The Ukrainian southern campaign continues to play out. While their forces fix Russian defenders in the south west, the Ukrainians are advancing from the north. Some observations on the Kherson & Kharkiv offensives. 1/20 🧵
2/ While this may appear to be a ‘sudden’ breakthrough in the south, it is actually the continuation of a long series of orchestrated actions in the south and north east of Ukraine.
3/ Ukrainian attacks in the south began months ago. Not only did these recapture territory, they were part of the reconnaissance battle to gain intelligence while denying information to Russian recon elements.
4/ These early actions shaped the battlefield, and eventually drew Russian reinforcements. Planners in Kyiv would have then started exploiting the opportunity to isolate Russian forces west of the Dnipro. #HIMARS helped, but clever planning for its use was vital.
5/ At the same time, the Ukrainian strategic planners in Kyiv would have been looking further afield for other opportunities where the Russians might have thinned out their defences to cover the responsibilities of the troops sent to the south.
6/ It is highly likely that the north east would have been on their radar for some time. But, as the Russians thinned out there, Ukraine would have made the final decision to launch a second campaign in the north east.
7/ Then, with the Kharkiv campaign rampaging through the north east, the Ukrainians again would have been looking for opportunities elsewhere, and scanning for Russian weaknesses. They found an opportunity in northern #Kherson.
8/ What might we take from this? I think there are a few observations that might be made, even with the limited amount of information we have.
9/ First, the Ukrainians had a broad overall operational design featuring potential operations in the south, north east - and probably elsewhere. However, launching these was not only based on time, but also about when opportunities presented themselves.
10/ Second, the Ukrainians clearly had both dedicated and situational reserves that they had allocated for planned offensives - and for exploiting opportunities. Creating these required a good appreciation of risk, deception, operational security and logistic stockpiling.
11/ Third, the Ukrainians have fought a superior recon battle. A senior military officer, during our Kyiv visit, confirmed the Russians were poor at tactical recon. This is an essential part of preventing surprise and recognising enemy weaknesses to exploit.
12/ This recon battle, undertaken by ground, air and EW recon elements, paints a picture of the ground, enemy dispositions, reserves, C2, key transport routes and logistics. And Ukraine’s tactical recon is probably complemented by strategic recon from other sources.
13/ Fourth, after nearly 8 months of operations (and 8 years since Russia started this war), Ukraine has several senior commanders who are seasoned strategists and operational artists. They clearly know their enemy well, and know how to balance strategic risk & opportunity.
14/ And these commanders, including Generals Zaluzhnyi, Syrskiy and Kovalchuk, are adept at guiding their staffs and subordinate commanders through the planning and execution of large scale military operations. This is a rare skill that few military institutions master.
15/ Fifth, the asymmetry in command philosophies, where Russia centrally controls operations and Ukraine allows more freedom to exploit opportunities through mission command, has been telling.
16/ In fast moving operations, like the Kharkiv and northern Kherson operations, those who do not have to constantly refer back to higher headquarters will be able to set and dominate operational tempo, ultimately seizing the initiative.
17/ It is the combination of these five factors - as well as the courage of Ukrainians in close combat and the lack of purpose among Russian soldiers - that has been central to Ukraine’s success in recapturing so much of its territory in the past several weeks.
18/ The Russian Army do not appear to have an answer to what the Ukrainians are doing to them. We are seeing cascading failures which are likely to continue for a while yet. The injection of mobilised troops is likely to provide only human speed bumps for the Ukrainians.
19/ Not since the initial part of Operation Barbarossa in WW2 has the Russian Army had such a terrible series of reverses on the battlefield. And with large numbers of troops stuck west of the Dnipro, the days ahead could get much worse for them yet. End.
“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.
The latest update on drone and missile attacks on the UAE has just been released. With this as context, I thought I would share some initial insights arising from this Iranian retaliatory campaign and the overall war against #Iran. 1/9 🧵
2/ First, the battlespace is not transparent. It is highly visible but high visibility is not the same as high wisdom about what is seen. And we must not fall into the trap of assuming that we actually are seeing everything we need to see rather than what the enemy wants us to see. Finally, no tech can see into the hearts and minds of soldiers and combat leaders, especially when they are functioning under conditions of existential threat.
3/ Second, Understanding the enemy, and how resilient it is, matters. The Iranians have been preparing for this fight for decades, will have many caches of weapons and have strategised how this might play out. And assuming that a few bombs from the sky topple a regime (especially when it has never been achieved before) badly under estimated the Iranians.
"America & Iran are fighting two very different wars and have two different theories of victory. China & others in the authoritarian learning & adaptation bloc are observing closely & learning." An assessment of where we are, & who is learning from the Iran War. 1/6 🧵
2/ This assessment examines the two wars in and around Iran: the military campaign that Washington is fighting, and the economic campaign that Tehran is waging. It then asks the following question: what are the respective theories of victory, and how does that theory play out differently for each belligerent?
3/ A theory of victory is not simply a list of military objectives. It is a coherent account of how the application of military force produces a political outcome that endures. The Trump administration entered Operation Epic Fury with a theory of the means, and a range of constantly changing ends (at least in public). It might be able to use the military to win the war, but it is unclear whether it has a longer-term plan to win the peace.
Wars are never simple. Despite the efforts of governments, war resists the clarity, certainty & clever narratives supported by AI slop videos, we wish to impose on them. The #Iran war & developments in #Ukraine, were exemplars of this during the week. 1/7
2/ Welcome to my weekly update on war and strategic competition. This week, shifting strategic initiative in Ukraine, the war in Iran, politics in the Pacific & my Big 5 reading recommendations.
3/ In #Ukraine, Ukrainian forces achieved some of the most operationally significant gains of the past year, reclaiming territory in the south while striking deep into Russia’s military-industrial complex. Diplomacy continued its chaotic and erratic journey.
"At some point, Putin will have to reckon with the failure of his strategic bombing campaign against Ukraine’s cities to shift Ukraine’s political posture, and the slow-rolling military failure that is Russia’s bloody ground campaign." A comprehensive update of the big #Ukraine & Pacific issues this week. 1/6 🧵🇺🇦
2/ In Europe this week, the annual Munich Security Conference was held. Lots of interesting speeches, but not a lot of progress on ending the war in Ukraine.
And as Zelenskyy stated: "A lot of time now is spent on negotiations. We truly hope that the trilateral meetings next week will be serious, substantive, and helpful for all of us. But honestly – sometimes it feels like the sides are talking about completely different things."
3/ In Ukraine, the armed forces were able to undertake opportunistic counter attacks against Russian forces deprived of Starlink.
But otherwise, as I describe in my assessment of the trajectory of the war in 2026, "the brutal calculus of the past four-years will continue into 2026 unless there is a significant breakthrough in technology, tactics or strategy that changes the deep, close and rear aspects of the overall battlefield dynamic.
The only other thing that might significantly change the trajectory of the war is if there is a significant shift in political will in Kyiv or Moscow."
America has just released its 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS). Not seeing much press activity from the Dept of Defense/War on this. While I need time to ponder the deeper implications of the document, a few things stand out on first reading. 1/11 🧵
2/ First, the document is consistent with the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) released by the Trump Administration in November 2025. Key priorities in the NDS align with the NSS, as you would expect. However, while the NSS has priorities, the NDS has "Lines of Effort". whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
3/ There are four Lines of Effort in the new NDS:
1. Defend the U.S. Homeland. 2. Deter China in the Indo-Pacific Through Strength, Not Confrontation. 3. Increase Burden-Sharing with U.S. Allies and Partners. 4. Supercharge the U.S. Defense Industrial Base.