What follows is basically a musing on the question - does it answer it? Actually, no, probably not. I set out to say that relationships can't really be sustained at long-distance, but ended up raising more questions than I answered I think. All I will say is: kudos to those who manage it. It takes a type of effort that people in 'short-distance' relationships simply don't encounter.
*
People will call me a cynic.
They'll lament my blackened soul.
They'll say 'Pah! Heartless fool! What does he know of love? He is but 24. Whelp. Pup!'
Well. They might say that if they were born in Shakespearean times, that is.
In essence...
No, long-distance relationships do not work. Or if they do work, it's because they soon become 'short-distance' relationships. Of course, this is hardly an absolute - in the face of adversity and all that, many people will buck the trend, go against the curve, etc. etc. But on the whole? Well... then I'd say no.
What quantifiable proof do I have? Other than anecdotal evidence, none. At all.
In fact, I'd say there's probably more evidence on the side of long-distance relationships at the moment. Only in 2005 a report was published by the Centre for the Study of Long Distance Relationships stating that three and a half million people in the US alone were involved in long-distance marriages, and that's pretty impressive. And yet... there isn't a study that shows how many long-distance relationships haven't worked out. Or even, how many potential relationships weren't embarked on due to the difficulties of distance. More than three and a half million? Who knows?
I'd like to split the people in long-distance relationships into two groups, if I may:
The two types of long-distance...
1. The More Hopeful - some of the others who have written already on the subject (on the side of optimism) have approached the topic from this angle. Our first distinction here is: 'those who have met their partner online, and have initiated and developed their relationship from a distance to begin with'. In these instances, I would say that the chances of success are far greater. Where a couple meet online and begin a relationship at a distance, they work towards the inevitable meet, the 'coming together' (I'm beginning to realise this is sounding like a nature documentary). I'd say that by beginning a relationship at a distance, the context is already there - the relationship starts long-distance, and so all expectations, hopes, dreams et al, are born with that understanding in mind. A framework is established for the relationship.
Are there problems with this too? Yeah, probably. Does long-distance stop a relationship from evolving beyond a certain point? Again, I'd say yes. Doesn't there come a point where certain 'accepted' relationship milestones come into play, throwing things off course in a manner alien to a 'near-distance' coupling? I can't help feeling that long-distance keeps a relationship in the realm of dating, offering little chance for much serious progression.
If you lead two fairly separate lives, can you call yourselves 'together'? Is living together an integral part of a relationship? Can you start a family a thousand miles apart?
Can I offer any answers to those questions?! Hell no. Common sense tells me these are issues that would arise. They do, in some form or other, in any serious relationship, long-distance or otherwise. Personally, I'd say that living together is a big thing - sharing your space like that is a type of involvement that's personal in a whole different way, adding an (I would say) unmatched quality to the experience of love.
As for family...? Does the life of the long-distance relationship end here? Is this where it has to become a short-distance one? Until it happens, it isn't known.
2. The More Deadly - for those already in a relationship - that, for whatever reason, becomes long-distance - I'd say that the chances of survival are considerably less. I want to go back briefly to that fairly analytical, impersonal 'framework' of a relationship. If we say that a relationship begins as normal - there's that fairly frenzied mutual excitement period which naturally develops into a well-balanced and stable rhythm. In a serious relationship, plans for the future (maybe unspoken, often spoken) are made - they include marriage, children, an annex for your granny or whatever. Well, long-distance alters that rhythm - it may even stop it altogether.
Any number of scenarios could and would arise. For my first (and only, actually, given the space available) anecdote, I'd like to introduce scenario 1, with main characters A and B:
- Scenario 1: One of the two in a loving couple is forced to move a hundred miles for their job - the two are now separate from each other, for the first time in years, the mass majority of the time. When they talk, there's a pressure to be happy - they want to be together, they're looking forward to it - but long-distance is hard, and they both know it. When they meet, there's such a pressure to have a good time in the little time they have that the stress is... grim. They snap at each other more often. It's difficult deciding what to do, or where to go. They're away from each other so much that it doesn't really seem like they're even together. Eventually...
Okay, so scenario 1 actually turned out to be a little depressing. It was a true story though; and, I hope, at least some of you reading kind of recognise it a bit.
There's one more thing - I've been dealing with serious relationships alone. If we forget that for a minute - then long-distance really is great. It's perfectly possible for a less 'all-in' relationship to flourish at a distance. In fact, in that instance, casual might even be the better of the options.
Conclusion: Have I actually really answered anything?
Erm, no. Sorry about that.
A Message from a Heartless Cynic 
