弱小者如何战胜最强大的军队——反侵略战争的成功要素

Previously, we discussed the prospects of resisting Russian aggression from a historical and emotional perspective (what some refer to as the "path to victory"). Some friends, however, want to explore the theoretical foundations behind this, which is a great idea—strong ideas attract strong people. There's no need to cite Clausewitz or Sun Tzu; instead, let’s approach this topic in the most straightforward way:

Why can weaker forces defeat the world’s most powerful armies, whether they are called the Soviet Army or the U.S. Army? And what factors contribute to this outcome?

Of course, this discussion is based on a fundamental premise:

It must be a war of resistance against invasion. Or, to be more precise, at least a conflict where one side perceives itself as being invaded.

This premise is easy to understand. Weaker forces generally do not invade others—if they did, the result would be obvious, and there would be no need for discussion. For a weaker force to defeat a stronger army, it must leverage the concept of anti-invasion; otherwise, the effort would be futile.

Now, let’s examine the two opposing sides separately:

1. The Weaker Resistance Forces

Weaker resistance forces typically cannot engage the invading army in conventional, direct confrontations. Thus, they must shift the nature of the conflict in their favor. This leaves them with only one option: transforming resistance into a low-intensity war while forcing the enemy into a high-intensity counterinsurgency operation.

The term "counterinsurgency war" is not an academic term, but it vividly describes this concept. To clarify its intensity, think of it as being lower than a conventional war but far more severe than ordinary crime.

The “lower intensity” aspect is easy to understand—resistance forces cannot win head-on, so they must hide, evade, and retreat to preserve their strength while avoiding direct confrontation.

The “higher intensity” aspect means the conflict is far worse than rampant crime. Imagine Gotham City from Batman—yes, it’s even worse than that, but targeted at the invading army.

Resistance forces that cannot defeat the invading military must escalate the conflict to this level to have any chance of victory.

2. The Invading Army

No matter how powerful an army is, remember: it is still just an army, with inherent limitations. It can defeat opposing military forces, but once a conflict drags into a prolonged counterinsurgency war, the army’s weaknesses become evident.

Counterinsurgency warfare, while lower in intensity than conventional warfare, is an unending, unrestricted conflict. Resolving it requires numerous roles, systems, and long-term, comprehensive measures. It requires not only the military but also police, doctors, teachers… In short, it is no longer simply a war but an enormous social engineering project. And an army alone is insufficient to handle such a task.

Historically, invaders have typically relied on two methods to mitigate this problem:

1. Colonization

This involves relocating loyal citizens from the invading nation, effectively replacing the population. This method has a high success rate but has largely fallen out of use with the end of the colonial era. However, in the Russia-Ukraine war, we see some similar strategies, such as encouraging Russian citizens to settle in occupied territories and sending Ukrainian children to the Russian heartland for "ideological reprogramming."

2. Puppet Governments

The issue with puppet regimes is that they inherently lack legitimacy. Moreover, they are deliberately kept weak by their masters to prevent them from becoming a threat. As a result, once the occupying military withdraws, these puppet governments often collapse—something history has repeatedly demonstrated.

The Path to Victory in an Anti-Invasion War

In an anti-invasion war, even if the resistance forces are weak, as long as they successfully transform the conflict into a counterinsurgency war, their chances of ultimate victory are not low.

Moreover, the resource threshold for sustaining a counterinsurgency war is often much lower than expected. For example, during Afghanistan’s resistance against the Soviet Union, certain resistance leaders had amassed personal wealth from business ventures. While their wealth was negligible compared to a national budget, it was more than sufficient to sustain Afghanistan’s guerrilla forces—numbering in the tens of thousands—without financial strain. This low barrier to entry made sustained resistance feasible.

The Key Factor: Will to Resist

The most crucial, indispensable factor in such conflicts is the will to resist.

With this factor in place, other conditions can gradually be met, and various problems can be overcome. Without it, even a force with strong assets will see them wasted.

Invaders are resolute in their goals and will not hesitate to employ the most brutal methods to suppress an entire nation.

The resistance must be even more resolute—unyielding, unwavering—so that, even in a seemingly hopeless and never-ending conflict, they can steadily advance like a relentless steamroller, grinding down the invaders’ morale. This unwavering spirit must inspire nationwide resistance, allowing guerrilla warfare to expand in scale and frequency until the resistance ultimately seizes the initiative and forces the invader into one inevitable choice: withdrawal.

Additional Factors: Foreign Aid

While the resource demands for a counterinsurgency war are low, more resources are always beneficial. Thus, securing foreign aid is vital.

Invaders often have geopolitical rivals, so enlisting the support of their adversaries is crucial. Geography also plays a key role—if the invaded country shares a border with its supporters, the transportation of weapons and supplies becomes far easier, and fighters can retreat to allied territory for rest and reorganization when needed.

Conclusion

As long as the resistance maintains an unyielding will and secures other advantageous conditions, even formidable armies like the Soviet or U.S. military will struggle to achieve victory in a high-intensity counterinsurgency war.

So, why should we spread pessimism about Ukraine’s prospects or advocate for disguised surrender?

After all, Ukraine’s capabilities and current situation are still far from the point where they would need to abandon conventional warfare in favor of counterinsurgency.