Ukraine Always Get What You Want

Ummm, 18th century U.S.?

 

Russia in 1943?

 

Well, Russia itself did in WWII. The first six months or so was an utter disaster, until they stopped the Germans in front of Moscow.

The British were embarrassed not only in France but the Pacific as well. They lost Singapore and other possessions very early on.

Going back further, the U.S. had several major cities captured or attacked during the Revolution and War of 1812 before rallying.

You can also point to our own experiences in other wars. We had a couple of battles in WWII where we were caught off guard and suffered initial defeats (Kasserine Pass in North Africa, the Bulge) before we stopped the Germans and retook all of the lost ground within a couple of months.
Tet, in Vietnam, was the same way. It went in the books as an American loss because of the reaction and fallout on the home front. But, militarily, we kicked the shit out of the North Vietnamese and it should have been the same kind of backbreaking defeat as the Bulge was for Germany. So I guess you can throw Vietnam in there as well.

 

IMO the most exact comparison (none are really exact) is Argentina invading the Falklands in the '80s. Inhabitants didn't want it, and contrary to Argentina's expectations, Great Britain fought for it. Better equipped and trained forces, which got significant US intelligence support, won despite amazing logistical problems. Also note that the final result was fall of Argentina's military junta.

 

I think these are all fine examples of one side losing, and then rallying back (except for Vietnam ... as you said: We never lost militarily; we just couldn't ever install a working SVN government which could stand on its own).

If you narrow the parameters down - examples of what was considered a first-world military invading a second-rate country and getting its face punched in - the case studies are hard to come by. And not "against an insurgency," but in a stand-up fight.

 

Afghanistan x2.

Soviets and U.S . led forces.

 

Insurgencies - in the conventional phases of both of those conflicts, both the Soviets and the Americans cruised.

There is an endless number of successful insurgencies throughout history. We're talking stand-up fights.

 

I might be too early in the war to label it a conventional stand-up fight. There are elements of insurgency and also proxy war. Certainly, if you narrow the parameters of your category, the Russian lack of success in the invasion of Ukraine to this point will stand alone.

A factor that is common with Ukraine, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. is the larger and supposedly more powerful nation vastly underestimating the resolve of the smaller nation to hold onto its sovereignty.

 

Respectfully disagree.

Ukraine-Russia is symmetric conflict. I mean hell: There has at all times been a well-defined front line between the two sides. That there are partisans operating behind the lines doesn't change that.

Neither South Vietnam nor Afghanistan "held onto their sovereignty."

In both cases: The larger more powerful nation was able to enforce its will and install governments. The question in both cases was, "was the population willing to consent and submit to the authority of that government."

 

Russia is trafficking children.

 

Russia's 'little green men' have been operating in Crimea and Donbas since 2013 or so.

https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/documents/ARIS_LittleGreenMen.pdf

 

There have been partisan and guerilla elements to every war. Even World War I and World War II, two of the most symmetrical conflicts you'll ever see, had famous and long-running behind-the-lines operations in supposedly conquered or safe territory.
Ukraine has been a very conventional war — which, to be honest, is almost a relief. After 20 years of difficult asymmetrical warfare and insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, I thought we might have passed the time when we would see this kind of conflict again. IIRC, there was discussion in our military at one point about the need for things like next-generation tanks and fighter jets because it was believed the wars of the future would make those systems irrelevant.