Davids vs Goliaths: What Ukraine Reveals About the Future of Warfare

In Ukraine, the Davids have consistently given Goliath a bloody nose. 

The US and most European militaries are more Goliath than David. But last year, the US Marine Corps announced it was ditching tanks, artillery and planes. Analysts were perplexed. But the success in Ukraine of drones, shoulder-fired missiles and other mobile systems reveals what the Marines anticipated - and why this may be the future of warfare. JL 

Josh Marshall reports in Talking Points Memo, image Maritime Bulletin:

Yesterday, Ukraine used a Neptune missile to destroy the flagship of the Russian Black Sea fleet, the cruiser Moskva. Even accounting for dire Russian underperformance, this seems another example of a pattern we’ve seen through this war and one the US should be concerned about: the ability of a weaker power with light, mobile anti-tank, anti-aircraft and anti-ship weapons to destroy tanks, armored vehicles, aircraft, ships of the stronger power. The destruction of the Moskva (was from) a truck-based missile. One army has the big, expensive stuff but a smaller foe can destroy a lot of it with cheap, mobile, lethal weapons. Military history is filled with turning points. This is showing signs of being one.

Yesterday evening US time, Ukraine reportedly used a Neptune missile to strike and apparently destroy the flagship vessel of the Russian Black Sea fleet, the missile cruiser Moskva. There’s still conflicting reports about the fate of the ship. Ukraine says it was struck and sank. Russia says it was badly damaged, evacuated and is now under tow. Russia also seems to dispute that there was a successful missile attack, seemingly claiming a munitions explosion on board. Regardless of exactly what happened it seems Ukraine scored a rather stunning success either destroying or taking out of commission a major Russian warship.

We’ve grown accustomed to dramatic Russian military underperformance (poor logistics, poor command and control, poor morale) and just as stunning Ukrainian over-performance (a bracing mix of ingenuity, heroism and high morale). These are all true. But this seems like yet another example of a pattern we’ve seen throughout this war and one that the US should be concerned about.

Quite simply, this is the ability of a weaker power with a lot of light and mobile anti-tank, anti-aircraft and anti-ship weapons to destroy a lot of heavy armaments (tanks, armored vehicles, aircraft, ships) of the stronger power. The destruction or disablement of the Moskva is somewhat different. This is a truck-based missile. That’s different from anti-tank weapons that one soldier can carry around on his own. But the same principle applies. One army has the big, expensive deadly stuff but a smaller foe can destroy a lot of it with cheap, mobile and lethal weapons.

Military history is filled with turning points at which military technology shifted the balance from defenders to attackers and vice versa. Even accounting for the dire Russian underperformance I think this conflict is showing signs of one of those turning points.