Some time ago I came across an article on the Stanford University website: "How the weak win wars. A theory of asymmetric conflict”. The author was Professor Ivan Arreguín-Toft, who taught conflict strategy at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, Boston University, and the University of Oxford. The topic of defeating a superior opponent has long interested me, mostly for business and sport. But I never expected that right now, in my home country, I would see this theory in action.
It is generally believed that brute force decides everything. The weaker side has no chance, especially if the gap in military power, population and other resources is huge. But as the author of the article proves, the history of asymmetric wars over the past 200 years often shows the opposite. David regularly defeats Goliath, on average, 30 times out of 100. But the most striking thing is that this ratio changes over time. For example, while between 1800 and 1849 the weaker man won only 12% of wars, between 1950 and 1998 the proportion of David's victories gradually rose to 55%. How so?
The author proposes "The Strategic Interaction thesis" according to which it is not brute strength or determination alone that decides victory, as other researchers have pointed out, but rather which strategies interact with each other. In this model, each side has two ideal winning strategies. The stronger side has: 1) Direct Attack and 2) Barbarism. The weaker side has: 1) Direct Defense and 2) Guerrilla Warfare. Direct strategies (attack and defense) target the enemy's armed forces in order to destroy his ability to fight. In turn, indirect strategies aim to destroy the enemy's will to resist. Thus, barbarism targets the enemy's civilians, while guerrilla warfare targets the enemy's soldiers.
The insight is that interaction within a single approach (Direct-Direct or Indirect-Indirect) implies defeat for the weaker side, since nothing compensates for the difference in resources. In such cases, the war ends quickly. In contrast, interacting with the opposite approach (Direct-Indirect or Indirect-Direct) implies victory for the defending side, because Goliath's advantage in strength is neutralized. For example, if the aggressor's army is being fought largely in guerrilla warfare, it becomes difficult for the aggressor to distinguish with whom he is fighting. The growing number of civilian casualties only strengthens the resistance of the defending side.
If, however, the aggressor wants not just to fight the army, but to break the will of the people and for this purpose uses indirect strategies, such as blockades or the strategic bombing of cities, he most often achieves the opposite result. Contrary to the expectations of Hitler and Göring, the German bombing of London only strengthened the determination of the British to fight to the end. Moreover, the facts of the mass killing of civilians become public knowledge both globally, encouraging the Allies to help the defender, and within the aggressor country, motivating its citizens to protest. Most importantly, in both cases (Direct Attack-Guerrilla Warfare and Barbarism-Direct Defense), the war is greatly prolonged, which benefits the weaker side.
The fact is that in asymmetric warfare, time works against the aggressor. Aware of his power, the invader tends to inflate expectations of triumph in himself and everyone around him. If force implies victory, then an overwhelming advantage in strength implies a quick victory. However, as war with a weaker opponent drags on, excessive expectations of success force the aggressor to escalate the use of force in order to meet expectations at all costs or to lose face in shame. The longer the war drags on, the greater the political vulnerability of the aggressor, as the internal pressure on the leader from the masses (in a democracy) or on the dictator from the counterbalancing elite (in an authoritarian country) grows: "The war is lost. We have to leave."
There are many more insights to be gleaned from Professor Arreguín-Toft's article that make it worth reading in the original. For myself I have drawn the following conclusions:
The history of asymmetric warfare over 200 years teaches that Goliath's brute strength is nothing if David uses an asymmetric defense strategy.
Despite the constant outward display of the trappings of indestructibility and strength, Putin's dictatorial regime is extremely politically vulnerable from within.
Ukrainians pay a high price, but each new day of war inexorably brings Russia closer to collapse and Ukraine closer to victory.
Glory to Ukraine!
Sincerely yours,
-Alexander
Help the Ukrainian army and its wounded, as well as the families and children already affected by war:
As a business therapist, I help tech founders with rapid business transformation.