10/ So we have a few more weeks of Trump “feeling” for the off ramp that works best for him; the markets and the rest of the World will have to wait to see the extent of the fallout. Will things ever be the same again? One things for sure, a lot of reputations may never recover.
9/ Meanwhile, NATO has its fingers crossed that Trump will ramp down the rhetoric on the Alliance, but perhaps even here the genie is out of the bottle and won’t go back in. I think it will survive, but it must (for now) count far less on assured US support.
8/ A prolonged & deadly land campaign seems off the table for now. Although a raid on any enriched Uranium will remain a tempting possibility, and a lot of pumped up troops are going to need some time to unwind. But the Straits of Hormuz are everyone else’s problem, not Trump’s.
7/ Trump has left the “bombing window” open for a few more weeks, in which he hopes to add more time and misery to the recovery of a Nation, that he hopes will forestall their nuclear plans and possibly create the conditions for an overthrow of the regime - but it’s a hope…
6/ Both those objectives remain elusive and apparently unachievable, hence the need to get people refocused on the military aims they have achieved with far greater success. It’s why we have seen confusing statements that constantly contradict. They didn’t change them, Iran did!
5/ But Trump’s statement about “bombing Iran back to the Stone Age” smacks of a desperation & frustration borne from the inability to achieve the real (and often poorly or non-stated) aims which are a compliant Iranian regime and the removal of any nuclear ambition or means.
4/ Trump fervently believes that his place in history would be secured if he can get this done. Netanyahu also sees the elimination of an existential threat as epoch defining. So the stakes are high, but so are the mounting negatives - negatives that Trump has been shielded from.
3/ Speaking truth to power was always going to be a weakness of an administration full of yes men and women. Though if ever you needed evidence of cracks appearing, the firing of the Attorney General & Army Chief of Staff in the midst of a war would be right up there.
2/ Trump’s confusing and somewhat lacklustre address on 1 April is explained by the increasing realisation of the situation and the narrowing of the window of success. Iran’s resistance has been tougher and longer than expected, and Trump has been sold a rosy version of events.
A fascinating insider insight into the White House conduct of the EPIC FURY Campaign time.com/article/2026/0…
“history also suggests there can be worse outcomes for a President who takes the nation to war than losing an election.” 🧵1/10
What can AI do for AirPower?
How do we learn the right lessons from #Ukraine?
How can we master technological change to deliver military advantage.
Great to be on The High Ground podcast to get into all of this with @gregbagwell.bsky.social & @Sean Bell
Listen in👇
open.spotify.com/episode/7r82...
Who’d buy a ‘toned down’ version of America’s F-47?
Hear what @gregbagwell.bsky.social has to say about it here on @forcesnews.com
👇
youtu.be/Pr_QJir48kY?...
Complexity was probably a major reason. But pay is also a reason as it’s tied so closely to rank. If we paid more for each rank it would have been easier to stay with the associated names/positions.
Well observed, there has been a bit of disconnect between ranks and units that dates back a long way. Flights, commanded by squadron leaders etc. It has been like that since at least the Second World War. Everything is basically at least one rank out!
This has all the hallmarks of a Russian false flag operation.
In 2001, NATO nations responded to a US call for an Article V response after an attack on US soil. There was no debate about where the attack took place, where the threat came from or who paid for what, just an agreement that an attack on one was an attack on all.
As the frenzy around NATO spending dominates the defence debate, it’s worth noting whose budget has been reducing👇🇺🇸. And when you factor in how much US spending is outside the NATO area a very different picture emerges. We all need to spend more, but let’s be measured about it.
6/ The UK needs to ask itself some tough questions about its ambition outside Europe - it will probably need to spend every precious penny to defending Europe. ENDS
5/ Pete Hegseth may have been making a broad political point about Europe stepping up, but what he has done is opened a constitutional can of worms. Putin will be overjoyed - Europe needs to see this as an opportunity and not a threat. And it starts with standing up for Ukraine.
4/ NATO needs to reconfigure for this new paradigm with appointments and roles allocated more appropriately. The NAC also needs to consider the specific voting rights of any Nation that doesn’t make a full commitment to the Charter’s Articles.
3/ NATO spending by %GDP is irrelevant now, what is needed is a coherent European force structure which deters and meets its threats in Europe, if necessary, without US participation or assistance. This will require more investment.
2/ He wasn’t specific about US responsibilities under article V - so the US needs to make its position clear on this and address what US Forces can be relied upon either immediately or as reinforcements.
“We're also here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.” A🧵on what this means if true 1/6. www.defense.gov/News/Speeche...
My over-riding takeaway from this opening “pitch” is if Europe picks up the bill, then Europe gets a vote on the terms, and that vote should be to uphold international law, not appease a US President intent on getting “his” money back & peace on Russian terms. www.defense.gov/News/Speeche...
If you were charged with saving Billions of dollars a day from the US federal budget, would you target the one department that barely makes the “Other” category at a world trailing 0.24% of GDP? It’s not about the money is it?
There will need to be boots on the ground to keep the peace, but there will also need to be eyes in the sky to watch over it.
KFOR would have been similar, but Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the right to self defence.
“Occupation forces” was only relevant at the time when the Charter came into being. As written, the Charter wouldn’t cover NATO troops in Ukraine. I suspect it would have to be under UN auspices.
As the UK prepares its most challenging defence review in a generation. Here is an easy to read and digest summary of the current issues it faces in the air and space domains. And it’s free! airspacepower.com/wp-content/u...
If and when a ceasefire starts, a sizeable peace keeping force may be inevitable and is the best chance of ensuring that Russia observes it. Using NATO nation’s troops adds complexity, but who else will step up?