, to US-Americans) since 1941-1945. I'll get to that point, too.
I will step out of my competence (in what???!!!) and into your career area of expertise, air warfare, to say that if it is possible, the Western "allies" of Ukraine should help Ukraine's ZSU gain air supremacy to total air supremacy over the battlespace. Is this possible? ... Is this realistic? Of course I recognize that victory for Ukraine requires boots on the ground in any case.
It would require a quite large effort and spending of money and resources to build a world-class air force (essentially) built from scratch.
Let's say that Western countries decide to donate 120+ jet fighters to Ukraine, which would need at least 1.200 new support personnel and 250 trained pilots. Let's suppose that there are already bases with hardened shelters to host them (not a safe assumption).
And lots of training (time), and spare parts flowing (logistics), and a complete amount of weaponry.
Seriously, I don't see the western states be ready for such a large project (I am speaking about donated jets, because producing such a large amount of brand new jets involves a huge lead time of 2+ years)
I would add that I have strong feeling that Russians are still using what is called a "Polevoy Ustav-41" aka. Field manual, model 1941. Sounds crazy, but "they won the WW2" so their experience is valid, with just mild updates. It was years ago when I was reading Viktor Suvorovs "inside Soviet Army" and the basic of tactic and strategy described there is still used today, so such that it is mindblowing.