In the shadowy world of intelligence operations and special forces, a curious phenomenon emerges when we examine modern warfare alongside historical precedents. Are today’s headline-grabbing operations truly revolutionary, or are they simply the latest iterations of tactics pioneered decades ago? This question becomes particularly compelling when examining Ukraine’s recent drone attack on Russian warplanes alongside the foundational operations of organizations like Mossad and the British Special Air Service (SAS).
The Modern Marvel: Ukraine’s Drone Attack on Russian Warplanes
In what reads like a plot from a spy thriller, Ukrainian forces recently executed a devastating attack on Russian strategic bombers that has been described as “Russia’s Pearl Harbor.” The operation demonstrated a level of ingenuity and tactical sophistication that has captured the imagination of military analysts worldwide.
Ukrainian security services managed to smuggle hundreds of Ukraine-made drones into Russia, concealing them inside modified shipping containers. These containers were then transported by unwitting Russian drivers past strategic air bases housing Russia’s prized long-range bombers. “At the right moment, the roofs of the cabins were opened remotely and the drones flew to hit Russian bombers,” an intelligence source told the Kyiv Independent. The attack was meticulously planned, with artificial intelligence employed to ensure the drones targeted the bombers’ most vulnerable points—their fuel tanks.
The operation’s timing carried symbolic weight, occurring exactly 29 years after Ukraine had surrendered dozens of the same strategic bombers to Russia under the Budapest Memorandum, in exchange for a promise not to be attacked. This historical symmetry added a psychological dimension to what was already a devastating tactical success.
The results were catastrophic for Russian forces. As Ukrainian security expert Maria Avdeeva noted, “Russia can’t produce these bombers any more. The loss is massive. Nothing like this has ever been done before.” Beyond the immediate material damage—estimated at $2 billion in sophisticated weaponry reduced to ash—the psychological impact was profound. The attack shattered Russia’s assumption that basing aircraft in far-flung outposts would keep them beyond Ukraine’s reach.
Iryna Vereshchuk, a top official in President Zelensky’s office, declared: “This is exactly what wars of the future will look like.” But is this truly a glimpse of the future, or does it instead represent the latest evolution of special operations principles established decades ago?
The Birth of Modern Special Operations: The British SAS in World War II
To answer this question, we must look back to the North African desert in 1941, where an unconventional Scottish aristocrat named David Stirling was about to revolutionize warfare. Stirling was not what anyone would have expected of a military hero. Described by his senior officers as “irresponsible and unremarkable” and nicknamed “The Giant Sloth” by his comrades, he lacked the most basic discipline and had never seen actual combat when he arrived in Cairo.
Yet Stirling possessed a visionary understanding of warfare’s changing nature. Along with fellow Commando Jock Lewes, he conceived a radical new approach to combat operations: small teams penetrating deep behind enemy lines to strike at vulnerable targets, particularly grounded aircraft. As Stirling himself later explained, “It had to be regarded as a new type of force, to extract the very maximum out of surprise and guile.”
The newly formed Special Air Service’s first mission was a disaster. Despite severe weather conditions with winds twice the maximum speed considered safe for parachuting, Stirling refused to abort. Of the 55 men who jumped, only 21 returned. This catastrophic beginning could have ended the SAS experiment before it truly began.
However, Stirling demonstrated the adaptability that would become a hallmark of special operations. For subsequent missions, the SAS partnered with the Long Range Desert Group, using their vehicles for transportation deep into enemy territory. This collaboration proved highly effective, allowing the SAS to conduct hit-and-run raids on enemy airfields and installations. By early 1942, their tactics had evolved further to include raids using heavily armed jeeps, which allowed for greater mobility and firepower.
The impact was dramatic. Over the course of a year, the SAS destroyed hundreds of enemy aircraft in a string of hit-and-run raids, wreaking havoc behind enemy lines. German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel reportedly dubbed Stirling “The Phantom Major” after these devastating operations. The SAS’s success led to its elevation to regimental status in September 1942, with Stirling’s unorthodox methods “brilliantly vindicated,” according to military historians.
The Shadow Warriors: Mossad’s Founding and Early Operations
Parallel to the SAS’s development, another organization was taking shape that would redefine intelligence operations. Mossad, formally established in December 1949 as the “Central Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations,” emerged from the intelligence arm of the Haganah, the Jewish military force that had operated in Palestine during the British mandate period.
Under the direction of Israel’s founder and first prime minister David Ben Gurion, Mossad was created to protect the newly formed nation through intelligence gathering and covert operations. Like the SAS, Mossad faced early challenges. Bureaucratic conflicts hampered its initial operations, and it suffered an embarrassing failure in 1951 when an Israeli spy ring in Baghdad was exposed.
A turning point came in 1952 when Isser Harel, who had previously led Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security service), became Mossad’s director. During his 11-year tenure, Harel transformed Mossad into a highly professional organization capable of conducting global operations. One of its most famous early successes came in 1960 with the capture of former Nazi Adolf Eichmann in Argentina. Mossad agents located, captured, and secretly transported Eichmann to Israel to stand trial for war crimes, demonstrating the agency’s growing capabilities in high-risk operations.
Another legendary operation involved Eli Cohen, an Egyptian-born Jew who became one of Mossad’s most famous agents by infiltrating the highest ranks of the Syrian government. Posing as a Syrian businessman, Cohen gathered invaluable intelligence for Israel before being discovered and executed in 1965. Following the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, Mossad agents tracked down and assassinated the Arab guerrilla leaders responsible, further cementing the agency’s reputation for global reach and determination.
The Thread That Connects: Comparing Past and Present Operations
When we examine Ukraine’s drone attack alongside the early operations of the SAS and Mossad, striking similarities emerge that suggest modern warfare represents evolution rather than revolution.
All three examples demonstrate the power of asymmetric approaches. The SAS and Mossad were founded on the principle of using small, specialized teams to achieve disproportionate effects against larger, conventional forces. Ukraine’s drone operation epitomizes this same principle, with low-cost drones destroying $2 billion worth of sophisticated Russian aircraft. In each case, a militarily weaker entity successfully struck against a more powerful adversary by exploiting unexpected vulnerabilities.
Innovation and adaptability form another common thread. The SAS quickly adapted after their disastrous first parachute mission, partnering with the Long Range Desert Group for vehicle-based insertions. Mossad continuously evolved its tradecraft to meet changing operational challenges. Similarly, Ukraine demonstrated remarkable adaptability by repurposing commercial technology (shipping containers, drones) for military applications when unable to match Russia’s conventional military power.
Deep penetration operations characterize all three examples. SAS teams operated hundreds of miles behind enemy lines in North Africa. Mossad’s operations in Argentina (Eichmann) and Syria (Eli Cohen) demonstrated capacity for deep penetration. Ukraine’s operation penetrated deep into Russia, reaching targets previously considered secure due to distance. All three cases show that geographical distance provides diminishing security against determined adversaries.
The psychological impact of these operations extends beyond physical destruction. Rommel’s dubbing of Stirling as “The Phantom Major” reflected the psychological effect of SAS raids. Mossad operations like the response to the Munich Olympics massacre were designed partly for psychological effect. Ukraine’s attack created significant embarrassment for Russian leadership and demonstrated that no target is truly safe, affecting Russian military confidence.
Evolution, Not Revolution: The Changing Face of Special Operations
Despite these similarities, significant differences highlight how special operations have evolved over time. The most obvious change is technological integration. Historical operations relied primarily on human skill, physical endurance, and basic equipment, with limited communication and minimal real-time coordination. Modern operations incorporate AI for targeting (Ukraine used AI to identify bomber weak points), remote operation capabilities (container roofs opened remotely), and digital coordination allowing for complex, synchronized operations.
The cost-effectiveness ratio has dramatically improved. While special operations have always sought efficiency, modern technology creates unprecedented asymmetry. Low-cost drones can now destroy billion-dollar aircraft, and commercial off-the-shelf technology can be weaponized effectively, multiplying the impact individual operators can have.
Personnel requirements have also evolved. SAS and early Mossad operations required exceptional individuals with rare physical and psychological attributes, with operations often depending on the extraordinary capabilities of specific operatives. Modern technology reduces dependence on exceptional human capabilities, with technical expertise sometimes substituting for traditional special operations skills, broadening the pool of potential contributors.
The operational footprint has changed significantly. Historical operations required physical presence in or near the target area, with higher risk of capture or casualty (Stirling himself was eventually captured). Modern operations can be conducted remotely, reducing physical footprint in target area and risk to personnel, though digital signatures may replace physical evidence.
The Human Element: What Remains Constant
Despite technological advances, certain elements remain remarkably consistent across time. Human intelligence continues to be critical. The SAS relied on local guides and intelligence, while Mossad’s success depended on human intelligence networks. Similarly, Ukraine’s operation still required human intelligence to identify targets and recruit drivers. Despite technological advances, human elements remain essential.
Deception and counterintelligence persist as fundamental components. The SAS used deception regarding their size and capabilities, while Mossad developed sophisticated cover identities and legends. Ukraine successfully evaded Russian counterintelligence, demonstrating that modern operations still require traditional counterintelligence tradecraft.
Perhaps most importantly, bold, high-risk operations continue to define special operations. Stirling’s willingness to undertake seemingly impossible missions, Mossad’s high-risk operations like the Eichmann capture, and Ukraine’s willingness to strike targets deep within Russia all demonstrate that calculated risk-taking remains essential to successful special operations.
Conclusion: The Cyclical Nature of Warfare Innovation
When Iryna Vereshchuk declared that Ukraine’s drone attack represents “exactly what wars of the future will look like,” she was both right and wrong. The operation certainly showcases elements that will define future conflicts: AI integration, remote operation, and the weaponization of commercial technology. Yet it simultaneously draws upon principles established by organizations like the SAS and Mossad decades ago: asymmetric approaches, deep penetration, psychological impact, and bold risk-taking.
This suggests that warfare innovation follows a cyclical pattern rather than a linear progression. New technologies enable the application of established principles in novel ways, creating the appearance of revolutionary change when what we’re actually witnessing is evolution. The fundamental principles of special operations—surprise, deception, precision, and psychological impact—remain constant, even as the means of achieving them transform.
Ukraine’s drone attack on Russian warplanes wasn’t a glimpse of the future so much as a reminder that the past is never truly past in warfare. The ghosts of David Stirling’s desert raiders and Mossad’s early operatives hover over modern battlefields, their innovations echoing through time. As we look to understand modern warfare, we would do well to remember that sometimes, looking to the future means recognizing patterns from the past.
References
-
The Australian. “Kyiv’s drone attack on Russian warplanes was like a spy thriller plot.” PDF document.
-
Britannica. “Mossad | Israel, History, & Famous Operations.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mossad
-
National Army Museum. “David Stirling: The Phantom Major.” https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/david-stirling
-
BBC. “David Stirling: The rogue soldier who created the SAS.” https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-63542009
-
Imperial War Museums. “How did the SAS transform the Second World War?” https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-did-the-sas-transform-the-second-world-war