Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Soloist]

But how many wars can you list between more closely matched modern foes in which the aggressor nation won some sort of long-lasting victory? At least in the past 150 years of modern military history?

I'm simply pointing out that in the era of nation states and modern warfare, the aggressor nation rarely wins. And, in fact, it usually turns out badly. I gave a long list of examples from the Confederacy to Afghanistan.

I responded to your list.

If you think that is not the case, then you must certainly have some notable counter-examples. Do you?

I’m working this week and I really don’t have time to compile it. Besides, your parameters are too narrow.

Now one might argue that more powerful states tend not to go to war to achieve their objectives because they have other economic means at their disposal to extort weaker nations into doing their bidding. And that might well be the case. Nations tend not to be altruistic. They are self-interested.

Why waste military might on lengthy occupation to actually win if you can do it otherwise?

But I'm talking about war here. What are the modern examples in which it turned out well for an aggressor nation bent on territorial conquest?

Any example I give you would end up having you argue it doesn’t fit. Most of the western world has taken over smaller countries by either economics or military actions but don’t fit your parameters.
How about you list off wars of aggression where your parameters are actually met?

Parity in tech and military might
Within last 150 years
For territory conquest
Can you name a single war started fitting those terms?

No military leader is going to engage in war under those conditions. This is why hitler invaded little countries and came close to losing despite that early on. This is why the US, UK, French and so on never attack a nation that has parity. We pick on little guys and call it a conflict, peace keeping mission, or make a number of excuses.

[Josh]

The USSR invaded Poland, the Baltics, and other countries and then forced those countries to live under the jackboot of Communism for 75 years. I’d say the USSR’s wars of aggression worked pretty well for them.

[Ken]

The USSR invaded Poland, the Baltics, and other countries and then forced those countries to live under the jackboot of Communism for 75 years. I’d say the USSR’s wars of aggression worked pretty well for them.

Well, technically they invaded German-occupied Poland and the Baltics after Germany had declared war on the USSR. When the USSR finally went on the offensive after the tide of the war turned with the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk they were looking at a map of eastern and central Europe that was entirely under German occupation. Defeating Germany meant invading all of those countries in their march towards Berlin.

In fact, when the Soviets invaded Poland in 1944 they were accompanied by Polish allies including the 200,000 person strong First Polish Army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Pol ... 80%931945)

But yes, the USSR did do a lot of bad things in Europe. You will get no argument from me on that point. Unfortunately Russia seems to be bent on repeating them. We should have no illusions about their intentions.

The Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary might be closer to the point. But those weren't really wars of conquest either. The USSR didn't annex either territory. They simply installed friendly governments just like the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia's plan for Ukraine was actually to erase the nation and annex it into Russia. Something different.

[RZehr]

Russia doesn’t still possess some of Finland?

[Ken]

Russia doesn’t still possess some of Finland?

Yes it does. The USSR occupied and annexed these parts of Finland during WW2 and they are now part of Russia.



The Soviets expelled every last ethnic Finn from these territories and resettled them with immigrants from Ukraine and Belarus. So no one who lives there now is Finnish. Although there are perhaps some who might prefer to be part of Finland for economic reasons as it is a much wealthier country and part of the EU.

[Josh]

#1, I’m acquainted with an ethnic Finn who is a Russian citizen these days. A lot of ethnic Finns ended up on the Russian side of things (and learned Russian and basically assimilated).

#2, Russia also annexed Kaliningrad and never gave it back to… the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth? Austria-Hungary?

In any case, the USSR’s wars of territorial conquest seemed to be quite productive for them - especially if one looks at them sponsoring conflicts like Vietnam and North Korea, the latter a reliable ally to this day.

[Szdfan]

The USSR invaded Poland, the Baltics, and other countries and then forced those countries to live under the jackboot of Communism for 75 years. I’d say the USSR’s wars of aggression worked pretty well for them.

Well, technically they invaded German-occupied Poland and the Baltics after Germany had declared war on the USSR. When the USSR finally went on the offensive after the tide of the war turned with the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk they were looking at a map of eastern and central Europe that was entirely under German occupation. Defeating Germany meant invading all of those countries in their march towards Berlin.

In fact, when the Soviets invaded Poland in 1944 they were accompanied by Polish allies including the 200,000 person strong First Polish Army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Pol ... 80%931945)

But yes, the USSR did do a lot of bad things in Europe. You will get no argument from me on that point. Unfortunately Russia seems to be bent on repeating them. We should have no illusions about their intentions.

The Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary might be closer to the point. But those weren't really wars of conquest either. The USSR didn't annex either territory. They simply installed friendly governments just like the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia's plan for Ukraine was actually to erase the nation and annex it into Russia. Something different.

Both Josh and Ken are sorta right. The USSR invaded and annexed the Baltics and part of Poland in 1940 under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. However, during Operation Barbarossa in 1941, the Germans captured the Baltics. The Soviet Union then recaptured the Baltics in 1944 during their counteroffensive.

What surprised me is that there apparently was never formal recognition that the Baltics were part of the USSR. The Western powers had simply decided they didn’t care whether the USSR occupied the Baltics and decided that the Atlantic Charter (self-determination of European countries) didn’t apply to them.

However, I’m not sure where Josh gets his 75 years number from. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had their independence re-established in 1990 and 1991, which is 46 and 47 years.

Also, considering that the USSR doesn’t exist anymore, I’m not sure it worked out that great for them.

[Josh]

Sorry, I dated the 75 years for the total duration of the USSR. I think any reasonable person would agree Russia is the USSR successor state (Ukraine’s claims not withstanding).

[Ken]

In any case, the USSR’s wars of territorial conquest seemed to be quite productive for them - especially if one looks at them sponsoring conflicts like Vietnam and North Korea, the latter a reliable ally to this day.

It is simply colonialism no different from the British conquering India and Egypt or the French conquering Vietnam or Algeria.

As for how well it has done for them? Let's compare to some countries that have mostly* given up their colonies and territorial ambitions

United Kingdom: Population 67 million and GDP of 3.1 trillion
France: Population 68 million and GDP of 3 trillion
Germany: Population 83 million and GDP of 4.3 trillion
US: Population of 330 million and GDP of 23.3 trillion

and then there's...

Russia: Population of 143 million and GDP of 1.6 trillion

Russia has basically turned itself into a more corrupt version of Mexico with much worse food and beaches.

Mexico: Population 127 million and GDP of 1.3 trillion

Perhaps military conquest isn't the best way to grow a society and economy after all.

*The US gave up the Philippines but still holds Puerto Rico and some Pacific territories.

[Ken]

What surprised me is that there apparently was never formal recognition that the Baltics were part of the USSR. The Western powers had simply decided they didn’t care whether the USSR occupied the Baltics and decided that the Atlantic Charter (self-determination of European countries) didn’t apply to them.

However, I’m not sure where Josh gets his 75 years number from. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had their independence re-established in 1990 and 1991, which is 46 and 47 years.

The Baltics actually reclaimed their independence in 1991, not with arms, but through the "Singing Revolution" in which millions of people linked arms all across all three countries from capital to capital and sang: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution Quite inspirational actually and very much in line with non-violent principles