Thread by @WarintheFuture

“The advantages of threatening an American ground intervention are real. The advantages of actually committing boots on the ground are also real but more limited. The disadvantages could be numerous.” My weekly update on Iran, Ukraine and the Pacific. 1/6 🧵

2/ Ukraine has achieved something significant in the south. Ukrainian attacks there have disrupted Russian offensive planning, consumed Russian reserve forces, and demonstrated that Ukrainian combined arms operations can impose genuine operational costs. But there is also a trade-off in these southern operations. Gains in the south have come at some cost to northern Donetsk, and Russian forces retain the initiative on what is Russia’s main effort on the ground: the envelopment of Ukraine’s fortress belt and the remainder of Donetsk.

3/ In Iran, the oldest lesson in strategy keeps surfacing: military success in the air and at sea does not automatically translate into political outcomes on the ground. Iran has not been beaten. The question being probably being considered in the Pentagon, Congress and the White House is whether ground forces would ensure that the military campaign achieves a decisive political outcome - or whether it would lead to a larger and more difficult American military commitment to the Middle East with uncertain results.

4/ In the Pacific, I examine the delayed Trump-Xi summit, the Japanese PM's visit with Trump and the PLA's resumption of combat patrols around Taiwan.

5/ Finally, the Big Five recommended readings this week include articles from @ForeignAffairs @NicoleGrajewski @nktpnd @DefenceHQ @MDiplomacyWORLD @LawDavF

6/ You can read my full weekly update, for free, here at mickryan.substack.com/p/should-ameri…