> After all, they had tons and tons of combined arms, counterinsurgency, and standoff experience. Way more combat experience than Ukraine did.

They didn't have more combat experience than Ukraine though, never mind the additional problems that the Russian military faced at the time of the invasion which are too numerous to list here but include corruption, lack of equipment, a lack of understanding of the will of the Ukrainian people, and more.

Fast forward to 2026 and I'd argue there are probably only 4-5 militaries in the world who have any meaningful combat experience: the United States, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, and Iran to a lesser extent and perhaps the United Kingdom though they're falling more and more behind in that respect.

> We especially shouldn’t presume that when Iran, as a China-lite adversary, is teaching us lessons that we apparently have been unwilling to learn indirectly in Ukraine.

You're just wrong. We're learning lessons in Ukraine, actively testing western and US-specific equipment, and more. We had real-time experience in deploying our capabilities in logistics and intelligence too. Today we're actively seeing how American combat systems perform in real combat operations against an enemy deploying combat systems developed by our adversaries in Iran and throughout the Middle East. You might not be learning anything, but don't presume your ignorance extends to the Pentagon.

> By the way, Mr Military Strategy Buff, “combined arms” is not (necessarily) multiple branches working together. It’s multiple functions working together. Aviation, armor, artillery, infantry, etc. Nothing to do with different branches.

The branches are just where those capabilities generally rest. For example the Air Force does not employ artillery or infantry, those are functions of the army. My point was demonstrated.