Military strategy

Rash action by Tehran-connected groups could provoke an escalatory cycle.

There’s only one positive aspect to the disaster in Syria: It’s forcing an overdue conversation about U.S. grand strategy.

Seventy-five years after D-Day, the United States should remember that on-the-ground leadership still works.

The future will be determined by a handful of big questions that don’t yet have answers.

Mikheil Saakashvili’s country was a victim of Putin’s aggression. Finland and Sweden won’t be.

First he came for Georgia, then for Ukraine. Vladimir Putin’s next target is likely to be a non-NATO nation in the EU.

Moscow’s missile capabilities in the Baltic Sea region are not nearly as dangerous as they seem.

China, Russia, and the United States are approaching the long-term strategic potential of artificial intelligence very differently. The country that gets it right will reap huge military benefits.

Successive U.S. administrations failed to heed the lessons of a forgotten counterinsurgency success story from Vietnam.

Russia’s provocations in the Kerch Strait aren’t just a challenge to Ukraine. Like Beijing in the South China Sea, Moscow is seeking to undermine international maritime law.

A recent article argues that the lack of legal norms invites cyberconflict. But governments know the price of overreach and are refraining from unleashing their full capabilities.

Joint military exercises have kept the relationship strong despite Trump, but that could soon change.

When the president eventually exits the White House, the rest of us will quickly have to make sense of the world he's left behind.

Misperceptions of Tehran’s true intentions could lead to disaster.

It’s not leadership or combat culture driving pilots out of the service.

A new summary of the country’s troubles by a special inspector general doesn’t paint an optimistic picture.

I was the first to write about Russia’s infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.

The Pentagon always complains for more money – and politicians always eventually give in.

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review answers questions nobody should be asking.

The historical analogy is wrong — whichever way you look at it.