Times have changed since then but the first Chechen war heavily works against the theory of your second paragraph. Instrumental was their seizure of anti-tank and heavy weaponry during ambushes of Russian forces entering into Grozny and other chokepoints. Eventually they used these weapons to capture even more heavy weapons and then won a few years of outright independence.

▲

pydry 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It didn't exactly matter in the end. Russia eventually encircled them with artillery and pounded them until they gave up and brokered a deal. Their fighting skills and spirit have since been added as an asset on the Russian military's balance sheet.

▲

pasquinelli 3 hours ago | parent [-]

it doesn't really matter in the end because the human species will one day be extinct.

would the chechens be in their position now had they never fought? impossible to say, counter-factual conditionals are all unconditionally true. though i'm not sure why you'd assume so...

▲

pydry 2 hours ago | parent [-]

In exchange for two brutal wars they got 9 years of de facto independence. That's not even very long.

You dont need counterfactuals to ask if it was worth it or compare 9 years to the age of the universe.

Armed revolutions are often lionized and glorified because they form part of most countries' national mythos - the binding agent holding together most national identities.

But, the ugly truth is that most of them are just a tragic waste of human life. Chechnya was very much that.

	▲	pasquinelli an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> You dont need counterfactuals to ask if it was worth it or compare 9 years to the age of the universe. yes you do. to say something was bad to do is to say it would've been better to have not, and that is a counterfactual.

▲

Forgeties79 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Right but seizing military equipment and building your own are very different things.