Please, take a look at a brief paper:-)

Any mistakes detected?:-)

Never has the land of Afghanistan been easy to be defeated, conquered or at least kept under control, which can be backed up with a couple of examples including Indians, Alexander the Great or The Soviet Union’s relatively recent attempts to drive the Mujahedins out of the country in the Afghan war of 1979 – 1989. The most recent example has been provided by the U.S. and NATO, which have been present in this country for 13 years. If I were asked to place the intervention of the two above mentioned entities on a 1-to-5 scale ( where 1 means hopeless and 5 extremely successful ), I would place it somewhere between two and three with a slight tilt towards two.
The first accusation that I can come up with regards the lack of legal grounds for the launch of the 2001 military campaign since it was not authorized by the UN Security Council and thus could have been declared as an offensive war. However, though a flagrant violation of the international law occurred, the coalition was never held responsible for the breach as it insisted that the campaign be considered a war on terrorism rather than a blatant invasion on another country because it was not the country to be targeted, it was Talibans. Experts’ opinions are widely divergent in this respect – there is strong evidence suggesting that either of the explanations can be put into force. Nevertheless, be it as it may, the lack of the UN Security Council’s explicit consent to the military operation has undermined the seriousness of the UN Charter and therefore led to other countries, such as Russia in the case of Crimea, being totally disrespectful to the international law.

ok

Thanks!

Never has the land of Afghanistan been easy to be defeated, conquered or at least kept under control, which can be 'backed up' (cos to mi nie siedzi, wg mnie lepiej 'supported/underpinned') with 'a couple of' (couple to wg mnie 2 - a tutaj podajesz 3) examples including Indians, Alexander the Great or The Soviet Union’s relatively recent attempts to drive the Mujahedins out of the country in the Afghan war of 1979 – 1989.
(to zdanie jest za dlugie - i nie daje tego impaktu o ktoru sie starasz)
The most recent example (ale czego?) has been 'provided' (daj inne slowo) by 'the' (niepotr) U.S. and NATO, which have been present in this country for (tutaj mozna dodac ..the last) 13 years. If I were asked to place the intervention of the two above mentioned entities on a '1-to-5 scale' (zle, tutaj ..on a scale of 1-5) ( where 1 means hopeless and 5 extremely successful ), I would place it somewhere between two and three with a slight tilt towards two.
The first accusation that I can 'come up with' (kolokw - daj cos innego) regards the lack of legal grounds for the launch of the 2001 military campaign (wg mnie tutaj brakuje pare slow) since it was not authorized by the UN Security Council and thus could have been declared as an offensive war.
However, though a flagrant violation of the international law occurred, the coalition was never held responsible for the breach (ale czego?) as it insisted that the campaign be considered a war on terrorism rather than a blatant invasion on another country because it was not the country to be targeted, it was (brak przedimka) Talibans. Experts’ opinions are widely divergent in this respect – there is strong evidence suggesting that either of the explanations 'can be put into force' (opinions cannot be put into force - ujmij to inaczej) Nevertheless, be it as it may, the lack of the UN Security Council’s explicit consent to the military operation has undermined the seriousness of the UN Charter and therefore led to other countries, such as Russia (tutaj ja dodalabym AS) in the case of Crimea, being totally disrespectful 'to' (tutaj mnie lepiej pasuje OF) 'the' (niepotr) international law.