Would Russia have failed in Afghanistan anyway ?

[Ravenman]

Just saw a WaPo article on Able Archer in 1983. I think there’s no way an episode like that could happen today.

In 1983 ‘war scare,’ Soviet leadership feared nuclear surprise attack by U.S.

[XT]

@ralph124c

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan was to prevent a puppet government from falling. The Russians were afraid that Muslim nationalism would spread from Afghanistan to the Central Asian (Muslim) republics. So, in a way, it was the logical response of a failing regime. As far as brutality went, the Russians were bad, but nothing like what Stalin would have done. Of course,as with all foreign incursions in the country, it was doomed to fail-it could only “work” if large segments of the population were killed or locked up in prison camps.
It should have been a lesson for the USA-of course, we don’t like to learn from history-we prefer to repeat the same mistakes, over and over.:smack:

It happened TOO the Russians, yet they are doing the same thing in Syria. And we haven’t repeated Russia’s mistakes in the Middle East…we are breaking new ground on NEW mistakes we can make.

[madsircool]

@BrightNShiny

This isn’t the 1950s. By 1980, the risk of World War 3 was pretty low, and the global system did a decent job of containing non-state actors. Now we have to worry about non-state actors and loose nukes and all of that. The collapse of the Soviets changed a very manageable (and low) thread to a very difficult to manage one.

We should have just stayed out of Afghanistan. But the interference with Afghanistan is typical of the “cutting of your nose to spite your face” foreign policy beloved by a significant chunk of the American population.

The argument that it is preferable to force tens of millions of people to live under brutal dictatorship to infinitesimally lower the risk of nuclear war is one of the most inhuman arguments ever. Also, the collapse of the USSR allowed WW2 to finally end in Eastern Europe.

[Irishman]

@CCitizen

Adam Jones discusses these wars as genocides. Of course, USA is responsible for many more civilian deaths then USSR, but both superpowers have dark history.

@CCitizen

Not every conflict but many wars of Superpowers against small states. In Vietnam and Korea, USA suffered relatively minor losses, while causing enormous civilian losses among the populations of these countries. In both cases USA has caused at least a million civilian losses.

To call Korea and Vietnam genocides is to massively abuse that word. Neither of those conflicts was undertaken or had policies in place to eliminate the ethnic groups and cultures of those countries.

Certainly many events during Vietnam were indiscriminate with respect to civilians, and certainly they were tragedies, but in no way were they genocides.

@BrightNShiny

Bonkers! No, wait, double bonkers! Maybe even triple bonkers!

As I said, I’m not playing this game with you.

You complained that he didn’t reply to the specifics of your statements, so when he does reply to the specifics of your statements, you bail out. Got it!