There are lots of examples where revolutionary powers havent won (of course it depends on the perspective of time your using, ex 50 years or 500 years)
Finland for example became independent after 600 years of Swedish rule and like a 100 year (or some what less) Russian rule, thats 700 years to become independent, so in a time series of 200 year they where unsuccessful, if we look for staggering 1000 years they where successful, get my drift?
Tibet for example is certainly not “free” they are under a occupation that seems to last, Then we have south Sahara that is under occupation by Marocko, that is still going strong even thought Polisario is doing there best to disrupt it.
Scotland and Wales are still not free, even though Scotland might be heading that way (and really wants it).
So the reason i think it´s retarded is that there is a lot of examples of when this isn´t correct, its a to simplified view of conflicts in the world.
And it all boils down to what historic perspective we take, and how we define a “nation/country”.