by Charles Knight, 05 July 2026. First published as a guest post at Van Jackson‘s Un-Diplomatic, ➪ full-text of PDA version: PDF

This retrospective focuses on the work of one researcher/thinker from West Germany, Lutz Unterseher. It follows the migration from West to East of his thinking and writing (and that of a network he organized) to Mikhail Gorbachev’s key foreign policy advisers. Once there, this work likely played a role in shaping the particulars of one of the Soviet leader’s most consequential foreign policy decisions.
The story is told less for its historical value than for its value to all who work on the construction of new ideas.
- In what circumstances do new ideas get noticed and made use of by powerful persons and institutions?
- What types and levels of idea development are most likely to gain the attention of national leaders who tend to be relentlessly pragmatic?
- What did the author of this retrospective learn while writing this article?




How do the two sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict compare in terms of personnel and equipment losses? These seemingly objective measures are subject to an intensive propaganda war. This brief analysis examines multiple sources of data to find that the combatants are actually not far apart in the percentage of equipment attrition they have suffered. And Russian personnel fatalities are likely in the range of 3,500 (April 2). Contrary to the messaging of the two sides, both would seem able to sustain combat for a considerable time longer. Unfortunately, as Russian forces have transitioned to a heavier, more firepower-dominant mode of warfare, Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure are suffering more death and destruction. While this might argue for increased emphasis on war containment and diplomatic efforts, the most evocative messaging on the western side emphasizes Russian miscalculation and fumbling, Ukraine’s adept resistance, and the promise of war termination via increased investment in the war.




Argues for a new balance among the various instruments of national power reflecting today’s strategic conditions. Taking a realistic view of security needs, the report advocates a military 20% smaller than today’s. It advances a “discriminate defense” strategy that would focus the military on cost-effective missions and save $550 billion more than official plans over the next decade.
Drawing on the experiences of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the article assesses the role played by helicopters, reviewing their strengths and limits. The author suggests that a dilemma shadows the use of these aircraft. On the one hand, they offer a unique combination of mobility, flexibility, and agility in working closely with ground forces, providing reconnaissance, fire, maneuver, and logistical support. However, helicopters prove acutely sensitive to environmental conditions, are relatively fragile, and can be countered by multiple, relatively-inexpensive weapon systems.
by Carl Conetta
Carl Conetta, EPS Quarterly, Nov 2005 – Full Text: 