4 ms·

Your ego and confidence would do wonders in the Russian military! After all, they had tons and tons of combined arms, counterinsurgency, and standoff experience

Your ego and confidence would do wonders in the Russian military! After all, they had tons and tons of combined arms, counterinsurgency, and standoff experience. Way more combat experience than Ukraine did. Unfortunately it turns out different wars are very different. You’re acting like I’ve argued that I would prefer China over the US. That’s absolutely not true, and partially for the reasons you mention. However, we should absolutely not rest on our more expansive direct experience in very different combat to presume anything. We especially shouldn’t presume that when Iran, as a China-lite adversary, is teaching us lessons that we apparently have been unwilling to learn indirectly in Ukraine. By the way, Mr Military Strategy Buff, “combined arms” is not (necessarily) multiple branches working together. It’s multiple functions working together. Aviation, armor, artillery, infantry, etc. Nothing to do with different branches.

ericmay 3mo ago
> After all, they had tons and tons of combined arms, counterinsurgency, and standoff experience. Way more combat experience than Ukraine did. They didn't have more combat experience than Ukraine though, never mind the additional problems that the Russian military faced at the time of the invasion which are too numerous to list here but include corruption, lack of equipment, a lack of understanding of the will of the Ukrainian people, and more. Fast forward to 2026 and I'd argue there are probably only 4-5 militaries in the world who have any meaningful combat experience: the United States, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, and Iran to a lesser extent and perhaps the United Kingdom though they're falling more and more behind in that respect. > We especially shouldn’t presume that when Iran, as a China-lite adversary, is teaching us lessons that we apparently have been unwilling to learn indirectly in Ukraine. You're just wrong. We're learning lessons in Ukraine, actively testing western and US-specific equipment, and more. We had real-time experience in deploying our capabilities in logistics and intelligence too. Today we're actively seeing how American combat systems perform in real combat operations against an enemy deploying combat systems developed by our adversaries in Iran and throughout the Middle East. You might not be learning anything, but don't presume your ignorance extends to the Pentagon. > By the way, Mr Military Strategy Buff, “combined arms” is not (necessarily) multiple branches working together. It’s multiple functions working together. Aviation, armor, artillery, infantry, etc. Nothing to do with different branches. The branches are just where those capabilities generally rest. For example the Air Force does not employ artillery or infantry, those are functions of the army. My point was demonstrated.
- estearum 3mo ago
  > They didn't have more combat experience than Ukraine though Uh yes they did > never mind the additional problems that the Russian military faced at the time of the invasion which are too numerous to list here but include corruption, lack of equipment, a lack of understanding of the will of the Ukrainian people, and more. In other words, there are other relevant variables than just combat experience...? > You're just wrong... "We're actively learning lessons in Ukraine" → Yet somehow our Patriot batteries were taken offline by Shaheds lmao. Sure, obviously we're learning some lessons. But so are our enemies. And what cost to each party? Iran learns lessons "for free" while it defends itself. China learns lessons for free because it's uninvolved. The US learns lessons because it's risking lives and equipment for a war with, so far, deeply negative strategic value. The degree of single-dimensional thinking you're exhibiting is frankly bizarre. > The branches are just where those capabilities generally rest... My point was demonstrated. No lol. It's extremely discrediting actually.
  - ericmay 3mo ago
    > Uh yes they did Not really > In other words, there are other relevant variables than just combat experience...? Yes? Nobody argued otherwise. > "We're actively learning lessons in Ukraine" → Yet somehow our Patriot batteries were taken offline by Shaheds lmao. Learning a lesson second-hand is different than learning a lesson first-hand. The fact that Iran was able to perhaps attack some equipment or position shows us where we are weak and gives us, albeit unfortunate, an opportunity to learn a lesson and improve. > But so are our enemies. And what cost to each party? Iran learns lessons "for free" while it defends itself. No Iran doesn't learn lessons for free unless everyone else is too. Of course enemies are going to learn and adapt too, but we're smarter, stronger, our civilization is a lot better at war, have more money, and better equipment and so when we learn lessons they're more effective and important. > China learns lessons for free because it's uninvolved. The US learns lessons because it's risking lives and equipment for a war with, so far, deeply negative strategic value. Again you're just confusing your mistaken view of the Iran war here as I mentioned in my OP. Happy to answer any questions you have though
    - 3mo ago

ericmay 3mo ago

> After all, they had tons and tons of combined arms, counterinsurgency, and standoff experience. Way more combat experience than Ukraine did. They didn't have more combat experience than Ukraine though, never mind the additional problems that the Russian military faced at the time of the invasion which are too numerous to list here but include corruption, lack of equipment, a lack of understanding of the will of the Ukrainian people, and more. Fast forward to 2026 and I'd argue there are probably only 4-5 militaries in the world who have any meaningful combat experience: the United States, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, and Iran to a lesser extent and perhaps the United Kingdom though they're falling more and more behind in that respect. > We especially shouldn’t presume that when Iran, as a China-lite adversary, is teaching us lessons that we apparently have been unwilling to learn indirectly in Ukraine. You're just wrong. We're learning lessons in Ukraine, actively testing western and US-specific equipment, and more. We had real-time experience in deploying our capabilities in logistics and intelligence too. Today we're actively seeing how American combat systems perform in real combat operations against an enemy deploying combat systems developed by our adversaries in Iran and throughout the Middle East. You might not be learning anything, but don't presume your ignorance extends to the Pentagon. > By the way, Mr Military Strategy Buff, “combined arms” is not (necessarily) multiple branches working together. It’s multiple functions working together. Aviation, armor, artillery, infantry, etc. Nothing to do with different branches. The branches are just where those capabilities generally rest. For example the Air Force does not employ artillery or infantry, those are functions of the army. My point was demonstrated.

estearum 3mo ago
> They didn't have more combat experience than Ukraine though Uh yes they did > never mind the additional problems that the Russian military faced at the time of the invasion which are too numerous to list here but include corruption, lack of equipment, a lack of understanding of the will of the Ukrainian people, and more. In other words, there are other relevant variables than just combat experience...? > You're just wrong... "We're actively learning lessons in Ukraine" → Yet somehow our Patriot batteries were taken offline by Shaheds lmao. Sure, obviously we're learning some lessons. But so are our enemies. And what cost to each party? Iran learns lessons "for free" while it defends itself. China learns lessons for free because it's uninvolved. The US learns lessons because it's risking lives and equipment for a war with, so far, deeply negative strategic value. The degree of single-dimensional thinking you're exhibiting is frankly bizarre. > The branches are just where those capabilities generally rest... My point was demonstrated. No lol. It's extremely discrediting actually.
- ericmay 3mo ago
  > Uh yes they did Not really > In other words, there are other relevant variables than just combat experience...? Yes? Nobody argued otherwise. > "We're actively learning lessons in Ukraine" → Yet somehow our Patriot batteries were taken offline by Shaheds lmao. Learning a lesson second-hand is different than learning a lesson first-hand. The fact that Iran was able to perhaps attack some equipment or position shows us where we are weak and gives us, albeit unfortunate, an opportunity to learn a lesson and improve. > But so are our enemies. And what cost to each party? Iran learns lessons "for free" while it defends itself. No Iran doesn't learn lessons for free unless everyone else is too. Of course enemies are going to learn and adapt too, but we're smarter, stronger, our civilization is a lot better at war, have more money, and better equipment and so when we learn lessons they're more effective and important. > China learns lessons for free because it's uninvolved. The US learns lessons because it's risking lives and equipment for a war with, so far, deeply negative strategic value. Again you're just confusing your mistaken view of the Iran war here as I mentioned in my OP. Happy to answer any questions you have though
  - 3mo ago