What is military doctrine?

[@christopherlarsen7788]

I appreciate your presentation here. It is an important discussion, if often overlooked. In practice, doctrine reflects the means by which human activity in a given discipline becomes more explicit and detailed. That is, it emerges over time. The etymology of the word "doctrine" comes from Latin and refers to a codification of beliefs and principles that are taught within a given discipline. Indeed, to be a "doctor" means to be the highest order of teacher; a teacher of doctrine. Although the Catholic Church called its most advanced teachers "doctor" for centuries prior, the first PhD was awarded in Paris in the year 1150 AD. Likewise, military doctrine emerges over time to standardize "what works" as established principles as well as to define conditional parameters for execution. Common means of achieving tasks and effects are codified. However, well defined doctrine also allows for an artful application, extending authority to innovate upon proven methods, or even to violate doctrine given unique conditions for which practices are not otherwise defined. I believe it is because military doctrine is so tangibly rooted in the physical reality (as opposed to religious doctrine that is far more often ethereal) that evolutions and revolutions on military science redefine the artful practice of military doctrine. In this way, change is a constant.

[@derKai16]

I love watching your videos months or years after they were made. Time passed and your explanations are still most usefull - again!

[@bc-guy852]

I find some of the most engaging comments on your videos. Thanks for making the time to prepare and create these presentations!

[@paulkalaj3500]

Doctrine is also legal documents and if applied wrong can lead to criminal charges, human right violations etc. that would be the worst application. A Law degree is a Philosophy degree, Physicsts if they break the law, might just end up create a deadly catastrophe, therefore they use great causion in approaching the use of that force to avoid legal and moral consequences

[@phoeniximperator]

thanks. it's very rare to find educational and informative videos like yours online

[@saltavaliente]

These is a wonderful video, that I see it could extend to my field of work, the humanitarian world. I the humanitarian world I see the term “policy” as to dictate the strategy view about a given issue or topic (e.g. security policy) , however when going to the tactical level ( the application of the principles and work culture of the policy ) to put the policy in to action, we break it down into Gide lines. The latter represents more educational tools and lessons learned to apply to recurrent cases. A wonderful and instructional video. Thanks Anders

[@rjeffm1]

I think doctrine is most easily understood at the lowest levels, i.e. at the tactical level. Typically it describes the guidelines for what the unit involved in a fight should do when confronted within a set of easily defined situations. A simple to understand example might be what a SAM battery should do upon detecting a hostile aircraft approaching: When should it reveal itself by switching on its fire control radars? When should it engage? What modes for its missiles should be used and when? When or should it re-engage if it missed, How many missiles should it launch in any given stage of an individual engagement? How should it cooperate with other units? Similar rules can be written, and have been, for how an infantry squad or any other tactical element should react when it makes contact. At higher levels these rules become more abstract, but generally they describe how a larger formation should react and cooperate with other formations and resources. One of the criticisms we have been seeing of Russian tactical doctrine has been that it is too scripted and rigid, that it does not encourage or allow discretion on the part of commanders and units in how to achieve a desired resolution. Cheers.

[@bastogne315]

Sums it up neatly.

[@ThePRCommander]

Perhaps I should then attempt to make a more thorough description of my military doctrines.

[@edwardblair4096]

Doesn't doctrine help clarify some of the high level and long-term planning of militaries? For example, questions about which weapon systems to use or how to organize units at different scales.

[@reps888]

Good video! Keep it up.

[@V21IC]

Military Doctrine is more of physiology. It's heavy deals with a mind set and almost default action/response in a given situation or even. That mind set starts at the institutional level, operational and training level, and ends with the most important element, the soldier. Without soldiers there can be no military! Various branches, regions may have their varied implementation but without lacking the fundamental. Military doctrine dictates doctrina militar dictate tactics, operational, and strategical responses. Above all it established uniformity that enhances unity. Without a military doctrine discipline at all levels, scoping objectives, and joint operations would be more chaotic than anything else! Military doctrine aids in rapid thinking thus rapid response which protects lives and property - it's the survivor instinct that makes the best prey!

[@vikrantvijit1436]

Thanks 🙏👍

[@ColonelRoseru]

Once my friend told me that War Plan Red was a doctrine, I laughed him off because doctrine can just be a plan it has to be some kind of war philosophy.

[@sergelecluse0001]

I always thought that military doctrine was a broader concept, like the difference between Von Clausewitz's "On War" and Sun Tzu's "Art of War ".

[@madzen112]

It's the way to do things military. Sum of experience. Often learned the hard way. Please correct me if totally off here.

[@ycplum7062]

Sorry. Still don't know what is doctrine. The verbiage is vague at best. Maybe if you had given some examples.

[@typxxilps]

Doctrine is a plan how to use the military potential in a well defined and described scenario. Remember the current status quo in the Ukraine ? Imagine the russian retreat over night and fire in the morning a barrage on a 1000 km long frontline of nuclear shells to create a nuclear poisoned 1000 km x 12 km belt no one can cross as a kind of cordon sanitaire. Then we will become pretty quickly a peace treaty cause the western do know that this war against a nuclear power is not winable and that the now arteficial barrier can not be changed anymore for quite a long time and that this is the new border like those borders drawn by the russian after WW2 like the polish east border and the push of the polish border froom then soviet ground to polish soil. And that is nothing evil that only russians could think or do cause the americans had prepared exactly that scenario along the cold war border - hitting german soil from german soil just to prevent the russians from breaking through Fulda gap. No big secrect cause the americans told that and trained with german forces how to use the artillery. So if it was evil than only as evil as the american idea but in this current situation it would save us the long and endless supply discussion to support Ukraine cause once the belt is there this will mark the new border and a kind of neutral zone, which means both sides would be willing to agree in a treaty cause the Ukraine has to considering they would not get any more supplies from the west and Russia also to get rid of sanctions. Just a question about strategy and the nuclear thread doctrince which nuclear grenade the russian could use and have in stock to deploy in 1 night along 1000 km line where they have to retreat behind first.

[@px6883]

I agree, this video is way too much rambling about theory and very little concrete information imo

[@ycplum7062]

@@px6883 And does not seem to be organized. I can accept theory, but I had trouble following. Got to start with theory and use an example to put things in context. I could not get past the theory.

[@antonmichelsen2074]

I don't personally believe that the scope of this video is to present a cut and dry answer to the question "What is doctrine". Since Anders introduces the video with saying, that Doctrine acts as a sort of umbrella-term, you as viewer also have to view the term in a holistic view. I took it much more as an explorative essay, in which Høibacks (arguably very concise) general points were considered and discussed in order to gain a more broad insight in to the term - not to give a precise definition.

[@ThomasMelberStgt]

Course of action: most likely (ENY follow the doctrine) - most dangerous (ENY detaches from doctrine); doctrine means predictability

[@samlazar1053]

A military dotrine.A fully developed one It signaled a military tradition and military experience. And a long history of successful wars. It's not easy to create a full fledged military doctrine. Blitzkrieg for example was not a military doctrine but rather a German version of the Russian deep operation wich was bigning to emerge In Frunze military academy. There was a Military Resonances or Enlightenment if you will in post Ww1 .?especially in Moscow but also Berlin.Russian Prussian militarism that USA has wowed to fight

[@perun814]

german blitzkrieg was not a military doctrine. it was merely an adaptation of tukhachevsky ideas. now the russian war doctrine (both in offence..deep battle. and in defense..defence in depth. are true war doctrines

[@kjfjdkiflfkd]

Algo

[@madzen112]

De der enormt lange rapporter, puha.

[@tombogan03884]

You spend a lot of words and say nothing.

[@typxxilps]

IMAGINE: Russia retreats and uses nuclear artillery to create a 20 km depth nuclear poisoned belt of 1000 km length to protect the conquered territories as their natural new defense line Russians would praise Putin for being smart and a hero for having protected the russian minorities there and bringing home his boy safely He would not loose his face and the russians as the most outlawed in history will not have to loose anything by using this option cause it is far cheaper than blowing up 2 nuclear power plants of cause accidently cause an artillery strike has a more limited range than 2 or 3 or 4 cernobyls In this moment what would the western governments do: Call for a peace treaty cause the nuclear belt is a fact you can not overcome and they would limit the supplies for ukraine even further Russia will want a peace treaty cause that is the way to lift the sanctions before the population goes crazy and riots could occure. All the eastern european will be the first to buy cheap gas and oil for russia after the first cold winter running out of energy or payinx extreme high prices. The western ones will be more hesitant, go for more renewables and LNG gas except russia offers huge discounted gas just to make use of the north stream pipelines they had paid a lot for. I miss the general discussion about the question of a winable war against a nuclear super power ! Where is anyone talking about that background which leads to the hesitant supplies and fully controlled stock of weapons just to avoid that the Ukrainians could bring the russian on the edge of something like a defeat cause once in the corner Putin has only 1 final nice solution to save him and the country as a proud nation (which the russian would believe) Would be time to talk more about that than the mess of Ukrainian loud propaganda every day about the biggest counteroffense that had stuck from day one due to too many schwerpunkte along the front and no central strong push right through to the north banks of the dnjepr with the biggest pictures and cutting the cauldron in 2 halves. And this propaganda is counting bodies like the US in Vietnam, also tanks and so much crap more which leads to double accountings and whatever till no one will believe them. Meanwhile this offense or tiny battles in Kherson the russian gain more ground in the east which shows how ukrainian propaganda works there and on all these private operated unkrainian bloggin channels started each day with a new hooray and zoom in on a 2 x2 km map while the scale in the eastern part will be 100 x100 km where they had lost 10 km² while winning 1 km² I think it is time to talk about the unthinkable cause it had be unthinkable that russia would invade the ukraine along the whole border and now after all the sanctions the russian can not become more outlawed by using nuclear weapons if used smart as a tactical barrier. Yes, most will cry that they can not do that or that you can not think about that but that is the typical stupidness of these clueless that simply ignore the fact that in cold war europe the americans had deployed exactly this soultions: american artillery with nuclear warheads or ammuniton to be shot from one german side to the other german side to create a nuclear belt So why are we not talking about this particular point which had been thought through many times by the americans and I bet for the russians too. It would even look to be a lot smarter cause the war would come to an end cause no german or danish or dutch soldiers would wanna pour more oil into such situation and call for a peace considering none of us want an open nuclear conflict on european soil and that we can live with that waste land pretty damn good to establish peace and lower sanctions cause without that no peace I bet. And you must be the expert to think about such birds eye and strategic view to prepare that decision tree that already exists but the governments and politicians simply reejct to talk about. If you beat someone (who has a knife in his pockets) in the corner close to death you can expect that he will use the knife at one time and this is the current situation. I also bet that after that all will start buying cheap gas from russia again, at least all those eastern europeans that had blamed nordstream which they missed to accept as a german , dutch and french project as the share holder show. And all these loud blaming were those who had benefit from the old urkainian pipeline making insance amounts from the gas transit fees, each country along the long pipelines to central europe. When that pipeline became instable over the past 25 years with the Ukraine not paying their gasbill to russia and lower gas amounts delivered they started to protest against a direct russian central europe line even though Poland also got gas like others throught that nordstream line. So here we are having funny 3 pipelines to russia, one without permission and final check, anotherone unrepairable broken for the russians and you will not believe it a working ukrainian gas pipeline not hit or destroyed delivering gas to the ukraine and from there to the west with gas that someone could somehow pay in such a way that russia still delivers . Really strange cause the ukraine is calling for sanctions and heating with russian gas or and making transit fee income for all the gas delivered to the west ? Long story and I hope you can find the time to solve this puzzle cause I simply would prefer this nuclear belt strike cause the ukrainians can no longer fool us nor the russians about the fighting and offenses there. Game over for both of them, time for peace and get the busines back running before damaging more and conquering only gravel with at the end even russian majorities or minorities which then deserve a protection no one will want to guarantee for.

[@BioLogicalNerd]

That was an excessively long comment that could've been summed up in a sentence: Ukrainians should not bother to fight and Europe should not support them else Russia will use nukes if they lose.

[@bastogne315]

You high??

[@NotThisShipSister1]

I have read this three times…. Six different ways…. I am intrigued.