Thomas de Aynesworth
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
The USSR never really "lost" the Afghan war, you guys know that, right?
The USSR-Afghan War: random claims
- Thread starter Thomas de Aynesworth
- Start date
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Thomas de Aynesworth
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
They were not pushed out. They pulled out in an extremely orderly manner.
The only reason the USSR "lost" the war in Afghanistan, as you put it, was because Gorbachev ordered it. Nothing to do with tactical losses on the ground, which were minimal.
The only reason the USSR "lost" the war in Afghanistan, as you put it, was because Gorbachev ordered it. Nothing to do with tactical losses on the ground, which were minimal.
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
Yeah, it's not like the state was bankrupt, which was Nalano's point.
The withdrawal was also first proposed by Andropov, not Gorbachev, and negotiations go back even further. It was just "because Gorbachev ordered it", it was clearly inevitable, because they lost.
For someone who cites a lot of Russian history you seem to have a tenuous grasp of it.
Thomas de Aynesworth
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Nalano didn't mention anything about the USSR being "bankrupt", which was entirely political and had nothing to do with the military occupation of Afghanistan.
He said they "prevailed", certainly, the Taliban prevailed in their objectives to overthrow the Marxist Afghan regime in 1993. Doesn't mean they defeated the USSR in a tactical or military sense.
It was all political manoeuvring by factions within the RSFSR that wanted to see the end of the USSR. The Afghans were barely on the peripherals.
Again, we're steering away from the topic at hand here.
He said they "prevailed", certainly, the Taliban prevailed in their objectives to overthrow the Marxist Afghan regime in 1993. Doesn't mean they defeated the USSR in a tactical or military sense.
It was all political manoeuvring by factions within the RSFSR that wanted to see the end of the USSR. The Afghans were barely on the peripherals.
Again, we're steering away from the topic at hand here.
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
"Entirely" political? Right, it had nothing to do with the sinking oil/gas prices, the irrational placement and outdated model of their heavy industries, the wide spread of the virtual economy cutting short government income, and the enormous, burgeoning pressure of the overly large military-industrial complex? I think you missed his point:
The simile is easily drawn. The USSR and BoS both would be able to overpower their opponent in any battle they engage in. Losses would always be higher on the opponent's side than on that of the USSR/BoS. But the USSR lost because they were not economically capable of sustaining the war (and lost political will to do so, but both are related to the capacity of "keeping at it", the US is similarly losing wars because their political capital for warfare is small. The NCR is facing similar problems in Fallout), and equally the BoS would win battles but lose out eventually because they do not have any capacity to replace either material or personnel lost in battles.Nalano said:
Given that, unless you could argue the BoS losses are minimal to an incredible degree compared to the Legion's, the Legion would win eventually.
Thomas de Aynesworth
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
The BoS could not and would not enact a policy similar to Perestroika, which is the leading cause for the economic ails of the USSR. Perestroika, I might add, had nothing to do with the military actions in Afghanistan, either.Brother None said:
The USSR could sustain a war in Afghanistan indefinitely, if not for political instability.
Faceless Stranger
Board Drifter
Advancement towards future victories!Nalano said:
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
This is just a bizarre claim. Are you familiar with Gaddy and Ickis' virtual economy theory? The basic theorems of irrational economic structure in the US? The proven sustainability of the long 70s being attributable primarily to the energy bubble (oil and gas rents actually peaking in 1980 at well over 400 billion USD (2009 dollars) and dropping off from 1985 onwards)? Here, hang on, I'll show you a neat trick.
Oil and gas rents in the USSR/Russia:
Oil price in dollars per barrel
See a pattern there?
If you're curious about Russian economic theorem in general (at least, pre-2000s transitional studies), I can recommend Nicolas Spulber's Russia's Economic Transitions. It was my course book during my bachelor course in Russian Economic Studies. Amongst other things, you might find out simple factoids such as the commercial debt to the West jumping from 0.4 on 1971 to 19.5 in 1985, and the government backed debt from 1.4 to 9.5 in the same period (in billions of US dollars). Meanwhile, the budget balance on receipts and outlays was trending to the negative from 1960 onwards. Also note that national defense as a part of budgetary outlays was an unsustainable 12.7 and 11.5% in 1960 and 1970. This is all way, way before Perestrioka. Also, remember Boris Gostev, Soviet minister of finance, who clearly stated in 1988 that the Soviet Union government expenditures had been a deficit budgets for years, and Igor Bergman had already proved back in his 1981 study that the Soviet budget was a deficit budget. Everything about this is unsustainable, and a large part of unsustainability is attributable to how much of the government budget was allocated to a) national economy financing due to irrational placement and outdated tech in industry, b) space programs and similar prestige projects and c) military-industrial complex.
Perestroika wasn't just a political ploy, like the New Economic Policy before it, it was a highly pragmatic attempt for a last-ditch resuscitation of a fundamentally broken economy. It is a popular view that it was somehow responsible for the breaking up of the Soviet Union, but like most popular views that does not hold up under academic scrutiny, and it is very obvious - in hindsight - that the USSR did not have a sustainable national-economic model, nevermind its political model.
Again, I can't help but note that you make a lot of claims on Russian history but do not seem to be particularly well-studied on the subject.
Regardless, as pertains this discussion, you're again ignoring the point. The simile is not in the BoS enacting a similar economic policy. Economic policy was the cause for the USSR's incapacity to continue the war. In the BoS, a similar lack of capacity exists, but it stems from their incapability (as far as I know) of producing new tech at sufficient levels themselves, and of replacing men they lose in the field of battle.
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
Pertinently false by definition. No state can sustain a war indefinitely.
Youre right. And in WW2 the Germans didnt advanced backwards in 1943 they just shortened the frontline till the Russiand reached Berlin.Thomas de Aynesworth said:
Comon. Its obvious to everyone with half a brain that the USSR pretty much loost in the Afghan champaign just as the US did in Vietnam. Just cause there never has been a traditional "defeat" doesnt mean they have not been fighting a loost battle. Just as Vietnam the war in Afghanistan started to become very unpopular ~ and that for a reason mind you. Now what ever the real reason for the withdrawl was but considering the reason why Russian forces entered Afghanistan a pull-out can be indeed seen as a defeat of the Soviet Army there.
Funny. I ask my self then why the USSR cloapsed then.Thomas de Aynesworth said:
Again the Soviet comand and political leadership never achieved their goals in the Afghan conflict and choose at some point to pull-out. If that doesnt qualify as defeat then what else does ? I say it again. You dont need a mass sloughter, occupation or facing a situation like Germany in 1945 to talk about a "defeat". Its already enough if you cant achieve your goals.Thomas de Aynesworth said:
The point is that technology alone will not grant you a victory. Which was proven by many battles in history.Thomas de Aynesworth said:
Even before the apearance of Stinger missiles the Afghan forces or Mujaheedin how they call them self eventually found ways how to deal with the very advanced Mi attack helicopters, given the right circumstances. Risky and not the best way of dealing with it but they managed to finflict some looses and hit the Soviet army while they believed to be invincible. One tactic was to attack the machines from above with RPGs or even trying it from the ground. This tactic was very dangerous and did not often lead to a succesfull hits. But point is they eventually found ways how to deal with it. Interesting is the Situation in which the Soviet forces have found them self controling the Cities and roads (the few which could be used ...) while the bigest part of the nation was a dead zone for them which they had no control.
At no point did the Soviet army managed to achieve any of its goals. And as soon they left the area the gouvernemt of Afghanistan colapsed.
With the Legion and BoS Tagaziel repeated him self already a few times with examples that are very easy to understand. particularly as the BoS has already loost a war against the NCR, and now the NCR finds themself in a stalemate with the Legion. Only under the best conditions eventually the BoS could fight the Legion but its very doubtfull that they can "win" as the Legion is clearly capable enough to compete with the NCR which now is a lot larger then it was when it captured Helios 1 from the brotherhood (the Elder even tells you that AND that they hvae fewer numbers then back then!).
Thomas de Aynesworth
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Who ever said that the BoS would win a war against the Legion? I actually believe that the Legion would destroy the BoS without much fighting.
Comparing the withdraw of the Soviet Armed Forces from Afghanistan to the destruction of the BoS hypothetically from the Mojave desert at the hands of the Legion is far fetched, as the USSR was not defeated in a military sense there.
Comparing the withdraw of the Soviet Armed Forces from Afghanistan to the destruction of the BoS hypothetically from the Mojave desert at the hands of the Legion is far fetched, as the USSR was not defeated in a military sense there.
I'm sorry, Thomas, but do you ever actually make a counter-argument. You just make wildly inaccurate claims and have yet to back them up with a single fact, instead just ignoring the numerous times people counter your claims.
Good show. Time for splits.
So far, we're up to:
- USSR military campaign in Afghan was a failure from many viewpoints
- The plans for withdrawal started well before Gorbachov came to power
- The budgetary problems and economic collapse of the Soviet Union grab back well into the 60s and were only delayed by an oil bubble before the unsustainability of the state led to wild (and mostly failed) attempts at reform.
Any time you feel actually ready to counter arguments, we'll be here for you. So far you have refuted none of these claims other than saying "no it isn't".
Good show. Time for splits.
So far, we're up to:
- USSR military campaign in Afghan was a failure from many viewpoints
- The plans for withdrawal started well before Gorbachov came to power
- The budgetary problems and economic collapse of the Soviet Union grab back well into the 60s and were only delayed by an oil bubble before the unsustainability of the state led to wild (and mostly failed) attempts at reform.
Any time you feel actually ready to counter arguments, we'll be here for you. So far you have refuted none of these claims other than saying "no it isn't".
Oh, you are all full of shit.
The Afghans were still defending against the rush ffs, they never even counter attacked! But the connection was lost at the last second and back in those days, they didn't have the fancy "Reconnect" options, like Heroes of Newerth for example.
Clearly, Thomas is right. Get over it.
The Afghans were still defending against the rush ffs, they never even counter attacked! But the connection was lost at the last second and back in those days, they didn't have the fancy "Reconnect" options, like Heroes of Newerth for example.
Clearly, Thomas is right. Get over it.
Oh, this thread is full of shit. What do you call a situation, where a whole invasion army has to pull back from the invaded country without achieving any of it's goals, if not a defeat? The whole campaing was just another nail in the coffin of USSR, and it was doomed to failure the second they began it.
+ The Afgans had MacGyver on their side, how could they lose?
+ The Afgans had MacGyver on their side, how could they lose?
The interesting part is in which way the Afghan war is seen by the Russian and (former) Soviet population when you consider that most if not all Soldiers send to to Afghanistan have not been Russians. I cant remember really the details anymore but I think there is a laywer fighting for the veterans since after the cloapse of the Soviet union they are not really treated properly many suffering the one or other issue or handicaped from the fighting and injuries geting nothing from the gouvernement for support.
Not that the Sovietunion or Russia has a good history of how to handle their veterans anyway. But still.
Not that the Sovietunion or Russia has a good history of how to handle their veterans anyway. But still.
Alphadrop
A right proper chap.
Crni Vuk said:
Or it's population in general. Hayoooo!