วีดีโอ

Very impressive and convincing reflections, bravo 🙏👏

Good night everyone, I'm going to bed

It’s so sad to watch such an insightful American talk about democracy while it is being dismantled around him. It’s especially depressing for me as a Swiss since we own a lot of our democracy to the US constitution.

I was wondering if you were speaking/reading any french considering the amount of french authors you were quoting, until I realized you had a Robert behind you, now I have my answer :) Thanks a lot for these thorough analysis of the french doctrine, very enlightening, to be honest I try to apply some with my own team in a way more "civil" (civilian as much as courteous) environment : autonomy, audacity, initiative ... they are all keys to success IMH(french)O ! Sorry for my poor english, thanks again, and have a great day.

I think we've found that we don't need a 1-for-1 replacement of F-16s with F-35s. There is no need for that expensive of a solution when you can provide the sensor fusion upgrades to conventional a/c (Gen 4.5) and stealth capabilities like those possessed by the F-35 is useful but only in key situations in modern warfare. Most of the time enhanced 4.5 Gen a/c can do the job as well as a 5th Gen. Yes, 5th gen are absolutely useful at critical nodes, but we don't need to tailor the ENTIRE force to just those situations.

Even experts don't understand F-35. It is an ATTACK aircraft, not a fighter. (F-16 & F-15 are fighters turned into attack aircraft). - no GIB. single engine/single pilot and high production volume (cost 'savings'). - pilots say it is the easiest plane they've ever flown. - bomb runs are made at 2x(!) the speed of the other aircraft. Add stealth and it is a far more capable attack aircraft than anything else. Alone. - Integrate the sensors of a flight of F-35s across a front and it's mayhem. - Add STOVL capability. Israel has different adversaries and needs. The F-15 is an excellent air superiority fighter and bigger bomb truck, operating against inferior enemies. They have the F-35 to handle tricky deep penetrations. Horses for courses. Ukraine has revealed that Europe can probably do without F-35's capabilities.

Another very interesting discussion/analysis. This channel needs to be wider known.

It is not just that the French have more limited resources than the Americans, they also have a different view of what it means to win. Their history of wars is not one of unbroken wins but crosses the whole military spectrum from defeat to draw to win. They have had losses where their nation has been invaded and yet has managed to rebuilt itself. So going all in to win (while that is seen as the best/nicest option) is not the only outcome that can be desired or lived with. Such a loss of homeland is not seen to be an acceptable outcome by the Americans.

Here's the reason why Italy has a big army because the Balkans can explode at any time and Serbia wants to start shit.

Valorisation : valuation.

Basically Finland is the first front west can afford to lose. Be it in NATO, or not. Next is the balkans, we are fucked either way.

Okay.... but Arabs are saying: "we have no problem with you having a state, but why on our land".... So Zionism is not just the desire for one's own statehood, but for that state to be on the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ( i.e. Zion)

I think there is something about the whole validity of the voting system in the USA that is the core problem. The US voting system is a complete travesty. Not only is there gerrymandering political interference and yet sold to the population as being the best in the world. The policymakers that were involved with Afghanistan just did not understand how important legal voting systems are.

. Can you put into perspective the scale of the troops deployed by the Americans during the First World War, their quality and, above all, where they were positioned? The first American divisions did not intervene on the front line until the summer of 1918. On the three fronts (Western, Italian, Balkan), the American armies were present with 405,000 soldiers, against 2.8 million French soldiers, 2.2 million Italian soldiers and 1.9 million British. During the Second Battle of the Marne - a real turning point in the war on the Western Front - the American army was not present. At the time of the signing of the armistice, there were approximately 110 French divisions, around sixty British divisions, around fifty Italian divisions and 16 American divisions on the front line, 8 of which had real combat experience. Between 32 and 42 American divisions were located in training camps in France, supposed to intervene in March 1919. They weakened the command of the French army, because it had been mobilized to train them for combat. The majority of American deaths occurred at the rear, due to accidents or the "Spanish" flu of 1918. These figures show from the outset that the United States was not the saviors that were said to be. In addition, the American armies had very few officers familiar with modern warfare. They were composed mainly of inexperienced soldiers. They also did not have any weaponry worthy of the name. The contribution of American industry was slow to be felt, particularly in the field of heavy artillery. The French army therefore took charge of equipping the American army and training its soldiers. "The French and British governments exaggerated American military power to strengthen the morale of their nation and impress the enemy. » The myth of the American savior, which went hand in hand with the marginalization of the French and Italians, did not arise after the war, but during it. How did it arise? In 1917-1918, the French and British governments exaggerated American military power to boost their nation’s morale and impress the enemy. The Allies also extrapolated American support to give the impression that Germany’s defeat was solely due to the Allies. The French press also extrapolated the value of the American army and convinced itself that its intervention was decisive, even though the war had already been won in the summer of 1918, while the massive entry of American armies did not occur until 1919. Finally, behind the front, American camps and parades were numerous, which gave credence to the idea that the Yankee "steamroller", all the more fascinating because it was made up of young soldiers, was preparing to strike the enemy. The massive arrival of American ships in French ports also fascinated the population. Did this myth of the American savior subsequently intensify and, if so, for what reasons? From the 1920s and 1930s, American culture penetrated the French population, particularly the urban population, through jazz, a symbol of freedom, even though the United States practiced racial segregation at the time. It will become even more present after the Second World War. The rise of the American economy in the world will also contribute to giving more importance to a very favorable reinterpretation of the role of the United States during the First World War. There are already a certain number of French politicians fascinated by everything that comes from across the Atlantic, an industrial and young power, and who tend to denigrate what is French, perhaps because France emerged drained from a conflict in which it lost many soldiers. American soft power, with the entire cultural industry, has only accentuated things further. The dominant historiography has also directed the gaze on the past because, due to the importance of the English language, it has outlets at the international level and therefore other countries. An offensive is normally planned for November 1918 which should allow the entry of French troops into Germany. This would have nipped in the bud the myth, put forward by the Nazis, of the "stab in the back", according to which Germany which has not lost is betrayed by politicians. The offensive does not take place under pressure from the Anglo-Americans and also from General Foch who wanted to avoid new French losses, against the advice of Pétain. Concerning the Treaty of Versailles, President Wilson wants to spare Germany. He has ulterior commercial motives and also the hope of a possible understanding, based on the real link at the racial level between the Americans and the Germans, to the detriment of the Latin peoples, including France. The English, for their part, have always wanted to prevent France from gaining too much power in Europe and many were Germanophiles, even if it meant reducing France to a second plan. Churchill, rather Francophile, believes for his part that France should have a powerful army, but he is not in the majority.

Due to our incompetent political class the British forces and defence industries are far far too small. Our modern political class are lazy, self seeking, and not particularly clever. They often criticise the old school British politicians which is ironic, they were cleverer more hard working, had better judgement, and had very often served themselves, in the front line. That’s the cause of our national decline, and defence reflects it as well.

There are lots of epithets about logistics that directly explain its importance. However, during the Gulf War when the Western Allies gave themselves a year to boost production, plan, and when in the final 6 months logistics went full on when the order was given to prepare for battle, both the USA and UK had to cannibalise aircraft for spares within weeks of the war beginning. The air war, successful as it was, was curtailed - TBO couldn't be pushed out any further, high numbers of aircraft became u/s and crucial spares could not be sourced apart from taking from other aircraft. That's why the ground war started when it did. Bc the West won it's logistical shortcomings were glossed over. The problem remains if the West doesn't win in a relatively short period of time with advance warning to prepare, it will become the Ukraine ground war all over again. And just for giggles the Mongols entered Europe and China fully prepared will happily do it all over again.

Encore une excellente analyse. Vous avez été décoré de l'ordre du Mérite et, de part à vos analyses très justes (comme celles sur Foch ou Castex), vous méritez la Légion d'honneur.

Excellent ! Thanks for those videos..

Everything that is British is absolute garbage. From Mores Marina to Bris Johnson. Britain is a penal colony.

you should do a new vid since some things has happened since you published the current piece

The reason I (dis)agree with Corbet's inflexible approach was that Britain had to perform the opposite thing of what the Spartans had done during the Peloponnesian War. Britain was a sea power that had to become a land power to defeat Germany twice by Bringing in the United States into the war twice, those two world wars ended the British Empire and the rational for Britain's fully sea power approach. Because, the United States was able to be both the dominant sea power and land power, our power was as a adjunct to this (full spectrum dominance) approach.

To Be America's Friend is To Be Shit.

'Effet majeur' could be translated as 'high impact' there. Word for word, that's not it, but both combinations of words actually point at the very same idea. (same issue with the translation of idioms) Although within this context the french doctrine is more about 'minimal input, maximum output', the best ratio between both without a focus on either. Rather than minimizing input or maximazing output, we often take a more balance approach of weighing both and take a somewhat educated guess about the best course of actions. (which contrary to the specific military one can lead to inaction, because things tend to sort themselves out more often than enemies I guess.) And as pointed out by many others in the comments, this too isn't limited to the army and you can witness the same concept throughout the whole french culture. Although we usually don't put it into words. To the point most people don't actually realize how being french actually makes them very special compared to the rest of the world. (no ill intent here but y'all behave roughly the same and follow the same ideas, despite any particuliarism.) On a sidenote, this kind of video is a breath of fresh air to french people because lately, for a few decades now really, within France, you cannot really discuss 'frenchness' openly. The antidiscrimination craze backfired, hard. If you glorify anything french for the sake of being french here, you get backlash, called names and all that jazz. It's tiring. We are fishes who are forbidden to notice water.

"British Way of War" Live, laugh, love

Italy has the second biggest industry in Europa after Germany. Therefore they have a bigger industry than Britain France and Russia. People often forget that Italy is much more powerful than we think.

OK CIA guy I'll only listen to approved sources now

What can a small country do answer nothing.

Something that, with the benefit of four months of American politics that might be worth adding, regretfully: "Only the U.S. can successfully invade Canada and Canada would be unable to stop it no matter what percentage of GDP they commit to spend."

On the evening of 11 May 1940, the leading elements of the 1. Panzer Division attacked the defenders of Bouillon, Belgium. Although the bridges over the Semois river had been blown up, the French soldiers retreated under fire from our heavy artillery. The next morning, the Germans invested the town, after a night of bombardment by French artillery. In the morning, a Potez 63-11 from GR II/22 went to reconnoiter and photograph the German crossings over the Semois. The observer, Lieutenant Lucien Saint-Genis, noted that in Bouillon, many enemy convoys and tanks were on the roads. His plane was also targeted by Flak but it only managed to lodge one bullet in its tail. He communicated to the 2nd Army, but his information was ignored... In any case that it did not trigger any bombing or too few. Had the french decided to send all their planes on the convoy, the war was over.

If Europe can not step up to support Ukraine-a near neighbor (despite their internal concerns) is fighting Europe's war, how likely are the UK and France to quickly mobilize to support Finland and the other Baltics or Poland. History has shown that neither the UK, nor France, nor any other western European nation are quick to make decisions and take action. WW1 and WW2 grew to their final sizes because of timidity of these nations, plus the low countries, to take any meaningful action until too late-and actions taken were too little too late. In both wars and in the past 70 years it has been the US that has taken their nuts out of the fire. So, the militarizing European countries are on their own.

I read a lot about how the French managed to build their colonies in America during the XVIIIth century, with a fraction of the people compared to the English colonies, with a heavy reliance on alliances with the local nations. It seems to be a sort of _ligne conductrice_ through out French history.

I served 8 years as paratroops staff officer . we were used to train in the hardest conditions without logistics ... that was our main advantage : capable of operate in the most degraded conditions . that was not the case of the us troops we had to work with : without vehicles , air cover , or supplies , they panic .

Incredible. I just discovered the channel and that is awesome. Especially this emission. I'm sad that those kinds of mines so useful are not knowing by our dirigeants. So sad.

Yes, the American, like in WW 2 brought MORE to the battle. More tanks, more men, more airpower, more Artillery, more fuel, more ammo, more of everything.

I know some Americans that will join the Legion tomorrow if that happens.

Why not just send in Claude Van Damme in a speed boat and a blue beret ?

We are living in a colonial world and i'm a colonial girl....

Illuminating. Genuinely.

The British were originally part of the boxer program, but left to go alone.Now they have returned to Boxer.

This episode,for me, was an enlightening summary that goes a long way in explaining both my own experience in warfare (from a very low 11B level in 1968-69) and in witnessing America’s attempts at warfare in Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of GWOT.

2/06/25. This is officially a clown take

Great conversation between you and Emma. Wanted to comment on two parts of the conversation: data driven decision making and military revolution vs evolution. Data driven decision making: the military loves to collect data. Volumes of data is reassuring; it gives one a sense that one knows what is going on. But information has different qualities. Massive amounts of raw data are of little consequence. In the US military our information management doctrine defines the hierarchy of information as: raw data; processed information; knowledge; and understanding. This can correlate to the OODA loop Observe (Raw data), Orient (Process, knowledge, understanding) which then leads to a decision and action. A commander should know what decisions they need to make in order to drive the collections process and focus collections/ISR assets and staff time. What I have found as a staff officer is that senior leaders resist making finite information requirements because it incurs risk, and despite taking on a vocation that can get you killed, military people are very risk adverse, especially the more senior you get. As a staff officer and tactical commander, I would constantly ask why I had certain reporting requirements (especially since they always increased), how will this data be processed towards a decision? The most often response was, "We just want to know." When I reflect on my service during GWOT and my studies of Vietnam, you see a good deal of observing and orienting, but you never really see knowledge and understanding informing decisions. I would argue that in the information age this is a greater risk because a commander has the means to collect so much data. Thomas Ricks discussed this after walking through coalition headquarters in Iraq that there were computer/TV screens displaying all kinds of information, but no one knew what the farmer across the street thought about what was going on. In conclusion, I would argue that as the nodes for information increase one needs to increase the processing power (staffs/automation) for that information to be useful. the less processing power a commander has the more conservative they must be in generating information requirements. Military revolution/evolution: In Marine Corps warfighting doctrine we define the nature of was timeless and everchanging. The principals remain the same, but the tactics and procedures do change. I would offer that whether a technology is an evolution or a revolution to art and science of war depends on how much institutional and intellectual change is required of military leadership/personnel and supporting organizations. I believe that AI/automation and drones are a revolution because of the speed of change within these technologies is outpacing DoD's procurement and doctrinal revision procedures. I think this is extremely true of all navies, which tend to be the most conservative branches of the military. I know for the US navy the bigger the boat you command the greater the prestige and career progression. Will the navy assign its most talented officers to evolving platforms and units or will command of traditional surface/subsurface/air platforms still hold greater prestige. It's this cultural phenomenon that has led the US navy to not truly develop its green/brown water capabilities.

Such a narrow-perspective, over simplification.

Wow...an island full of anti-semites and the most important man in Ireland is the guy who delivers Porter. You are something else.

Great Stuff. I wonder if you can do something on General Andre Beaufre. I would be interested in knowing how you think Beaufre would have handled something like the war in Ukraine for example. Does Beaufre theories still hold up today with the every changing warefare (especially with drones). I think Beaufre would have really enjoyed the FPV drones (my opinion).

Andrew Lambert is an absolute legend 💪

The videos are put in the wrong order in the playlist

I m always very careful when an american speaks about french military.....they used to be so pathetic in that exercice. And this time it seems to be the same, bad start when he started saying french army is like all the others with batalion, division, regiment, section etc....he should have said all the armies are organized like the french one bescause it is the french who invented that structure, most of it under Napoleon.