bait and bleed. It's the strategy where one side tries to get two of its enemies to fight each other. The idea is to let these enemies wear each other down, using up their resources and weakening their armies. And while they are busy fighting, the side using the bait and bleed strategy stays out of the fight, conserving its own strength. After the bleeding phase, the side that kept its strength can attack the weakened ones. Decapitation. It's the military strategy aimed at removing the leadership of a hostile government or group. This could achieve strategic paralysis, as the enemy doesn't know what to do anymore. But some are skeptical, saying that even though it's a seductive strategy because it promises to solve conflicts quickly and cheaply with little collateral damage, decapitation strikes frequently fail or are not likely to produce the intended consequences. Some even argue that killing the head of an organization might produce disorder in them, leading to politically ineffective unfocused attacks on civilians, and that sometimes their leaders are the most qualified persons in their organizations for peace.

negotiators shock and awe, also known as rapid dominance, it's the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to surprise the enemy and destroy their will to fight, making them surrender. It was initially created as an attempt to develop a post-Cold War military doctrine for the United States, and the doctrine of rapid dominance requires the capability to disrupt means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure. Some consider the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of shock and awe. Salami slicing, it involves taking a series of small steps to have a larger gain at the end, which would have been difficult or unlawful to perform all at once. It can be useful for governments that don't want to have a Cassis belly, as it's more probable that those small steps are less noticeable than a big one. These small steps can be taken by camouflaging a fence as defense, and it gives the enemy only two choices, either silently suffer or risk an expensive and dangerous war. Bellum say ipsum alet it.

means the war will feed itself in Latin, and it's the strategy where an invading army sustains itself using the resources of the territory it is invading instead of relying on long supply lines from its own country. The army lives off the land, taking food supplies and other resources from the local population. This can prove especially effective if the war is fought far from their homeland, making their supply lines both long and costly. Fabian strategy, it's a military approach where you avoid large direct battles with your enemy, and instead, you focus on wearing them down over time through smaller, more manageable skirmishes, and by making it difficult for them to get supplies or rest. Militaries use this strategy only if they believe time is on their side, usually because the side employing the strategy is fighting in or close to their homeland, and the enemy is far from home, forcing them to have long and costly supply lines. This strategy was first used by Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus in the Second Punic War. Military districts dividing one's own

territory into military districts where each part of the military is responsible. It has various pros such as improved local control and training facilities and programs tailored to the specific needs and conditions of the district. They are often more responsible for administrative than operational matters. Attrition warfare is a type of military strategy where the goal is to wear down the enemy over time by constantly attacking them and causing them to lose soldiers, equipment, and supplies. Instead of trying to win quickly with a big decisive battle, the focus is on making the enemy gradually weaker and weaker until they can't keep fighting anymore. In real wars, this means lots of smaller battles and continuous pressure on the enemy, making it harder for them to replace lost soldiers and broken equipment. Sometimes a side that perceives itself to be at a marked disadvantage may deliberately seek out attrition warfare to neutralize its opponent's advantages over time. When attritional methods have worn down the enemy sufficiently to make other methods feasible, attritional methods are often complemented or even abandoned by other

strategies. Although attrition warfare may seem like a logical choice for combatants with more resources or advantages than their opponents, there are also significant disadvantages. Perhaps the most common reason for failure of attrition warfare is related to the time required to fulfill one's war goals, as the geopolitical conditions may change over time. For example, the opponent can gain new allies in the meantime. Additionally, the attrition strategy gives opponents time to adjust tactics and strategy. An example that shows attrition warfare being used ineffectively is World War I, when military commanders on both sides ineffectively relied on attrition warfare, which resulted in casualties without a strategic result. Battle of annihilation. Battle of annihilation is a military strategy focused on completely destroying the enemy's ability to fight in one pivotal battle, even the first one. This can be useful when time is not on their side and they need to end the war quickly, and when the element of surprise can prove pivotal to the results of the war. Also, it was famously used by

Napoleon, such as in the battles of Ostet and Gina blockade. It's when one side tries to isolate and cut off an area, usually an entire country or region, from outside resources, supplies, and communication. The goal is to weaken the enemy by preventing them from getting the food, weapons, fuel, and other essentials they need to continue fighting. And it differs from an embargo or sanction, which are legal barriers to trade rather than physical barriers. Also, blockades often result in the starvation of the civilian population, like during the blockade of Germany during World War I. Nowadays, if blockades are made with the main goal of starving civilians and preventing humanitarian aid from reaching them, they can be considered a war crime and potentially a crime against humanity. There are three types of blockades: close, distant, and loose. A close blockade entails placing warships within sight of the blockaded coast or port so they can immediately stop any ship trying to enter or leave. This type of blockade is very effective because it tightly controls the area, but it's also the hardest one to do since ships need

to stay at sea at all times, even with storms in bad weather, usually far from any support, and they are vulnerable to sudden attack from the blockaded side whose ships may stay safe in Harbor until they choose to come out. In a distant blockade, the blockaders stay farther away from the blockaded coastal port, which means that they need more ships on station, but they can usually operate closer to their bases and are at much less risk from enemy raids. It's important to note that distant blockades were basically impossible prior to the 16th century due to the nature of the ships used. A loose blockade has a different goal than the other two; the blockading ships are withdrawn out of sight from the coast but no farther to lure the enemy into venturing out but to stay close enough to strike. Ink Spot strategy: when a military needs to subdue a large hostile region with a relatively small military force, it uses the inkpot strategy, which consists of establishing a number of small safe areas dispersed over the region and then pushing out.

from each area extending its control and making the areas larger until eventually they join up only pockets of resistance clear and hold. It's the counterinsurgency strategy of clearing an area of enemies and then keeping the area clear of insurgence while winning the support of the populace for the government and its policies. Once an area has been cleared, local police authority is reestablished rather than military authority, and government authority reasserted. This strategy encompasses the use of civil-military operations, which consist of minimizing civil interference and, on the contrary, maximizing civil support for future military actions. Only highly strategic areas are initially chosen for clear and hold operations, but once they are secure, the operation gradually spreads to less strategic areas until the whole desired area is under control. This strategy was most famously known by the US Army during the Vietnam War, and there is still a hot debate on whether it is successful or not. Some of the most critical elements are that the traditional military forces dislike the limited role they play in the clear and hold strategy and may

advocate for a more traditional war-making role, and that the strategy takes time, which a government may, for various reasons, lack. The strategy also requires significant numbers of on-the-ground clearing, combat, and holding police forces, and it can be successful by only isolating the population from insurgents. Others argue that the initial limited goals of clear-and-hold operations enable guerrilla forces to regroup militarily and that the strategy relies too heavily on physical security issues and ignores the role that ideology, nationalism, and other belief systems play in fomenting insurgency in the first place. Maneuver Warfare. It's the conceptual opposite of attrition warfare, and it's the strategy that emphasizes movement, initiative, and surprise to achieve a position of advantage while minimizing frontal combat. Its goal is to destroy the enemy's will and ability to fight, and it's mainly used by small militaries that are more cohesive, better trained, or more technologically advanced. It's especially used in modern times thanks to the use of mechanized vehicles, bypassing and cutting off enemy strong

points often results in the collapse of that strong point, even where the physical damage is minimal, like what happened with the Maginot Line. Since tempo and initiative are so critical to the success of maneuver warfare, command structures tend to be more decentralized, with more tactical freedom given to lower-level unit leaders. If you want to discuss this video or suggest an idea for the next one, join my Discord. Link in the description.

Every War Strategy Explained in 8 Minutes

I explain interesting stuff using paint.

💼 Business Mail: operamp4@gmail.com
