When a large powerful country invades a small country willing to fight to the end

[tetedur]

does that large country ultimately win?

Just thinking about the American Revolution, Afghanistan and Vietnam and though the situations are not exactly the same, I would say no, not in the long run.

Can anyone think of a situation when it did?

[JohnSJ]

1. I think of the Warsaw ghetto against the nazis when I see what the Ukrainians are up against

[milestogo]

2. Size isn't everything.

There is no level to which Putin would not stoop.

A teenager with an assault rifle can kill a dozen or more in a few minutes.

A small country with nuclear weapons can destroy the world.

[tetedur]

5. I'm talking about a willingness and ability to fight

against an invader no matter how strong they are. The ability to wear down the invader. To make the cost very expensive.

If the invader wins the psychological war right off the bat, people make up excuses to not fight. Putler's lies that undermine Ukrainian spirits will undermine his own people too. He maybe feeding that which he feared the most, an uprising of the Russian people and they may start to demand honest government.

[uponit7771]

9. yep

[Happy Hoosier]

3. Somewhat depends.

Sure… a large country can invade and dominate a smaller country and win. We did in Grenada and Panama. Those countries were small enough that we could dominate them. I’d argue Iraq was mostly successful, but with plenty of bumps.

In this case, Putin vastly overestimated his own military’s competence and underestimated the determination of the Ukrainians to resist. Still…. Early days. Russia likely has enough power and ruthlessness to achieve a military victory, though I doubt their ability to occupy the country over the long term.

[treestar]

4. Trying to take countries against their collective will

does seem impossible.

Hitler and Napoleon were ultimately defeated.

It won't hold if done by force. There's not enough force in the world.

Other conquerors at least brought some good to the situation. The Incas would court first, tell the to be conquered tribe that they would educate, would provide food, etc., then only attack if the answer was still no.

North America was large and sparsely populated and had no pre-existing civilization, so the British started with trade, giving some benefit with that, and were able to move people in gradually.

British trying to take over Ireland never really worked, as there was always some opposition - there must have been periods of relative calm where the British were able to settle in to an extent, but the British never provided enough benefit to the indigenous people there to gain consent.

In the 21st idea, Putin trying to get and keep another country by force is insane.

[samnsara]

6. my gawd how can we help them? I can offer a small room

..for a woman and child who flee. Not much, but I think we are going to see the Cuba refugee situation again. I remember chatting with a young Cuban refugee who had come to my small home town in central Washington state...all the way from Cuba! Refuge will be needed everywhere.


And from what I see on tv most of them speak English.

[samnsara]

7. Who was it in Peaky Blinders who said: "Big Fucks small. Big ALWAYS fucks small."

...i tried to google the character with that line but i got a bunch of porn..maybe he was Alfie?




so the answer to your question is Yes

[MineralMan]

8. Well, the Russians didn't do so well in Afghanistan.

Neither did we. It's relatively easy to attack and severely damage a smaller nation. It's far more difficult to hold it and occupy it. Many nations have learned that lesson at great economic and human cost.