These all operate in a complex world of alliances and lead to what NATO calls an expanded battlefield.

Modern air campaigns increasingly depend on intelligence, cyber capabilities, satellites, electronic warfare, logistics, industrial capacity, alliance coordination, and commercial resilience.

This is the broadened, expanded battlefield.

Air power remains one of the most powerful instruments available to modern militaries, but it increasingly operates within this much larger strategic ecosystem.

So ultimately, I don't think that this war diminished the importance of air power.

Quite the opposite.

It demonstrated both its extraordinary effectiveness and its limitations.

I think studies in kiev um you know say about 60 of ukrainians want peace but they don't want peace at any price the existential imperative for ukrainian for the vietnamese for many others not just since world war ii but all the way back to when alexander was fighting his way across asia minor You know, it's a very different imperative than if you're just engaging in a conquest for more land, more people, more resources, more influence.

Can you explain that and why it's so important?

Yes, thank you so much.

Most of the public discussion has understandably focused on what happened inside the battlefield.

Who struck whom, which aircraft were used, how effective missile defenses were, and which side inflicted more damage.

And those are important questions, but they're really not the most important lessons from the conflict.

And so when I talk about how the battlefield has expanded, I mean that we have to move beyond what we historically imagined the battlefield to be, where soldiers fight on land, on sea, in the air.

That definition clearly no longer captures how modern war is actually unfolding and is fought.

And they are not all entirely, well, they may be coherent to the individuals, but as a package, they're not coherent.

Mm

... and supporting monarchial regimes and, uh, state and non-state actors, uh, who suppressed democratic movements.

Um, so that goes back to, we can talk about the constitutional revolution of 1905.

Uh, I think Americans largely, um, know about, or if they don't, sort of the pivotal moment in US history is 1953, um, when there is a prime minister, uh, and a coup d'état is led against him.

Uh, the British were unsuccessful, uh, kind of in parallel, uh, for the last several months.

Uh, the British were initially unsuccessful for a number of years in convincing US presidents, uh, to lead a coup.

Uh, Prime Minister Mossadegh had been gaining power and had come into power in 1950, 1951.

Hmm.