The protracted Afghanistan war was "recent times", and likely involved technology that we civilians still don't know exists yet. Creating a larger standing militia is just trying to fight toe-to-toe against a superpower with more power, which still won't be enough to win in a quick decision.
If anything, utilization of improved surveillance should be prioritized more by the smaller force, to be more effective.
Like what? After a war everything is bombed, destroyed or polluted. Iraq didnt even have running water. Economy was in ruins. Its not the dark ages any more, microchips are more valuable than gold and even oil needs serious infrastructure.
Every war is extremely expensive - for the amount if money spent in iraq US could have bought every homeless person a penthouse. On the moon.
Shelling nuclear power plants, for example [1].
The expensive part of modern warfare is precision. Abandon one's soul, dial up the yield and razing a nation becomes quick work. Ancient armies wiped out civilizations with less firepower than a CVN. They were simply unconcerned with being brutal.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-la...
If Russia ‘wins’, they still will probably lose (due to protracted guerrila activity draining them economically).
Afghanistan never got won, even with all the wiz bang technology. The US just got tired of paying.
But Putin might win, the way his brain works - how happy he'd be, with more land, even if it's barren and flat and no people
It’s only thing to pull the string on an artillery piece you think is nominally pointed at an enemy, it’s another to round up men, women, and children and machine gun them into a ditch over and over - especially when you’re stated goal is ‘denazification’.