- June 12, 2026
- 12:05 am
- World News
A world where a large army no longer guarantees victory
Not long ago, international politics seemed rigid and almost primitive: whoever had the largest army, money, fleet, aviation, and nuclear status dictated the terms. Small and medium-sized states had to adapt, seek protection, or yield under pressure. But Russia’s war against Ukraine, the US-Iran confrontation, tensions around Taiwan, and Israel’s experience in the Middle East paint a different picture.
Great powers remain dangerous, wealthy, and influential. But they are no longer omnipotent. Technologies, drones, cheap precision missiles, mobile intelligence, the cyber environment, and society’s will to resist are changing the very logic of war.
Wall Street Journal in an article by Yaroslav Trofimov on June 9, 2026, describes this very turning point. The main conclusion is unpleasant for empires: capturing a country, if its citizens are ready to resist, becomes almost impossible. Even if the difference in military potential is enormous.
Ukraine showed the limits of Russian power
Russia began a full-scale war against Ukraine as a classic imperial operation: a quick strike, the fall of the capital, a change of power, occupation, and imposed capitulation. The Kremlin expected that a large army and brutality would break the Ukrainian state in a matter of days.
This did not happen. Kyiv stood firm, the front did not collapse, and the Ukrainian army became one of the most technologically flexible armies in the world. Ukraine is not just defending itself — it strikes deep into Russian territory, disrupts logistics, hits military infrastructure, and forces Moscow to pay an increasingly high price.
Ukraine has become the main example of how a country, considered weaker by many, can change the calculations of a great power. Drones, intelligence, mobile groups, precision strikes, and national resilience proved more important than old notions of the “second army in the world.”
For Israel, this lesson is especially important. In a region where Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and other armed structures are nearby, relying solely on superiority in aviation or technology no longer provides complete security. Victory goes not to the one who is stronger on paper, but to the one who adapts faster.
Iran, Israel, and the cost of power in the Middle East
The story with Iran shows the other side of the new world. The US remains the most powerful military power, but even American strength is not always able to quickly force a medium-sized state to capitulate. According to the logic of the old century, massive strikes, the destruction of part of the leadership, and pressure on infrastructure should have broken the regime.
But Iran continues to hold power, block the Strait of Hormuz, maintain missile potential, and threaten Israel and the Persian Gulf countries. This does not make Tehran stronger than the US. But it shows that even a medium-sized power, if it has built a missile program, proxy networks, and an internal control system over decades, can withstand pressure longer than its opponents expected.
For Israel, this is not theory. It is a daily strategic reality. The Iranian regime not only threatens Israel itself but has also invested in Hamas, Hezbollah, Shiite militias, and the Houthis for decades. In such a war, the opponent does not necessarily have to be equal in strength — it is enough to be resilient, cheap, dispersed, and ready for a protracted conflict.
NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency in this context, it is important to look not only at individual strikes, statements, and diplomatic formulas but also at the overall shift: the era of quick victories is becoming shorter, and the era of long resistance is becoming more dangerous and costly for all participants.
Why the old model of invasion no longer works
Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto put it very plainly: the old type of war — invasion, occupation, and control over a country — no longer seems realistic if the people are ready to resist. This applies to both Russia in Ukraine and the US in Iran, and even to Israel, which finds it extremely difficult to completely eliminate Hamas in a dense urban environment.
The point is not that strong armies have become useless. They still cause colossal damage. But there is a huge distance today between “causing damage” and “forcing a country to submit.”
Drones see equipment that could previously hide. Missiles reach places that only expensive aviation operations could reach before. Small groups can destroy costly systems. Society, if it does not break psychologically, turns any occupation into an endless problem.
That is why a ground operation against Iran would look extremely risky for the US. That is why Russian tanks did not reach Kyiv. That is why China is carefully studying the Ukrainian experience, thinking about Taiwan.
Taiwan, China, and the new calculation of medium-sized states
China looks at Ukraine not as an outside observer. For Beijing, it is a large textbook on modern warfare. Until 2022, many believed that if Russia decided to go all the way, Ukraine would not be able to resist for long. Now this calculation is shattered.
Chinese military analysts see that even a huge army can get bogged down. They see that drones, mobile defense, societal motivation, and international support can thwart plans for a quick victory. But the main question for Taiwan is not only technology but the readiness of society itself to resist.
Ukraine’s lesson for Taiwan
The most important lesson from Ukraine is not that democracies automatically save other democracies. The lesson is different: first, Ukrainians helped themselves, and only then did the world begin to help Ukraine on a larger scale. If a country does not show the will to fight, external support becomes weaker, more cautious, and slower.
For Taiwan, this is a painful topic. If there is no consensus on defense within society and parliament, if rearmament programs are cut, if asymmetric defense is postponed, then China gains not only a military but also a psychological advantage.
Medium-sized states can no longer live in the illusion that someone big will definitely come and solve the problem for them. Canada, European countries, Asian democracies, Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and the Philippines — all of them are forced to think about their own resilience, alliances, technologies, and society’s readiness to withstand pressure.
This is the new formula for security. Not “the weak suffer what they must,” as in the old phrase by Thucydides, but “the weak cease to be weak if they know how to resist, unite, and learn quickly.”
What this means for Israel
For Israel, this global shift has direct significance. The country lives surrounded by threats, where the opponent often does not seek to win in the classical sense. It is enough for them to exhaust, frighten, disrupt normal life, conduct a missile war, an information campaign, and use international pressure.
Therefore, Israel needs not only a strong army but also an updated strategy. It should include technologies, rear protection, diplomatic alliances, industrial independence, connections with European and Asian democracies, and an honest understanding of the Ukrainian experience. Ukraine has shown that the will of society and the speed of adaptation can become strategic weapons.
The old world, where great powers dictated to everyone else, has not disappeared completely. But it is already cracking. Russia could not break Ukraine. The US cannot simply erase the Iranian problem with one strike. China is forced to recalculate risks around Taiwan. Israel sees how complex war has become even against a terrorist structure if it hides in an urban environment and builds a conflict on attrition.
The new world has not become safer. It has become more complex. But in it, small and medium-sized countries have more room for action — if they do not wait for salvation but build strength in advance.
That is why the main question today is not: who is the strongest? The main question is different: who is capable of withstanding the first blow, quickly changing, and continuing resistance when the old logic of victory no longer works?