Quote (bogie160 @ Feb 28 2022 10:22pm)
When a government is solidly in place, and has a security state that is operational, it's relatively easy to maintain control of a country in the face of civil discontent, at least as long as you're willing to crack down effectively on opposition.
It's much harder to maintain control over a hostile, occupied state, especially when you aren't willing to employ the sort of brutal tactics that have been proven to engineer compliance. Occupying a nation of ~30+ million people is not easy, as the United States learned in Iraq. Putin's armed forces are not nearly as competent as those of the United States, nor does he have nearly the wealth or resources. The only hope for Russia was that Ukrainian resistance would quickly crumble and the facade of Ukrainian nationalism would dissipate. It's looking increasingly unlikely that that's the case.
The US is an interesting case. A lot of claims on how bad the US loses conflicts but the US is actually pretty brutal on opposition during a conflict. The issue is the US is also dumb enough to help countries they fight against rebuild.
If they would just focus on smaller goals like Russia “says” they are gonna do(we’ll see)(ie kill the ruler and leave.) instead of trying to force ideologies on countries they fight over half of those “losses” would have been “wins”. Fighting a religious belief or government ideology is a lose/lose situation. Why stay in Afghanistan after Bin Laden was killed? Another asshole will just replace him. Why stay in Iraq after Husein? Another asshole will replace him.
They waste so much money trying to accomplish unrealistic goals instead of just setting small ones so they can say..
“See how we killed him? Hope you pick a better leader next time or we’ll be back to take him out too. Keep your beliefs. Keep your government. Just put someone that’s at least civil in charge.”
This post was edited by MadMan87 on Feb 28 2022 10:41pm