I edited my comment before you posted your reply. Who knew you would be so quick to answer. And then you haven't noticed the changes right away. I didn't change anything substantively, only expanded and corrected.
I read your comment history. You are not a Chechen who lives in Chechnya, which was pretty obvious considering your grammar. You are a 19 year old American. You pose as one for rhetorical reasons. You are actually not very enthusiastic about your 'beautiful' Chechen social norms, and rightly so: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8zye48/anyone_that_was_raised_in_a_cult_or_an_extreme/e2ne2e4/
Why the pretense?
you clearly do not understand the concept of guerilla warfare
And you clearly have no idea how air superiority, multispectral imaging, modern synthetic-aperture radars, electronic surveillance affect 'guerilla warfare' today and will in the near future. Technological advances rapidly make 'Guerilla warfare' a non-viable strategy. Especially so when a state is not 'politically correct' or humane, and there is a political will to do what is needed.
Afghanistan can hold off America a nation 10x more powerful
Americans are 100x more constrained in doing things like moving the population out of all the small villages, disarming and confining them into camps where they will have total control over them like the Chinese have in Xinjiang, or in parts of Israeli controlled Palestine. And that would limit 'Guerilla warfare' to throwing stones at armored towers.
Afghanistan has 40x larger area, and terrain is as mountainous. Also it's not Afghans the US is fighting with in Afghanistan, but the nuclear state of Pakistan, and Pakistani Taliban which has deep ties to the ISI. Afghanistan and Pakistan have a very long common mountainous border(2,430 km). Chechen border with Georgia is like 70 miles, a little more if we add Dagestan, while Georgia is not an Islamist terrorist heaven like Pakistan is.
Loses in Afghanistan are not an existential threat to the US, while Russia is a multi-ethnic empire which cannot allow separatist successes if it wants to keep its many autonomous regions. The US can afford not controlling the whole of Afghanistan -- if the official government is not imploding it's not critical.
will be noticed.
And what will happen next? They'll impose sanctions? It all depends on who is in power and how isolated Russia is at that time. It's hard to predict what will happen in 10-20 years, but Putin is becoming increasingly unpopular in Russia. It's much more likely we'll see a hard-line communist or an ultra-nationalist, than a liberal like Navalny as the next 'tsar'. If the country is isolated and authoritarian, then sanctions won't do much, and the nuclear arsenal will guarantee no one will interfere.
Russia may not be Canada in how its military behaves but they arent fucking ISIS, full scale genocide of Chechnya will not happen.
Again, your argument wholly relies on the supposed benevolence and civilized mores of Russians, their fear of international reactions.
I generally agree that outright genocide is unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. Expulsion or ethnoicide are much more likely. If not expulsion then genocide like behavior, indiscriminate bombings with massive collateral damage, usage of chemical agents with denials like in Syria, disappearances and torture are all very much on the table.
genocide happened almost 200 years ago.
So what? You believe in relentlessness of progress? That Russia can't regress? If Chechens blow up couple more schools I'm not sure it won't happen.
Rohingya expulsion happened in 2016, and international reactions primarily consist of strongly worded letters of condemnation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Chechens_and_Ingush "Deaths 123,000–200,000 Chechens and Ingush, or between 1/4 and 1/3 of their total population" -- happened in living memory btw
Well, Russia in the early-mid 2000s was much stronger economically, politically, etc but yet they still couldnt suppress the insurgency until Kadyrov came in.
So several hundred dudes hiding in forests in the mountains is an indication of something? Which populations centers did they control in mid 2000s? Which Kadyrov btw?
If you are talking about Kadyrov the father, yes, they attacked theaters and schools outside of Chechnya, but Putin definitely showed that he won't budge like his predecessor. Defections to the Russian side didn't happen just because, they happened because it was obvious that the cause was hopeless.
Suppressing insurgency completely is an unrealistic goal if you are basically fighting with the population. Kadyrov the son's policy is being as conservative as needed to undermine the political/religious platform of the insurgency, I believe with Putin's blessing. That's why we don't hear much about the insurgency in Chechnya anymore. Without the support of Kadyrov or other strong Chechen leader, there would definitely be some insurgency still, but it's not a given that that simmering insurgency would have worn anyone down. Especially considering there haven't been any major free media sources in Russia since Putin came to power. They just classify their losses.
Russia has a shit economy
Russian economy is shitty indeed, but shitty is a relative term. We are interested in the relevant metrics like defense spending. In terms of purchasing power Russian defense spending is actually half of the US spending per capita, and who knows how much of the Russian budget is actually hidden defense spending. Half of the US per capita is a lot.
Chechens have always done most of the dying.
And they will. Could become extinct if they don't drop their proud tribal bullshit.