Why did Russia lose in Afghanistan?

incompetence

>>34536859
Explain

the dushman.

The only way to really win is to go in with the intent to kill absolutely everyone with extreme prejudice.

>>34536883
Isnt that what Russia did?

>>34536831
We didn't lose, we quit.

>>34536897
What do you mean "we," commie?

>>34536895
Not even close

>>34536831

conscript army and Afghanistan is a seriously fucked up place

>>34536895
Obviously not if people were still shooting at them.

The only way to win in the Middle East would be to bomb every single major settlement and then seek out the stragglers and kill them. That, in turn, would turn the rest of the world against you. Every middle eastern conflict is a lose-lose situation.

BTW The Beast is a pretty good war movie about a soviet tank crew in afghan, worth a watch

>>34536831
Same way America lost Vietnam.

You are now aware that Afghanistan was the Democratically funded Vietnam for USSR.

>>34536932
>That, in turn, would turn the rest of the world against you.
Why is that?

Nobody used to give a fuck if you exterminated troublesome natives. When did we suddenly have to care so much about the fate of savage people that hate us?

>>34536881
poorly trained and unmotivated conscripts. Russians would rather get drunk and high than fight. When I was in Kosovo in 2001 we went to the Russian sector.After spending time talking to the Russian commander and observing, my brigade commander looked around and declared "I know why the Russians lost in Afghanistan. They won't come out of their bases at night, and they are lazy and undisciplined" This was also one of the Russians airborne brigades so they were supposed to be hot shit, but all they did was drink and shoot their pot dealers for not fronting them more weed than they could pay for.

>>34536996
Yeah its all fun and games while others get slaughtered but when you get the same faith you wouldnt be happy for it

>>34536831
Literally no one "wins" in A-stan, nothing more than a blood and resource pit.

Gay pirates destroyed their giant robot

>>34536831

Same reason the Ameri-fats lost in Vietnam.

Asymmetrical warfare.

>>34536831
Because they only controlled roads and cities in a country full of rural goat fuckers.
Also, China and US aid coming in at the same time.

>>34536831
Faltering economic and social system on the domestic front.

Several foreign powers funding and training locals, or bringing in their own operators to either fight or train local resistance.

A military built to fight a war across the Fulda now has to fight COIN operations from the ground up, in a military where individual thought is not the program.

Lack of moral for both friendly Afghan and Soviet troops.

Abysmal quality of Afghan forces

Lack of a clear military objective.

Not exterminating hostile populace.

File: pgUQPGex2Us77uwapWBTXmAoAbX.jpg (102KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x750px

>>34536831

>>34537344
>Being more brutal would have helped.

Naw man. Escalation would have helped justify greater intervention. That wasn't a cycle they could afford.

You've got a solid point about their military problems though. Deep battle was still how fights were "supposed" to be, and that is all they trained for, with shit NCOs allowed no real individual initiative.

Good thing they fixed that, huh?

>>34536904

As in "we" russian born peoples, whos countrymen quit Afghanistan years ago the same way you Americans did in Iraq and Vietnam. We are not communists anymore. We have a federal semi-presidential republic, not too different from your corrupted democracy.

пиздa.

>>34537798
>not too diffrent

I mean, except the lack of rule of law, and having a tsar in power atm.

Thank god my family got the fuck out of that frozen shithole of a country.

>>34536992

America lost Vietnam due to the population was against it and the population can vote out politicians.

Russia does not have that issue so not really an accurate comparison. They lost because it was a financial drain that was becoming a liability.

File: haram.jpg (31KB, 600x434px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x434px

>>34536831
Conquering Afghanistan is absolutely haram

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=4MtwVzA8aew&

Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam...
The people didn't like the war, the leaders lost interest in the war, and the reasons for invading where all shit....

>>34538175
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MtwVzA8aew&list=PLi9rv3U505U8QMagGCMeprbft4_NCzASD

Stupid links and shit, my bad

>>34536895
They did hearts and minds communist style - built a health care system, housing, sewers, social welfare, from 1947 USSR was major aid and sponsor. Feeding the failure like other colonial enterprises, maybe someone was trying to hasten the end.

>>34536831
They trusted the Afghans.

Reason why Afghanistan can never be won.

>>34536831
America lost Vietnam because the soldiers were losers, drafted not volenteer.Niggers and such, and were fighting an insurgency and the American left.

Russia also applied WW2 mentality to guerrilla warfare, but because Russia supported NVA with airpower and AA , we repayed the favor in same coin with man portable anti helo missiles.

>>34538706
>America lost Vietnam because the soldiers were losers, drafted not volenteer.Niggers and such, and were fighting an insurgency and the American left.
are you trying to be stupid today?

>>34537053
There is a reason its called the "graveyard of empires"

>>34537053
There is if you go in with zero compunction about killing everyone who stands in your way.

The Russians failed and then the Americans failed.
They both waned a civil populace who followed their world views.

In reality, if you want a bunch of fucking tribal barbarians to do what you do, you have to murder every single motherfucker who steps one inch out of line.
The Soviets wouldn't even do it.

File: 1489604193986.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>thread is about the USSR involvement in Afghanistan
>half of the retards in here talking about the Vietnam war

What the fuck is mentally wrong with this board?

>>34538755
>What the fuck is mentally wrong with this board?
what isn't

File: imani2.jpg (140KB, 634x935px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 634x935px

>>34537839
>and having a tsar in power atm.

So, how come you cunts have been ruled by the same two families for the past 30 years?

Is America a fucking monarchy? Where you have dynasties?

>>34538736
Americans strongly feel the need to defend the war from their perspective, non-Americans tend to take a much different viewpoint. This results in a lot of back-and-forth shitposting.
>>34536831
The Soviets weren't expecting a protracted guerrilla conflict. Their entry into the war was well executed, but as the war went on they began to encounter the same shit we encounter in A-Stan. Also there was a rather wide swathe of countries sending arms across Afghanistan's porous borders to various Mujahideen groups.

>>34538755
Between Americans who think that the only two countries in existence are America and Russia, Western Europeans with a really miserable inferiority complex and a thirst for attention and validation from burgers, and Aussie shitposting paired with a few episodes of chicom attention whoring, /k/ is a really shitty place for any meaningful discussion.

They thought they could brutalize a country full of people who regularly gang rape children into submission.
Britain couldn't control Afghanistan for the same reason.
Similarly, the US thinks it can be nice and fuzzy to these same people and accomplish something.
Toss in some CIA help, conscript armies, and general Russian incompetency, and what can you expect?

>>34539472
Yeah they thought they could force a group of barbarians to follow rule unless they force them to be barbs again.
Yeah, that don't work.

>>34536895

No, they literally did what we (the US, the only country in the entire world that actually matters) did, except with communism and drunk russians.

Little wonder it didn't turn out very well.

>>34536932
You're overthinking it. The real way to beat them is to destroy their infrastructure (Farms), blockade them so they can't trade for food, and have them starve until they submit to you and beg you to lift the blockade. A good ol' fashioned medieval siege is all it would take to break them, something that even NK could do if it ever had a reason to attack Afghanistan.

>>34536932
In case you hadn't noticed, the only countries on the planet that didn't already hate the USSR were irrelevant micronations.

By the time of the Soviet war in Afghanistan they'd even managed to thoroughly piss off China.

>Ask a guy injured by a soviet UXO anything.

>>34536831
>#1
Turned the locals against them. Air-dropping AP mines, bulldozing villages, generally being shit cunts. Turning the locals against them meant the locals supported the Mujahideen instead. Some even converted to fight against the Soviets.

>#2
Couldn't wipe out the enemy in conventional warfare
Mujahideen could always hide in the population, retreat to the mountains, etc. They could not be cornered and wiped out - especially with the relatively small force the Soviets sent (it wasn't the entire Soviet army for example, just a small portion)
When the Soviets did use non-conventional warfare it was somewhat effective but they never really committed enough forces in any one area to truly dominate it. Afghanistan is a very hard nut to crack and control without railways - all supply is reliant on roads and/or helicopters. Once the Mujahideen have RPG-7's and a shit ton of AAA and a few MANPADS, supply becomes a massive waste of time and resources.
Often in order to completely protect a supply column they had to do infantry foot sweeps of the area, then have helis fly support and even then they would leave gaps in their protection. The Mujahideen were quick to learn Soviet routines and the Soviets were loathe to change their routines, so it ended up that most regular convoys were attacked, sometimes with up to 30 or 40 vehicles destroyed and/or looted.

>#3
Many casualties over a long period. Eventually the Soviet civilians got sick of their sons dying, the war became very unpopular and it was also the time of "Speaking more freely" (Glaznost) in Russia, so people weren't afraid to say what they felt.

Pretty much the same reasons the US lost in Vietnam - turned the locals against them, couldn't wipe out the enemy in conventional warfare, too many casualties and lost war support back home.

>Inb4 US didn't lose Vietnam. They did.

OP read "The Other side of the Mountain"

>>34538167
>Russia does not have that issue so not really an accurate comparison.
Glasnost meant a freeing up of peoples speech, so yes this was an accurate comparison.

>>34538706
>America lost Vietnam because the soldiers were losers, drafted not volenteer
That's not the main reason, no. The main reason is they were attempting to fight a conventional war against guerrilla forces in extremely difficult terrain and with locals often supporting the enemy. It doesn't usually work.

>>34538755
It was known as "Russia's Vietnam" for a good reason anon.

>>34539608
How do I get the grill in my art class who thinks I'm hot's number when I don't know how to get in touch with her and class won't meet again for a week?

>>34539845
Wait the week. Ask her in person. It's always worth doing things the right way.

>>34539698
>The main reason is they were attempting to fight a conventional war against guerrilla forces in extremely difficult terrain and with locals often supporting the enemy. It doesn't usually work.
In a conventional war, doesn't locals=enemy and the objective is to destroy their ability to both engage in war and support themselves as a sovereign nation? The problem was that the US never declared war on Vietnam so its infrastructure (farms, factories, tradeports) were off-limits. An army marches on its stomach, and that was one place that neither the Soviets or the US thought to target or think to target to this day for some reason.

>>34539674
Pretty much this.

In any conventional engagement the Americans would wipe out the NVA, and the Soviets would wipe out the Mujaheddin.

But it's very hard to know who was gonna start shooting from a crowd of civilians, and that's what NVA and Mujaheddins took advantage of.

Add to that the Chinese funded by the USSR backing up the NVA
And the Pakis funded by the US backing up the Mujaheddin

It was soviets Vietnam.

Sure they won any engagement, but they never could wipe out the enemy. Soviets went further than US even. They would basically wipe out entire convoys of vehicles if they couldn't get proper ID.

The US forced the North to sign a treaty, and left. But in both the Slav and Burger international image, the wars looked bad. So they decided to pull troops and let them succumb to whatever happens.

Oh as a side note, muh terrorism is mostly to blame on Pakistan. My dad was involved in training the Mujaheddin, and they where purposefully mislead. To make them dependent and coercive.

Majority of the Mujaheddin returned to as much civilian life as possible. But there was a very radicalized part, who genuinely believed in anti western propaganda, and some race war shit. A group was sent to commit a genocide on order of Pakistan, lead by everyone favorite Lad-en.

America did not directly cause Al Qaeda.

They feared the Aryan warrior
>>34536897
Suck my Tajik dick Ruski

>>34537738
>A UH-1D

>>34536831
russians did much bettter in afghanistan, than burgerboys did in vietnam, and since apparently americans "won" vietnam, russia "won" afghanistan

File: 25234534.jpg (19KB, 220x294px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 220x294px

>>34536831
>Why did Russia lose in Afghanistan?
Because Marx was wrong.

>>34540644
Then why does Afghanistan still hate Russia while the Viets are allowing Americans to set up their businesses on their soil?

>>34539522
>>34538625
>>34536932
you know they also used impressement on males in occupied towns and killed pretty much anyone suspected of being mujihadeen with summary executions, were driven out not by mujihadeen but eventually in a popular uprising, and that not too long before the war and the taliban takeover Afghanistan was a fairly liberal and modernized country, right?

>>34540717
> afghanistan still hates russia
I'm sure russia loses so much sleep over that fact and they definitely wouldn't just love to nuke that whole shithole that's been a stain on russia for decades, with their non-stop heroin imports (under US marine protection)

>>34536932
Afghanistan isn't the middle East.

>>34540748
Honestly, I wouldn't mind if that happened. The US probably loses far more money trying to babysit those sandmonkeys than it gets from whatever drugs they produce.

>>34538625
And than Afghan commies took power and decided to take all the land and kill anyone who objected to their "liberation" of means of production. Not the smartest thing to do when everyone is armed.

>>34540776
Because the people who "objected" in Afghanistan, were taliban goat-rapists. It's been how many fucking decades, can you stop with your freedom warrior and democracy bullshit? Those fucking freedom warriors rammed a plane in your trade center, so your government could go war-profiteer on your dime and on the lives of your fellow men. Wake the fuck up, retard.
Some people just need commie supervision, and goat-rapist taliban subhumans are just that type of people, and you just cannot argue that pislamic shitholes are not in dire need of despotic regimes, in order to be even a borderline presentable "country"

>>34540800
America did the exact same type of shit in Africa. Countries like Somalia that used to have dams, schools, and power plants, literally had US-funded warlords imported to shit up the whole region. And Americans always managed to find the biggest fucking monkeys to fund as well.

>>34540800
Not an American.

Afghan commies were shit. They took power from a man who had abolished the monarchy, was developing state judicial system, was building schools and hospitals. A man who was slowly modernizing Afghanistan and who used Afghanistans position to get real development aid from both east and west.

>>34540818
I think US did that in W. Africa. In Somalia it was a fail dictator who got too dictatorial, got removed from power and than they couldn't agree who would take over so everyone took their guns and went home.

>>34540800
>were taliban goat-rapists
Dude the Afghan commies were some of the most hardline in the entire fucking cold war. There were plenty of non goatherd Afghans who had issue with them.
>Those fucking freedom warriors
Those were Arabs, not Afghans. It's still worth it since it meant the USSR would tank.
>>34540748
I see the Vatniks are out tonight.

>>34540670
>implying marx ideas have ever been implemented in the way he intended.

Communism always ends up as dictatorship and/or cult of personality

>>34540775
Its like a 1.5 billion market for the US

File: 44445.png (71KB, 312x623px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 312x623px

>>34540418
Wash my streets ugly persian midget

>>34537053
Well, the Hellenes did, but only really because they just took over from what the Persians already had set up.

>>34537738
> Dedicated to the mujahedeen

>>34541243

Mudslimes BTFO, thanks based Ivan!

>>34538706
>mfw people still think America lost Vietnam

they brought them to the negotiating table, got a signed surrender and then left while the enemy kept fighting

File: Stinger_Afghan_1991_AP9112010179.jpg (47KB, 512x365px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 512x365px

Apparently the spetznas troops coming in by helicopter was extremely effective against the Taliban, so America gave them stinger missiles and that put an end to that tactic.

>>34536831
Because there is nothing to "win" in Afghanistan. Might as well invade a worthless uninhabited island. The only course of action afterwards is to just leave.

File: image.jpg (32KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x400px

Not enuff vodka

Try fighting a war using ill-suited tactics in a dry and dusty place youre unfamiliar with against opponents with mysteriously high tech weaponry coming from unknown sources

File: 908.png (446KB, 749x655px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 749x655px

>>34541443
>with mysteriously high tech weaponry

>>34538745
i never call it that.
there are reminders everywhere in afghanistan that many nations, "empires" have past through over the centuries, but that has more to do with location and the less than appealing nature of the place than some mysterious empire killing ability .

>>34540747
>/K/ knowing any actual history about other nations

these guys always thought Afghanistan was a factory producing terrorist since the beginning of time and in no way was radically changed in the last 100 Years

Soviets would have won eventually I mean sooner or later the entire population would have been deported from the mountains.

>>34541484
They came in there expecting a bunch of bolt action rifles and instead you get this shit, yeah good job proving his point.

Also to be fair it was not just yanks.pakis etc who were dumping support to these goat fuckers it was the PRC Chinks too. Though as a thank you they received Islamist loons in Xinjiang

>>34536992
>>34537098
>>34537798
>>34538167
>>34538175
>>34538706
>>34539674
niceme.me

>>34540747
Maybe Kabul was modernized at that time and some other city perhaps. But the tribes on the countryside lived like they always had with maybe some smaller modern "gadget" reaching them

>>34541413
Stingers weren't as effective as everyone made them out to be. Observers noticed that almost all of the stingers they saw fired missed. They were more of a psychological weapon on the soviets.

You always need to clear an area for an LZ, regardless of whether the enemy has MANPADS. A ZU-24-2 or DShKM could be just as lethal to an Mi-8 coming in to land.

>>34541484
>Both introduced in 1981
>War started in 1979

Yep, its high tech.
Stingers weren't used by the Mujahideen until 1986 though.

>>34536895
I know this is unbelievable, but the Soviets were not completely bloodthirsty monsters out to murder everyone.

Or to put it a different way, the bloodthirsty monsters were in small number and largely contained to the communist party's upper echelons.

And you could say the same for the US. Even the communist part.

File: 1498187017197.gif (357KB, 263x239px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 263x239px

>>34536831
I thought this was /k/ not /pol/ .

>>34536831
No strategic purpose or operational goal besides being there and shooting goat fuckers with helicopter gunships. Same problem the US is having in the same shithole. Anything short of extermination or expulsion and resettlement does not work.

>>34540951
>ITS NOT REAL COMMUNISM GOYS

Fucking kill yourself. 100 million+ deaths are directly attributable to the communist systems and ideas spawned by that vile bastard Marx in Russia and China alone, not counting literally every other country who has tried it.

Go read the gulag archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, and if you still think the way you do about marxism, then you are a hideous monster who i can only hope dies in some horrible razor blade and salt vat accident.

File: 1450789188004.jpg (152KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 500x750px

>>34541413
>so America gave them stinger missiles and that put an end to that tactic.

That's a simplistic and inaccurate view of things.

The Stingers simply forced the ground pounders to fly a bit different, and higher and the attack helicopters were outfitted with heat suppressing exhaust covers and decoys, so the Stingers were a nuisance, but not a major factor like your Wonder Woman and Captain America level of nuance and understanding of the conflict would tell.

>>34537082
Damn those Diamond Ducks!

>>34538790
>he forgot about Obama
>he forgot about Trump
>He forgot about Bill Clinton
>He forgot about Reagan
So let's see, we've had exactly two related presidents in the past 30 years. Remember, the Clintons never got a 2nd person in.
Meanwhile your president won his last election with 300% of the vote somehow. Glad to see democracy is alive and well in Russia.

>>34541484
>you will never be a sleeveless 80s beefcake

File: 1484784679093.jpg (234KB, 1024x1704px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1024x1704px

>>34547183

>Obama

Literally an establishment pawn to ride the wave of Bush hatred.

>Trump

A billionaire oligarch... Sure is a man of the people.

>Clinton

Literally a ruling Dynasty equivalent to American royalty. Their pudgy daughter is already being groomed to take office.

>Reagan
Probably the only anomaly.

America is very much like Russia. Ruled by a handful of wealthy families, Oligarchs and Jews.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (27KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1280x720px

>>34536897

>>34536831

Not enough Rubels.

File: Huey.jpg (465KB, 4800x2700px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 4800x2700px

If Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam.

Then where is the music? What is Russia's equivalent of "IT AIN'T ME"?

I want to understand why the players on the chessboard never returned to the "total war" doctrine. The lesson from Afghanistan, Indochine and the current ME fuckup is clear. Why starting a war when it is far more expensive than the gainz you can expect? Why not simply change the roe, when the strategy applied is not working out?
I recently watched the latest Afghanistan movie (forgot the name), where it is clear from the beginning that the new commander will fail. Looks like modern armies are nothing more than cucks on a leach. Unworthy.

>>34547454
W O K E

File: 1493582232106.gif (584KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 320x180px

>>34548581
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACAvBBMb6BM

>>34539578
Dude, china and the USSR hated each other since the split. There were less and more hatred, but they never were frinedly countries to begin with, they even were at war in the 60's, hell the hind was designed as a assault transport for the border troops, precisely to patrol the humongous frontier between china and the USSR.

>>34540095
The farms, factories and tradeports belong to the people of the country they came to "protect and help", this was not an agression against a enemy country, you were supposed to help the South vietamese goverment not conquer it.

By the way, they tried that too (see strategic hamlet program) and guess what, it backfired.

>>34536831
Big Boss

>>34548821
>I want to understand why the players on the chessboard never returned to the "total war" doctrine

Well, you go total war against a hostile enemy nation who wants to destroy you, that's what happened to japan and germany. You don't care about their infraestructure or the well being of their population, you just want to destroy their industrial capabilites and break their will to fight, one carpet bombing a time.

On the other hand, the interventions in vietnam, afghanistan, etc... were to help a friendly goverment being curbstomped by an hostile force inside their country, carpet bombing villages and destroying infrastructure is not going to solve anything, specially if you punish the very same polpulation you are supposing to support and help.

The problem with these conflicts is, they are political motivated, if some country attacks you, well is quite black and white, you go out and get them before they came and get you, the red line is crossed and is time for a buttfucking. But on the other case the point of going to support some goverment that can't get their shit together using the military is way more blurry, because these are political missions (prop a friend goverment) and the military are constrained and with no clear win scenario and exit strategy, they get bogged down and from there, is just harassment and bleeding until they get tired and return home.

The only way to win is not to play.

>>34548821

The only other option would be straight up imperialism, and the world soured on that pretty hard after WW2. Nation building nonsense made at least some sense in the Cold War as that was two gigantic superpowers fighting over influence in every scrap of land on Earth. Unfortunately, the U.S. slowed down the practice after the Soviet Union fell, but didn't change the underlying doctrine much. That led to clusterfucks in the M.E. and the "foreign policy establishment" still doesn't seem to have a clue.

>>34540776
>>34540747

Americans have no idea. Afghanistan was a Soviet satellite from 1947, with Pakistan trying to make inroads. Not exactly communist but along same lines. Once the war starts theres some hardass shit, but Russians didn't take power, they were sponsors of the 35-year incumbent system, getting invaded by Pakistanis. Very like the British in Africa getting smashed down by communist sponsored uprisings all over the place, and with the same feels.

vietnam went the way it did because westmoreland was a humongous dipshit

File: Afghan Swallow Dust It aint me.jpg (141KB, 1024x747px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1024x747px

>>34547961
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8UccglxstI

>>34548581
There was a shit ton of music written for it - by soldiers and civvies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOAHOhuachk&list=PLYIx7audKFzyTTI2Tr4cRfrCJsLDjPMdZ

File: CIA_PROPAGANDA_MUJAHIDEEN.jpg (134KB, 736x1051px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 736x1051px

>>34536831
>CIA

>>34541388
I call vietnam a pyrrhic victory for the Vietnamese.

America saw 60k deaths I believe. Vietnamese saw 2 million. And that's just Vietnamese.

>t. Non american

>>34551933
America+allies
Total dead: 479,668–807,311
Vietnam+allies
Total dead: 510,114–1,166,114
Yeah

>>34536831
USA funded the brave freedom fighters led by osama bin laden and they simply could not finish a war against an insurgency.

people call it russia's vietnam for a reason, it was a proxy war, america won, and both nations are dealing with the consequences of the cold war today in the middle east

>>34551935
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html

Really acting like a fluffer on a dick with those numbers.

He was right, usa lost sub-59k people. You wanna add in the Vietnamese army and french deaths, don't call it America's war

>>34551951
>Go to war
>Doesn't count ally casualities (meanwhile taking credit for every enemy death)
typical american

>>34551935
https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War

Nva lost 1.1 mil and over 2 mil civies. And I doubt all those civvies were god fearing people who only wanted peace

>>34551957
yeah, clearly that means Antarctica won. They didn't suffer any casualties in Vietnam.

>>34551949
The Chinese also funded the "brave freedom fighters" probably much more than the US (and earlier). the US turned up late, just like in every war.

>>34551963
I learn new Zealand lost 3 dozen people in Vietnam.

It's oddly amusing

File: 6667.jpg (23KB, 317x267px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 317x267px

>>34551960
>We killed 2 million civies
>But they were communists
>USA USA USA

>>34551957
Don't be a cunt. You changed the goal posts. First off, he said the usa lost 60k people
Which is true
He said the Vietnamese lost 2 million.
Mostly true.

You decided to fuck both numbers and make it America and allies (turning a 5 year war into a war being waged since 1954) and have the numbers dropped by not adding in unlisted fighters (oh the poor citizens)

>>34551969
>When in doubt
>Call them an american

Glad to see Europeans are just as ass backwards retarded as the Americans.

>>34536831

More interestingly.

What would have changed if Russia won in Afganistan?(That is, total control over the country in 2 years, all Mujahedin dead and the Afganistan government is stabilized and pretty happy with the results)

>>34551969
You are right, should've let those commies kill 4 million people by themselves.

Sat what you will about communists, they have the right ideology for mass murder

Same reason we lost every war since WW2.

>>34551988
Those digits demand an answer

I'm guessing oil would be much cheaper, russia wouldn't be a cesspool (or it'd be a doubly large cesspool) and the middle east would be peaceful from fear of the bear

>>34551974
>unlisted fighters (oh the poor citizens)
So the soviets + allies lost 32000 and killed 250000 soldiers + 2000000 (oh those poor citizens)
Impressive

>>34536895

I would say, contrary to the others, that yes they did had some overreaction, but only after the first years of achieving very little and the US help making things more difficult.

The thing is, that soviet doctrine is heavily centralized so this time, the people that got angry and started it were higher ups so the extent of their ability to cause damage was far higher, hence the whole fame.

But anyway, it wasn't as hard as you might be imagining, just a bit more than usual.

>>34552002

I would add that, since the middle east was fighting between two political models; theocratic state and soviet satellite, the latter would have won and soviet influence would have extended to the rest of the middle east giving Russia an oxygen balloon to last at the very least 5 years more.

With the fall we would see less muslims around and of course, terrorist organizations but not as effective as they showed to be.

>>34540552
> Aérospatiale Puma

>>34551988
Russian corruption and mafia take over the opium trade. USSR collapses, but Russian mobs still control Afghanistan's drug trade.

>>34547454
yeah, that sound right. nearly every major country these days is democratic in name only. If it's not the oligarchs, it's the "deep state" (spoopy term) and dynastic families, or a multinational organization with unelected legislative bodies. /pol/ tier post, but whatever, sue me.

>>34548886
so everytime there's an afghan/SU thread we should go

>"ГPУППA КPOBИ" intensifies

sound neat

>>34537344
>Abysmal quality of Afghan forces
This seems to be a common theme, the ones with an IQ above 60 and physical abilities to actually fight join the tribal militias while the retards that can't get a job any other way goes into the army.

>>34537019
That's Chechnya not Afghanistan you doofus. Troops in Afghan were relatively well motivated.

>>34538746
Pretty much.

To win in Afghanistan requires you to burn their culture to the ground.

File: massoud.jpg (99KB, 900x614px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 900x614px

>>34536831
For the lolz

File: whowouldwin.jpg (68KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x357px

>>34536831
WE DIDN'T LOSE BECAUSE MUH K/D RATIO

>>34551995
>should've let those commies kill 4 million people by themselves.
That is literally what America should have done, if only they knew that Nam would be full of Mcdonalds in the future either way

>>34544949
War is not k related?

>>34552187
well they were the same airborne guys that fought in Chechnya

>>34540101
>In any conventional engagement the Americans would wipe out the NVA
Meanwhile never once did the US engage in a successful offensive operation during the Vietnam war

>who genuinely believed in anti western propaganda, and some race war shit.
It's called "Islam", gj on your dad training terrorists to kill europeans though.

>America did not directly cause Al Qaeda.
Yes because the long time support of a terrorist country like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan have no consequences.

Americans view supplying terrorist muslims in Afghanistan as a "success"

But imagine how much they would be crying if Russia was sending manpads & HMG's to the Taliban today. And the US was losing choppers every week.

>>34552533
Who are you quoting?

well Rambo came in

>>34554332
The ones on Chechnya's side were also Afghanistan veterans.

f35