Re: Putin's gambit

On May 12, 5:23=A0pm, hol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article
> <b73a757a-6464-41b1-bfef-5a9027901...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
vello=

>
>
>
> <vellok...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On May 11, 6:20=3DA0pm, hol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Eugene Holman)
wrote:
> > > In article
> <deletions>
>
> > Is fighting mountain people with 20th century weaponry much better
> > activity?
>
> It works if:
> 1. they are trapped in territory the borders of which you control;
> 2. they have cities and an infrastructure that you can destroy;
> 3. they have a relatively educated population with a sufficient number
of
> people who would not be dismissed as simple Quislings willing to
negotiate=

> in good faith or collaborate with the stonger power.
>
> The USSR got its butt kicked in Afghanistan, because only condition 3
> applied. Russia has prevailed, for better or worse, in Chechnya because
> all three conditions apply.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman


So, basically, only thing we must regret with Afganistani war is that
russia was not strong enough to "trap afgans into Russian territory"?
Sure, with more strong army it would be possible to turn Afganistan
into SSSR No 16. still I'm glad it not happens.
I don't ask about how to kill small nations down more effectively,
eugene. My guess was about moral aspect - why you think US activities
(brutal maybe, but of no danger to the very existence of Afganistan
and Iraqui nations) are much worse then planned annihilation of
chechen nation?