The modern interpretation of manoeuvre theory for warfare holds the deep battle as a central avenue to success. Indeed, Western militaries have become so invested in this thinking that force designs and procurement prioritise capabilities for this over almost anything else. Yet, as Franz-Stefan Gady points out, what if our adversary is just not structured for the type of systems warfare that successful use of manoeuvre warfare necessitates? What if the deep battle doesn’t matter, or – and this be heresy to many – centres of gravity just not relevant? Have we even thought about alternative approaches, let alone started educating the next generation of the profession of arms in them? A discussion that starts to turn our theory of battle upside down.
NATO isn’t perfect (but it isn’t going badly either)
A Cautionary Tale from 1973
Norms and Forms of Warfare
AUKUS – a reality check
Future War, Technology and Strategy
Balancing and regional players
Fortification
DPRK in an era of Great Power realignment
On Taiwan – strategic ambiguity, operational clarity?
Investing in a War Zone
Ending wars - a primer
Manoeuvre theory is in a coma
Is manœuvre a myth?
NATO structural issues unresolved at Vilnius
Japan Security Dilemmas
A Middle East Without America
China’s Machiavellian Mindset
Fiscal Reality and Strategic Autonomy
A Russian Lake no more?
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
City Manager Unfiltered
Potencial Americano
The ASIC Podcast
The Chris Plante Show
Red Eye Radio