Matthew Leffler’s Post

Unexploded ordnance is bound to pose a challenge in the Black Sea in the future. What can we learn from the research that we are conducting in the Baltic Sea? https://lnkd.in/etKFJdma

International Security Program (ISP) and the U.S. Naval Institute. This particular event features Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Congressman Mike Waltz (R-FL), The Maritime Security Dialogue is a collaborative event series hosted by the CSIS International Security Program (ISP) and the U.S. Naval Institute. This particular event features Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Congressman Mike Waltz (R-FL), who will discuss the importance of rebuilding America’s maritime sector to address the rising threat from China. The dialogue will be moderated by Dr. Seth G. Jones, CSIS senior vice president and director of the ISP, with opening remarks by RADM Raymond A. Spicer, USN (Ret.)1. The series aims to address the unique challenges faced by the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, covering topics from national maritime policy to naval concept development and program design. Given the current budgetary challenges, technological advancements, and strategic adjustments, the U.S. maritime forces are expected to undergo significant changes over the next decade1. If you’re interested in more details or want to watch the event, you can visit the CSIS website or follow them on their social media channels1. 1: CSIS International Security Program and the U.S. Naval Institute for a Maritime Security Dialogue event #CSIS #DialogueMatters #Maritine_Security_Dialogue #AskCopilot #Pentagon #Congress #JointheConversation

This is just one very good read - looking at the Imperial Japanese perspectives of the operation... and the defeat in detail that occurred and how that occurred. Outstanding Read! https://lnkd.in/emewCrCU

Tactical Triumphs, Narrative Defeats: How Winning the Story Decides Modern Wars In his reflections on the nature of war, Professor John Arquilla of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School posits that all conflicts boil down to two essential questions: "Who wins the battle on the ground?" and "Who wins the battle of the story?" These two questions delve into the dual realities of military strategy—tactical victory and the narrative that defines how that victory is perceived, both domestically and internationally. In many conflicts, the ability to control the battlefield is only part of the equation. Equally important, and sometimes even more so, is the ability to control the narrative that surrounds the conflict, shaping public opinion, morale, and international support. This essay will explore these concepts through the lens of three conflicts: the American Civil War, the Israel-Hamas war, and the U.S. War on Terror, providing insight into the critical importance of shaping the story in warfare. https://lnkd.in/ev7exqjz

https://lnkd.in/e6GVE8Nq Great quick review of the latest sinking of a Russian merchant vessel in the Med. One of five recently. Poor maintenance, ships used out design parameters, war in Ukraine. Lots of potential reasons. Great in depth review for those watching Russian issues.

Since it is the 83d anniversary of the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, we are reposting this essential reading with a new intro: -In 2001, two US intelligence officials falsely blamed Pearl Harbor’s intelligence failure on the “groupthink” of “white Christian males” in “War on the Rocks” magazine. -While advocating for diversity in intelligence is vital, their narrative is factually incorrect and, in our opinion, lacks national security professionalism. -Major defense outlets, including “War on the Rocks,” refused to publish a fact-based rebuttal of this false claim. -The venerable “American Intelligence Journal” stepped up to protect the truth and defend America’s intelligence history – it published the piece. -Accurate lessons from Pearl Harbor are crucial for safeguarding US national security today. -False lessons learned help our adversaries. -This article (click on the link below) corrects these false lessons learned with the truth: AIJ Winter 2023-2024, Vol 40, No 2 Jeff Moore PhD – Setting the Record Straight on Maligned Pearl Harbor Intelligence https://lnkd.in/ehy4CHDz

It’s Time for a Comprehensive National Maritime Strategy - War on the Rocks https://lnkd.in/dFQpYH6v

Russia and China forms one axis. Russia and Iran forms another axis. China-Iran as well. To call Iran-China-Russia an axis is nonsense - just as Italy-Romania-Hungary-Germany-Bulgaria was one axis - and Japan was on the other side of the world. So let's study US-Ukraine vs Russia, supported passively by China - when was the last time nuclear armed nations went to war with each other? (Arguably, India-Pakistan where there is a low level conflict between them in the Kashmir and some border regions - there are air raids when India bombs 'terrorist camps'). When USSR and US forces get in theatre, they are there to enforce a ceasefire - or to prevent a proxy from collapsing re: Syria after their failed offensive to take the Golan Heights; and when IDF advanced to within artillery distance of Damascus, Russia sent forces to act as human shields. So there is that level of understanding - US will not be willing to expand the war from a liberation of Ukrainian territory to an invasion of Moscow. Yes, there was this engagement in the recent conflict in Syria - when Russian mercenary forces was obliterated by US firepower when they tried to overrun US special forces and their lightly armed militia allies. But Russian contractors are deniable assets. Then US-China today. USSR of the past was busy exporting revolution, arms and economic support when the communists fail to figure out how to run an economy. Today, China is too busy exporting. Offering cheap financing for mega-projects is a lot more attractive and harder to counter than AK-47s by the planeloads. And while China can be aggressive - it has not initiated conflicts (not that it would not forever and ever) since 1978. I suggest that China is fighting the new war with different tactics and weapons. After all, war is extension of politics. I also think that China will protest - but if US stations some troops and do not base too many that can be seen as an offensive force, they will accept fait accompli. (Of course, they will protest.) But here is the point that I agree with N Fergie, si vis pacem parabellum. If you want peace, you must be willing to put your troops in harm's way.

Xi is ramping up Chinese rhetoric and coercive activities against Taiwan--part and parcel of his "New Era" policies of highly personalistic and assertive rule. My latest piece, co-authored with RAND colleague Cindy Zheng, explains what's up. Many thanks to National Defense University, specifically Phillip S. and Joel Wuthnow, for their feedback on this working paper and for publishing in this timely moment. https://lnkd.in/gipuisDw