“Usually, when the military first deploys something in the battlefield, they just duct tape it to the way they fight. They're like, there's a new thing, and we're gonna add it as a plus-up to how we fight now. And then somebody else might come along later and say, that's interesting, but it's actually much more interesting if you build more of the force around that technology instead of having that technology just be an add-in.”

I mean, look, I think the U.S. point of view is like, this is not how we would fight, how we would prefer to fight, right? I've heard this a lot. Because like the monster of U.S. forces, this is not how we would fight. And I was seeing, I'm like, oh, really? Tell me, how would we fight? And also, it is true. We wouldn't fight this way. We are very different as a force in terms of how we operate. That's true. Uh, but it doesn't mean that the way we do plan to fight doesn't have problems, right? People often say that as though there's no problem with the way we plan to fight. Um, and they're supposed to say, if not problems, at the very least, there are interesting questions to be asked about how is it that we plan to fight. Now, we know a couple things for certain. We do have a good sense of how our opponent plans to fight Russia. With one big caveat, is that unlike the way they are forced to fight now in Ukraine? They want to be able to return the force to large-scale offensive maneuver. They basically optimize themselves for small-scale combat operations, primarily using fire teams or infiltration to individual infantry. But that's not the way they would idealize the fight. But we already have a decent sense…