3 ms·

Right now, with the American experience in Afghanistan in Vietnam in our minds, we have this idea that a great power cannot win long term in a foreign country.

Right now, with the American experience in Afghanistan in Vietnam in our minds, we have this idea that a great power cannot win long term in a foreign country. However, history is full of examples where this did not happen: Examples include: * The European conquest of the Americas (especially North America) * The Boer War (British Empire vs Afrikaaners) * Julius Caesar's Conquest of Gaul * Mughal Conquest of (northern) India * British Raj (and Sepoy Rebellion) * US War in the Philippines * Roman Conquest of Asia Minor * Turkish Conquest of Asia Minor from Byzantine Empire * Anglo Saxon Conquest of England Basically, if a power is both more powerful militarily, can get their supply lines correct, and has the political will to see it through for the long term, it can be done.

dillondoyle 5y ago
To me it seems the problem with Afghanistan in particular was the definition of winning. Creating a self sustaining Democracy? Hell no crazy that was ever the goal. But completely obliterating terrorists threats, without worrying about damage or creating a self governed country? i think that could have been achieved. Though at pretty big humanitarian consequences. Which it seems like Russia doesn't care much about since the first definition of winning seems to have failed already.
- csee 5y ago
  What about Russia's previous failure in Afghanistan, though? They weren't trying to install a democracy there.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    They were still trying to install a regime against the people's will. And the Soviet army at that time (which judging by ukraine was maybe better than Russia now despite worse tech?) doesn't even come close to the unimaginably grossly powerful weapons & military we have in the US (just using colorful language, my personal belief is on the whole beneficial even though causes plenty of pain and suffering).
jmyeet 5y ago
Most if not all of the examples you mention, the conquering nation pacified the conquered essentially with genocide. Take, for example, Caesar conquering Gaul [1]: > The term "Celtic Holocaust" was popularized by the podcaster Dan Carlin in a 2017 podcast, in which he made the case that the Roman Republic's actions during the Gallic Wars constituted a genocide. Of the 3,000,000 Celts who inhabited ancient Gaul, one million of them were massacred, while another million were enslaved; this signifies that Gaul lost two-thirds of its population in a case of bellum romanum ("war in the style of the Romans", or total war). In fact pretty much any Roman conquest involved a lot of slaughter and enslaving a large portion of th eremaining able population. Another example: the Mongols [2]: > Ancient sources described Genghis Khan's conquests as wholesale destruction on an unprecedented scale in certain geographical regions, causing great demographic changes in Asia. According to the works of the Iranian historian Rashid al-Din (1247–1318), the Mongols killed more than 700,000 people in Merv and more than 1,000,000 in Nishapur. The total population of Persia may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine. [1]: https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Celtic_genocide https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Celtic_genocide [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...

dillondoyle 5y ago

To me it seems the problem with Afghanistan in particular was the definition of winning. Creating a self sustaining Democracy? Hell no crazy that was ever the goal. But completely obliterating terrorists threats, without worrying about damage or creating a self governed country? i think that could have been achieved. Though at pretty big humanitarian consequences. Which it seems like Russia doesn't care much about since the first definition of winning seems to have failed already.

csee 5y ago
What about Russia's previous failure in Afghanistan, though? They weren't trying to install a democracy there.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  They were still trying to install a regime against the people's will. And the Soviet army at that time (which judging by ukraine was maybe better than Russia now despite worse tech?) doesn't even come close to the unimaginably grossly powerful weapons & military we have in the US (just using colorful language, my personal belief is on the whole beneficial even though causes plenty of pain and suffering).

jmyeet 5y ago

Most if not all of the examples you mention, the conquering nation pacified the conquered essentially with genocide. Take, for example, Caesar conquering Gaul [1]: > The term "Celtic Holocaust" was popularized by the podcaster Dan Carlin in a 2017 podcast, in which he made the case that the Roman Republic's actions during the Gallic Wars constituted a genocide. Of the 3,000,000 Celts who inhabited ancient Gaul, one million of them were massacred, while another million were enslaved; this signifies that Gaul lost two-thirds of its population in a case of bellum romanum ("war in the style of the Romans", or total war). In fact pretty much any Roman conquest involved a lot of slaughter and enslaving a large portion of th eremaining able population. Another example: the Mongols [2]: > Ancient sources described Genghis Khan's conquests as wholesale destruction on an unprecedented scale in certain geographical regions, causing great demographic changes in Asia. According to the works of the Iranian historian Rashid al-Din (1247–1318), the Mongols killed more than 700,000 people in Merv and more than 1,000,000 in Nishapur. The total population of Persia may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine. [1]: https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Celtic_genocide https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Celtic_genocide [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...