Military Review

What did we do in Afghanistan

98
What did we do in Afghanistan

40 years ago, on December 25, 1979, the Afghan war began. On this day, columns of the 40th combined arms army crossed the Afghan border. It was a just and necessary war. The Soviet Union secured its southern borders.


However, soon in the USSR, destructive forces, “perestroika-democratizers,” took up, which led to the sad results of the Afghan war. Afghanistan became a trap, which allowed our internal and external enemies to accelerate the process of decomposition of the Soviet state.

Just and necessary war


From a military-strategic point of view, this was a necessary war. We had to secure our southern borders and maintain a friendly regime in Afghanistan. If we hadn’t done it, the Americans would have done it. As it happened in the 2000s, when the US and NATO occupied the strategic strategic bridgehead. Afghanistan allows you to influence a huge region: India, Iran, Central Asia (and through it to Russia) and China. Thus, the Soviet Union secured its southern borders. For many years, he delayed the appearance of NATO troops in Afghanistan or the victory of gangs that established gigantic supplies of heroin to Russia.

We entered Afghanistan legally - at the request of its top political leadership. In this case, for all its history Afghanistan has never lived so freely and freely (just look at the photos of the Afghans of those years), as under the protection of our troops. The Soviet Union invested heavily in the country, built roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, housing, developed agriculture and industry, beat gangsters who were involved in drug trafficking, and established a normal life. A cultural revolution, modernization took place in Afghanistan, the country became secular, moving away from archaic.

Later, when ordinary Afghans were able to compare the behavior of the Russian Shurai with the actions of the Western occupiers, they repeatedly noted that the Russians were real warriors, creators, teachers, helped the people build a new, better life. Americans, on the contrary, are destroyers, they are only concerned with profit. If Russians considered Afghans as people, then Americans didn’t consider local as full-fledged people (as in the past: “a good Indian is a dead Indian”). Western intelligence agencies took control of the production and transit of drugs, repeatedly increased their production, turning Afghanistan into a huge global heroin factory. The bulk of the people were thrown into poverty, survived as best they could, gangs and drug dealers ruled the country. Archaic won, there was a rollback to the past, to feudal and tribal orders. Now Afghanistan has become a "zone of inferno", chaos, from where waves of instability spread across the planet.

In fact, Russia, if it solves internal problems and restores its position in the world, will still have to return to the Afghan problem. This is a matter of the world "drug factory." Thus, according to the Federal Drug Control Service, twice as many people die every year from heroin of Afghan production in Russia than Soviet soldiers died during the entire nine-year war in Afghanistan. A large part of the population of Afghanistan is no longer able to engage in normal creative, productive activities, and it simply does not exist. All life is connected with drugs. This is a question of radical "black" Islam, the "caliphate" that leads the offensive from the southern strategic direction. All of Turkestan, which only degraded after the collapse of the USSR, can already become a continuous zone of chaos in the visible future. Waves of millions of refugees will cover Russia, including thousands of “caliphate” fighters. The southern border is almost open, huge, no natural boundaries. These are flows of illegal migrants, Islamists, weapons, drugs, various smuggling, extremist materials, etc. These are also issues of the presence of the United States and China in the region.

Did you fight badly?


In perestroika and post-perestroika times, our troops in Afghanistan poured mud. Liberals and Westerners tried to show how the Soviet army was ineffective, outdated. That it was a useless and criminal war. How Afghans hated Russians, how we committed “war crimes”, etc. In fact, the Soviet army fought in Afghanistan quite efficiently and skillfully. She led the matter to complete victory. Almost the entire territory of the country was under the control of the 40th Army and the forces of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA). The local army, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and special services were also under our control. In addition, in the second half of the war, they began to rely on special forces of the GRU, targeted operations to eliminate caravans, field commanders, etc., which was reasonable in a war with irregular enemy units.

Of course, there were mistakes. In particular, they did not think enough about troop deployment. It was more reasonable not to introduce combined arms units or introduce them for a short time to defeat the largest gangs. Act mainly with the help of military advisers, military experts, special forces, the GRU and the KGB. Conduct point operations using the Air Force. Act like the West, that is, form your own forces from the local population, arm, train, give advisers, support with fire (air strikes). Maintain Najibullah's friendly regime. To create a full-fledged Afghan armed forces under our control, to supply them with weapons, equipment, ammunition, fuel, this was enough to keep Afghanistan.

As shown by the military operations of NATO and the United States in Afghanistan, Westerners fought worse than the Soviet Army. At the same time, local rebels in the 2000-2010s were not supported by powerful external forces. And the Mujahideen against the USSR were supported by the Anglo-American special services, the Islamic and Arab world, which in the person of the Saudis was in a strategic alliance with the USA against Moscow. The Americans have created several strategic bases, they control the capital (partially), communications and drug trafficking. And yet, they do not care about the Afghan people, what is happening around.

The issue was in the political will of the Kremlin. The Soviet Union could maintain control of Afghanistan, suppress mujahideen squads, but for this it was necessary to solve the issue with the sponsors of bandits and terrorists. The United States acted mainly with the help of the special services of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And the USSR could well put them in their place. For example, by demonstrating the military power of the Red Empire, by targeted attacks on terrorist nests, field camps, and arsenals in Pakistan. Physical elimination of the organizers of international terrorism, Islamic radicalism. However, the spirit was not enough. The Soviet Union was already "rebuilt", broken, prepared for surrender. Therefore, the Soviet Army was not given the opportunity to defeat the main sponsors and export centers of the war.

Therefore, glory to the Russian soldiers - “Afghans” - they honestly and courageously fulfilled their duty to the Motherland. And the "perestroika" capitulists, who had withdrawn Soviet troops from Afghanistan, were given the gangsters, drug dealers, Islamists, and then the West, who were entrenched there, the great Soviet Union was destroyed, a tribunal was needed, even posthumously.

Afghan trap


The USSR would have collapsed without the Afghan war. Destructive processes in Soviet civilization were begun under Khrushchev. That is, Afghanistan was not the main factor, but only one of the prerequisites, detonators. However, the war was used by both internal and external enemies of Soviet power. Inside the country, hysteria was escalating over allegedly huge losses, financial and material costs. As a result, a public opinion was formed that we lost the war. The same opinion has become the leading one in the “world community”.

External enemies of the USSR also used this situation to the maximum. Former CIA Director and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted in his memoirs “Way Out of the Shadow” that the American special services began to help the Mujahideen six months before the Soviet Army entered Afghanistan. In fact, the Americans provoked the Kremlin. Former US National Security Advisor and prominent Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski confirmed Gates’s words:

“This covert operation was a brilliant idea! We lured the Russians into an Afghan trap. ”


The West has very skillfully used the situation. The whole powerful informational, propaganda machine of the “world community” instantly made the Muslim world out of Russian enemies. A Muslim front was immediately formed against us. Anglo-Americans have long dreamed of inciting the Islamic world against Russia. Given the confrontation with the United States and NATO, this was a second front. Before the war, the Americans had prepared contacts with local warlords, bandits, and immediately began supplying weapons, ammunition, ammunition, and communications equipment. Even the anti-American Iran is taking up arms against the Russians. Pakistan becomes the rear base, bridgehead and training camp for terrorists and bandits. The huge financial resources of the Arab monarchies, primarily Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, were directed to the war with the USSR.

During the Afghan war, intelligence services of the West, the Arab monarchies and Pakistan created an “export” mutation of Islam, heavily implicated in big money and drug trafficking. On its basis, a “caliphate” will be created later. "Black" Islam is merciless not only to the "infidels", but also to Muslims of other movements. Washington also obtained from Saudi Arabia the release of huge quantities of oil to the world market in 1985, which led to a fall in the price of “black gold” (by 1986, the price had fallen to $ 10 per barrel or lower). This was a strong blow to the economy of the USSR, which by that time was already well hooked on the “oil needle”.

Thus, an anti-Soviet alliance was formed from the West and the Muslim East. China acted against the USSR. Everything was done to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan. The Americans hoped that Afghanistan would become a springboard for postponing the war with Soviet Turkestan (Central Asia). However, the Afghan war alone could not bring the Americans and their allies victory over the USSR. Afghanistan with the help of the USSR was quickly transformed for the better, the people had never lived so well. The Soviet army and the Afghan security forces controlled by us controlled almost the entire country. The power of Mohammad Najibullah was solid. That is, we did not lose the war. The Soviet elite, led by Gorbachev, surrendered the country and the army.

In fact, Moscow started the war in conditions of internal decay, which was already in the open phase, when part of the Soviet elite openly prepared for the surrender of the USSR. That is, the army, law enforcement agencies did everything they had to do, fulfilled their duty, fought well. But the decision to surrender Soviet civilization, Soviet power, the USSR and the Soviet Army was already taken. Hence the result.
Author:
98 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mcar
    Mcar 25 December 2019 05: 52
    +5
    A good excursion into the history of Afghan events of the past, offset. All is correct, except for one.

    Washington obtained from Saudi Arabia the release of huge quantities of oil to the world market in 1985, which led to a fall in the price of “black gold” (by 1986, the price had fallen to $ 10 per barrel or lower). It was a strong blow to the economy of the USSR, which by this time was already well hooked on the "oil needle".

    Here, the author could not get out of captivity of the harmful myth of the dependence of the USSR economy on oil exports.

    Even taking into account electricity, it so happened in statistical collections - fuel and electricity in one column, one digit, the export share was a maximum, and even then only one year, 10,28%. In other years less:

    https://topwar.ru/36212-a-byla-li-zavisimost-sssr-ot-eksporta-nefti.html

    For comparison and to understand how the USSR sat on the oil needle and whether it was sitting on it at all, a few figures about "liquid gold".

    Until 1985, alcohol accounted for about 25% of budget revenues from retail. Total revenues from the turnover of alcoholic beverages to the budget in 1984 amounted to 38,2 billion rubles. Given that the USSR budget in 1985 was 372,6 billion rubles, then the profitability from alcohol is 10,25% from all tax deductions to the treasury. The total budget losses from the dry law for three years - 67 billion rubles, the amount of "extra" money from the population increased by the same amount, which led to an increase in the deficit of many goods in the country.

    Alcohol is definitely a poison - one of the most powerful drugs. And in these three years of Prohibition, there was an unprecedented surge in the birth rate. But since we are talking about "a strong blow to the economy" and getting on the "oil needle", it is enough to remember (at the same time not forgetting that fuel is together with electricity) these two figures - 10,28% and 10,25%.
    1. 16329
      16329 25 December 2019 14: 25
      +1
      The problem is not in budget revenues, the problem was a sharp decrease in hard currency in the face of increasing dependence on imports
      1. Mcar
        Mcar 25 December 2019 14: 39
        -1
        Quote: 16329
        The problem is not in budget revenues, the problem was a sharp decrease in hard currency in the face of increasing dependence on imports

        Was the ruble not a convertible currency?

        A few percent cannot be called a "sharp" decline in the inflow of hard currency. But if you add together the decrease in income from oil exports with ELECTRICITY and the decrease in budget revenues from the sale of alcohol, and all this is multiplied by the money freed up from people that no one really bothered to buy - this is more like the truth. And here, sadly to admit, the drug needle was not oil, but alcohol. And yet - I do not believe in such accidents that oil export revenues would decrease (well, that's okay, this is an external factor and it's difficult to influence) and at the same time, the top-tier leaders cut their budget even more artificially, having done something good in general business.
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 25 December 2019 14: 57
          +2
          Quote: McAr
          Was the ruble not a convertible currency?

          You are healthy? laughing
        2. Horace the Philosopher
          Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 16: 37
          -7
          The wooden ruble has never been a currency! Otherwise, the USSR carried out all international trade operations in rubles!
          1. Mcar
            Mcar 25 December 2019 17: 04
            -3
            Quote: Horace the Philosopher
            The wooden ruble has never been a currency! Otherwise, the USSR carried out all international trade operations in rubles!

            Never say never.

            In the modern world, the main reserve currencies in which settlements are carried out between countries, as you know, are the dollar and the euro. The Chinese yuan is actively trying to join them in the company. The ruble is not yet taken into the reserve currencies club, although during the existence of the USSR, it was first supranational currency of the world.

            The transferable ruble as a collective currency for mutual settlements of the countries of the members of the international organization of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance was approved on October 22, 1963. In fact, the transferable ruble became the first international reserve currency, with the help of which the countries of Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, Mongolia and the USSR were supposed to conduct settlements among themselves. It should be noted that, unlike the main modern currencies, in particular the dollar, which is not backed by anything other than its status as a world reserve currency, the transferable ruble had a gold equivalent equal to 0,987412 grams of pure gold. At the same time, he did not have a physical embodiment in the form of coins or banknotes, having circulation exclusively in a non-cash form. In addition, the transferable ruble was protected from the Western economies that were experiencing regular economic crises. Only the CMEA member countries could settle among themselves with the help of the transferable ruble. With the advent of the transferable ruble The Soviet Union actually became the first country in the world to successfully create and then apply a supranational, as they would say now, reserve currency... In particular, the international dollar, as a conventional unit of account for settlements between countries, appeared only ten years later in the early 1970s, and gained strength only by the 1990s of the twentieth century.
            1. Golovan Jack
              Golovan Jack 25 December 2019 17: 19
              +1
              Quote: McAr
              Ruble ... during the existence of the USSR, it was the first supranational currency in the world

              During the Soviet era, the ruble was "one in three persons":

              1. The ruble is cash.
              2. The ruble is non-cash.
              3. The ruble is transferable.

              These were three different rubles, not turning into each other.

              Makar, stories on the blue eye about the "convertible ruble" based on your dancing around the converted ruble - there is a malicious lie that must be ... fixed laughing
              1. AU Ivanov.
                AU Ivanov. 25 December 2019 18: 02
                +4
                And the dollar exchange rate was from 62 kopecks to capital punishment.
              2. ccsr
                ccsr 25 December 2019 19: 17
                +2
                Quote: Golovan Jack
                These were three different rubles, not turning into each other.

                You are clearly not in the subject - the non-cash ruble quietly turned into cash, when, in the calculations of enterprises and organizations, part of the money went to the payment fund, and it was received by employees in the form of cash.
                Yes, and the transferable ruble, as N. Platoshkin said, was not so bad if France took loans from CMEA in them.
                Quote: Golovan Jack
                Makar, stories on the blue eye about the "convertible ruble"

                Yes, you at least read what was written on the notes of 10, 25, 50 and 100 rubles, you might understand that it was convertible if it were presented by foreign owners for payment.
                1. Golovan Jack
                  Golovan Jack 25 December 2019 20: 40
                  -8
                  Quote: ccsr
                  You are clearly not in the subject

                  My conversation with Makar, do not go. This is good advice. yes

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Yes, you at least read what was written on the notes of 10, 25, 50 and 100 rubles ...

                  I read what was written there.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  ... maybe you’ll understand that it was convertible

                  For foreigners? I'm exactly on them ...

                  I am local, bro, and what I say - I saw it myself, with my own eyes ...

                  Man, the best thing you can do right now is the abyss of the topic ... completely.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 26 December 2019 12: 31
                    +3
                    Quote: Golovan Jack
                    My conversation with Makar, do not go. This is good advice.

                    Well, in PM, discuss it, since you do not want others to comment on your stupidity.
                    Quote: Golovan Jack
                    I read what was written there.

                    I guessed that you did not understand the meaning of the printed text on the notes.
                    Quote: Golovan Jack
                    Man, the best thing you can do right now is the abyss of the topic ... completely.

                    Take it easy wise guy, here everyone has the right to incriminate such people as you in ignorance, since you demonstrate it.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 25 December 2019 19: 12
            +1
            Quote: Horace the Philosopher
            The wooden ruble has never been a currency! Otherwise, the USSR carried out all international trade operations in rubles!

            You seem to have a vague idea of ​​the economic life in the USSR, and the solvency of rubles, which, unlike the American dollar, on gold coins and above, had the inscription that they are SECURED by gold, jewelry and other assets of the STATE BANK. That is why export abroad to private individuals was allowed within 30 rubles, so that it was not possible to collect huge amounts of rubles to foreign banks and organizations and present them for payment with our gold. And so it was before the collapse of the USSR, when the ruble was provided with gold and reserves of world currencies, and this is a fact. By the way, our chervonets willingly bought in all the ports of the world from our sailors - ask the Soviet foreigners and they will confirm this to you
        3. 16329
          16329 26 December 2019 14: 38
          -1
          Well, this is all understandable, but, for example, you could buy Toshiba machining centers, for the screws of submarines, it was possible only for hard currency, with an overpayment to intermediaries, Equipment for new oil and gas fields, development technologies, etc., also required serious investments, and so on many positions, and this hit the consumer market, began to grab funds for imported consumer goods and foodstuffs, in the early 80s, Leningrad, for example, sat on New Zealand oil, Finnish, sorry, eggs, lamb from the same New Zealand and etc, income from exporting raw materials and energy resources outside the CMEA zone, transferable rubles, etc.
          In general, with increasing integration into the world economy and rising living standards, the USSR and the social camp fell into the trap of increasing dependence on the import of industrial and high-end consumer goods of a wide range
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 25 December 2019 06: 07
    +3
    The whole powerful informational, propaganda machine of the “world community” instantly made the Muslim enemies of the Russian enemies The gloominess of late Soviet agitation and counter-propaganda is well known, but the "historians and propagandists of the CPSU" have forged into almost the most ardent anti-Soviet "Russophile" anti-Sovietists.
    I met an opinion, and I support it, that after the Vietnam War, the Amerans ceased to support their kindred, more or less advanced, regimes for confronting the USSR, and threw their forces to help and nurturing fierce obscurantists, i.e. relied on the degradation of mankind.
    1. Horace the Philosopher
      Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 17: 32
      -1
      Why did the KGB, the GRU, and other competent authorities fail to anticipate such a turn of events and did not dissuade the Secretary General?
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich 25 December 2019 07: 26
    +10
    That is, we did not lose the war. The Soviet elite, led by Gorbachev, surrendered the country and the army.

    They did not lose the war, the army proved itself worthy.

    But there was Nothing to do there,
    1. Nkv3
      Nkv3 25 December 2019 11: 14
      -8
      The title is curious. How did you do what?
      So I studied well at school. And he learned that we in Afghanistan were exclusively engaged in the construction of peaceful life, hospitals, schools and roads.
      What kind of war is the author talking about?
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 25 December 2019 12: 32
      +4
      Quote: Olgovich
      They did not lose the war, the army proved itself worthy.

      But there was Nothing to do there,

      I completely agree with you - the biggest mistake was the entry of our troops into Afghanistan, but the author of the article apparently did not reach the understanding of this.
      1. haron
        haron 25 December 2019 14: 10
        +2
        the big mistake was the entry of our troops into Afghanistan, but the author of the article apparently did not reach the understanding of this
        Did the author not indicate this in the article?
        ... It was wiser not to introduce combined arms units or to introduce them for a short time to defeat the largest gangs ..
        1. Pedrodepackes
          Pedrodepackes 25 December 2019 16: 14
          +4
          Quote: haron
          Did the author not indicate this in the article?
          ... It was wiser not to introduce combined arms units
          and what to enter then? Tank or artillery, so without infantry they are nothing. Just there is an opinion that it was not the army that should have acted, but the specialists. But there are fair objections to this, that in a country like Afghanistan, in the absence of a centralized government, this is unpromising.
          Quote: haron
          ..... or enter for a short time to defeat the largest gangs ..
          the largest gangs, for example, Ahmad Shah Massoud or Dostum, "smashed" during the entire stay of the OKSVA, and never "crushed". So that ccsr right, there was nothing to climb there (the army) was.
        2. Horace the Philosopher
          Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 17: 33
          -3
          I agree with you! The mistake was the introduction of troops into the DRA! It would be possible to dispense with the training of the troops of Aganistan and sending specialists and instructors!
        3. ccsr
          ccsr 25 December 2019 18: 59
          0
          Quote: haron
          It was wiser not to introduce combined arms

          And what would the author suggest? And what would it change in the end if it weren’t for combined-arms formations?
          Quote: haron
          or enter for a short time to defeat the largest gangs ..

          Yes, there would not have been a "short time", taking into account the peculiarities of the mountain theater of operations, and the Americans got stuck there in full, although their material capabilities are much greater than the USSR had.
          1. haron
            haron 25 December 2019 21: 36
            -1
            And what would the author suggest? And what would it change in the end, .. Excuse me. I ask you - did you read the article?
            Below is what the author suggested.
            ... Act mainly with the help of military advisers, military experts, special forces, the GRU and the KGB. Conduct point operations using the Air Force. Act like the West, that is, form your own forces from the local population, arm, train, give advisers, support with fire (air strikes). Support.... Well, that's pretty clear.
            I have my own view of this war and in many ways it does not coincide with the opinion of the author. But I do not want to publish my opinion, and the opinion of the author needs to be assessed by reading it.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 26 December 2019 12: 49
              +2
              Quote: haron
              Below is what the author suggested.
              ... Act mainly with the help of military advisers, military experts, special forces, the GRU and the KGB.

              And who will cover the SPG brigades from attacks, if they have only light weapons? You even have an idea at least that there were no special forces in the KGB then, and our military advisers could not radically solve the problems of the war in Afghanistan. The author of the article has a too naive idea of ​​the Soviet Army of those years, not realizing that its preparation did not include conducting police operations in foreign territories and mass use in mountainous regions.
              Quote: haron
              Conduct point operations using the Air Force.

              It’s very smart to spend the millionth cost of a bomb and a bomber’s flight in order to destroy ten Kalashnikov bandits, who will immediately be replaced by new ones who want to fight for money.
              Quote: haron
              Act like the West

              You didn’t seem to understand that the West achieved anything but increasing the costs of the war in Afghanistan, and this best proves what a huge mistake we made by introducing our troops.
              Quote: haron
              arm, train, give advisers, support with fire (air strikes). Support....

              Due to the impoverishment of our people - thank you for such "care" about our fellow citizens. It looks like you never understood why the people did not support the CPSU in 1991 ...
              Quote: haron
              and the opinion of the author needs to be assessed by reading it.

              Do you think that only you can appreciate what the author wrote?
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 25 December 2019 14: 53
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        the biggest mistake was the entry of our troops into Afghanistan,

        A mistake, but not the biggest one. The biggest mistake was the conclusion. hi
        1. Horace the Philosopher
          Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 17: 33
          0
          The conclusion was the right decision! Otherwise, even more soldiers would die, and the economy would not allow such an army to be maintained!
    3. VeteranVSSSR
      VeteranVSSSR 25 December 2019 14: 19
      +3
      Quote: Olgovich
      That is, we did not lose the war. The Soviet elite, led by Gorbachev, surrendered the country and the army.

      They did not lose the war, the army proved itself worthy.

      But there was Nothing to do there,

      Yes, and the team Win !!! no one gave ...
  4. Plantagenet
    Plantagenet 25 December 2019 07: 26
    +8
    "But I will repeat once again that we had a mistake when we brought in the troops; the second mistake was that we started hostilities. Even with all the logic, when our politicians said to bring in the army, if we would have entered and did not start military operations - it would have been even easier.But, unfortunately, the political leadership of Afghanistan persuaded our political leadership to take part in the hostilities - to help the Afghan army.And the third mistake was that we took one side of the civil war. There was a civil war in Afghanistan. One part fought with another part, as we had in the 17-20s. And we accepted one of the sides. We had to declare neutrality ...

    We wanted to impose our way of life. Well, the Afghan people shouldn't have talked about socialism, about communism, about pioneer detachments, about Komsomol detachments. I should have left them alone. "

    Ruslan Aushev
    1. icant007
      icant007 25 December 2019 07: 47
      +3
      And the fourth mistake was the cessation of military assistance to Afghanistan since 1992.
      1. Plantagenet
        Plantagenet 25 December 2019 07: 56
        +2
        You will remember what events took place in the country. What could be the help? In addition, it is not clear how many years help is needed.
        1. icant007
          icant007 25 December 2019 08: 02
          +6
          Nevertheless, a few years later we again began to provide assistance to Afghanistan, specifically Dostum and Masoud.
          Has something changed a lot in the economy during this time?
          1. bandabas
            bandabas 25 December 2019 12: 53
            +3
            And now in our country is there a normal economy? We cannot even sell gas normally, not to mention screwdriver assembly production.
            1. icant007
              icant007 25 December 2019 15: 21
              0
              We cannot even sell gas normally, not to mention screwdriver assembly production.


              Well, this is a claim to ourselves, to the mysterious "Russian soul". ) And what is wrong with the screwdriver-assembly production? It seems like they learned to collect foreign cars.
              I've been going to Largus for almost 7 years, and pah-pah, she’s not failing. 250 thousand run.
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 25 December 2019 12: 37
        +1
        Quote: icant007
        And the fourth mistake was the cessation of military assistance to Afghanistan since 1992.

        I agree: since there is a secular, viable friendly regime, it was necessary to support it. Moreover, they did not ask for anything special ....
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 25 December 2019 14: 55
          +1
          Mostly fuels and lubricants.
      3. Pedrodepackes
        Pedrodepackes 25 December 2019 16: 22
        +2
        Quote: icant007
        And the fourth mistake was the cessation of military assistance to Afghanistan since 1992.
        it was necessary to help since 1978, and not to overthrow the governments one by one, the Afghans under any regimes treated the USSR well and no Americans went there and Pakistan and Turkey were enough. With good economic assistance, Afghanistan would be a good ally; in extreme cases, it would be possible, with the help of foreign intelligence and specialists, to "direct" their leaders a little in the right direction. Everything would be cheaper for the economy of the USSR, you look and the state would not have collapsed and 15 thousand of our fellow citizens would not have sunk into oblivion (this is not counting the missing, invalids and drunkards after returning from there).
        1. icant007
          icant007 25 December 2019 16: 34
          +1
          I generally agree with you. War was not needed. But by eliminating the Amin regime, Moscow sought to mitigate the excessive revolutionism and repressiveness of the new Afghan government. Otherwise, a mode like Pol Pot could have grown.
          And the Soviet Union did not actually impose socialism; local revolutionaries suffered from this. Moscow advocated ongoing development, taking into account local characteristics.

          And if they had already entered, they had to leave quickly.
          1. Pedrodepackes
            Pedrodepackes 25 December 2019 16: 42
            +1
            Quote: icant007
            And if they had already entered, they had to leave quickly.
            If you mean the army, then how is it? They would immediately say that the Afghans beat the USSR, they got into it completely and the further, the more.
            Quote: icant007
            eliminating the regime of Amin, Moscow sought to mitigate the excessive revolutionism and repressiveness of the new Afghan government.

            Yes, I agree, that’s why we had to limit ourselves to specialists and advisers.
            1. icant007
              icant007 25 December 2019 16: 48
              +1
              Quote: Pedrodepackes
              If you mean the army, then how is it? They would immediately say that the Afghans beat the USSR


              Well this is reputational loss, and to hell with it. It was necessary to properly ideologically furnish. What is temporary input.
              1. Pedrodepackes
                Pedrodepackes 25 December 2019 16: 59
                0
                Quote: icant007
                Well this is reputational loss, and to hell with it.

                but how would these
                Quote: icant007
                reputational loss
                influenced the supporters of the new government? She, after all, only held onto our bayonets. No, it was not necessary to introduce anyone, Daud was thrown off and good, but with Karmal we screwed up a lot, the wrong leader was needed.
                1. icant007
                  icant007 25 December 2019 18: 25
                  0
                  For us it would be better if Zakir Shah remained)

                  In general, after the overthrow of Amin, it was necessary to immediately raise before the Afghans the question of creating a coalition government. And in this situation we did not look like enslavers, but as guarantors of order.

                  Although you know, I do not pretend to be an expert laurels on the Afghan issue)
                  1. Pedrodepackes
                    Pedrodepackes 25 December 2019 18: 55
                    0
                    Quote: icant007
                    In general, after the overthrow of Amin, it was necessary to immediately raise before the Afghans the question of creating a coalition government.

                    and do not send troops good
                    Quote: icant007
                    I do not pretend to be an expert laurels on the Afghan issue)

                    me too, but this is the point of view of many sober-minded people, so we only support them. good
      4. Horace the Philosopher
        Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 17: 45
        -3
        This is not a mistake, but a banal betrayal! The USSR and the Russian Federation quite often betrayed their allies!
    2. Horace the Philosopher
      Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 17: 35
      -1
      Ruslan Aushev himself fought and knows what he is saying! Entering the army with or without permission sooner or later will lead to bloodshed and growing hatred of the invaders!
  5. icant007
    icant007 25 December 2019 07: 36
    +7
    Almost the entire territory of the country was under the control of the 40th Army and the forces of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA). The local army, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and special services were also under our control. In addition, in the second half of the war, they began to rely on special forces of the GRU, targeted operations to eliminate caravans, field commanders, etc., which was reasonable in a war with irregular enemy units.


    Well, this is the author bent. In the best case, no more than 15% of the territory of Afghanistan was controlled: large settlements, important facilities, and some roads. Our generals have always talked about this.
    1. Horace the Philosopher
      Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 17: 36
      0
      All correctly did not control more than 90 percent of the territories! A similar situation with the Americans, they are also not able to control the territory
  6. icant007
    icant007 25 December 2019 07: 41
    +2
    Even the anti-American Iran is taking up arms against the Russians.


    By the way, our ambassador in Tehran notified the Iranian leadership of the entry of our troops into the DRA. At the same time, he indicated that the stay would be limited to three months. Actually, this was originally planned by the Soviet leadership.
    And the first three months official Iran kept a pause. And only then joined the chorus of condemnation.
  7. Paul Siebert
    Paul Siebert 25 December 2019 09: 02
    +2
    The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is one of Gorbachev's betrayals!
    The war in which we lost so many people, means, equipment overnight turned out to be lost.
    Having not suffered a single defeat in the battles, suddenly, we lost the war.
    In the series of crimes that led to the collapse of the USSR, Afghanistan is the first link, and one of the main ones!
    1. Robertocalos
      Robertocalos 25 December 2019 11: 14
      +3
      Read Chernyaev, so that it is clear what really happened in the country. How and what decisions the Politburo made. Stagnation is not a figure of speech.
      1. Paul Siebert
        Paul Siebert 25 December 2019 12: 16
        +1
        I do not need to read Chernyaev. I myself lived in this country. I saw everything with my own eyes. He fought for the USSR. And if you read - it's good, better than poking a gadget with your finger ...
        1. Robertocalos
          Robertocalos 25 December 2019 12: 40
          +3
          See, see. But it was not you who made the decisions. 15 thousand Soviet boys were killed, billions of rubles down the drain. Radical Islam was fostered, a mine was laid under the Caucasus. What is one real reason that you had to climb into Afghanistan?
          1. Paul Siebert
            Paul Siebert 25 December 2019 13: 20
            -7
            Got it.
            You are one of those who counts and says: "it was not a hell to climb!"
            Apparently angrily condemn our presence in Syria.
            With such a policy, troops can be withdrawn and withdrawn.
            To Yakutia.
            Afghanistan is the lasting pain of my generation.
            But we clearly know why we went there.
            And what would be there if we were not there.
            1. Robertocalos
              Robertocalos 25 December 2019 13: 48
              +10
              Here I ask you to name the reason, and in return - pathos. No need to communicate with slogans, there is a simple word. Let's calmly point by point?
              Syria will appreciate when the war is over. So far, I see neither goals that are important to Russia, nor their implementation. Testing weapons on barmales is hardly worth it.
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 25 December 2019 14: 18
                +4
                Very good, Vadim, restrained, competently and convincingly. Entirely and completely on your side.
              2. Horace the Philosopher
                Horace the Philosopher 25 December 2019 17: 37
                -1
                Bravo Vadim! I support your point of view !!!
                1. Robertocalos
                  Robertocalos 25 December 2019 18: 56
                  0
                  Thank you for the adequacy. Sea Cat too) conclusions from Afghanistan are not made, as if again not to run through the rake. Lukashenko already openly says that they lifted him to break. Who will we be friends with?
              3. ccsr
                ccsr 25 December 2019 19: 25
                -1
                Quote: Robertocalos
                So far, I see neither goals that are important to Russia, nor their implementation.

                Well, one goal was precisely realized - the war in Syria helped us to eliminate the supply of Qatari gas to Europe by the gas pipeline:
                Qatar-Turkish gas pipeline (project) - an unrealized project for the construction of a gas pipeline for the supply of natural gas, which was supposed to begin in the super-giant oil and gas field North / South Pars in the territorial waters of Qatar
                1. Robertocalos
                  Robertocalos 25 December 2019 19: 28
                  0
                  But transit through the Turkish stream did not help. Nevertheless, to spoil a neighbor and do good for yourself are not synonyms.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 25 December 2019 19: 47
                    0
                    Quote: Robertocalos
                    But transit through the Turkish stream did not help.

                    Why didn’t it help? Turkey, on the contrary, understood who is the most reliable supplier.
                    Quote: Robertocalos
                    Nevertheless, to spoil a neighbor and do good for yourself are not synonyms.

                    In matters of today's wild capitalism, these are precisely synonyms. So we solved our problem, though we had to spend money on eliminating the competitor.
                    1. Robertocalos
                      Robertocalos 25 December 2019 20: 45
                      0
                      Yes, they didn’t decide. There is no transit to the Balkans. And the Turks became a mountain of steel. In fact, only they take gas from this pipe. And they planned to build a stream before Italy.
                      1. ccsr
                        ccsr 26 December 2019 12: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Robertocalos
                        Yes, they didn’t decide. There is no transit to the Balkans.

                        There is no Qatari transit, and in summer, the Bulgarians will complete the Turkish Stream pipe to Serbia.
                        Quote: Robertocalos
                        In fact, only they take gas from this pipe.

                        What difference does it make to us if we drive gas to the maximum there, and the Turks pay regularly? We’ll start building a third stream along the bottom of the Black Sea - I think that this will be discussed soon.
                        Quote: Robertocalos
                        And they planned to build a stream before Italy.

                        These are Italians' problems, let them have a headache. Although from the point of view of our benefits, to tie them to our pipe is a good thing.
                      2. Robertocalos
                        Robertocalos 26 December 2019 12: 48
                        0
                        Erdogan could not be convinced on three strings. Turks take as much as they are able to consume themselves. Russia's ambitions were completely different.
                      3. ccsr
                        ccsr 26 December 2019 13: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Robertocalos
                        Erdogan could not be convinced on three strings.

                        We do not have available funds for construction now. So we wait until they appear, and the Bulgarians ripen for the South Stream.
                        Quote: Robertocalos
                        Turks take as much as they are able to consume themselves.

                        They lack the capacities of the Turkish and Blue Stream to meet all their gas needs - they did not have gasification of the country at all.

                        Quote: Robertocalos
                        Russia's ambitions were completely different.

                        It's not about ambition, but about sales. And who will buy, we do not care.
                      4. Robertocalos
                        Robertocalos 26 December 2019 13: 24
                        +1
                        The Russian Federation has money, like a fool wrappers. The trouble is that they spend them very selectively and in a limited number of pockets.
  8. Elturisto
    Elturisto 25 December 2019 10: 04
    +7
    Polika is the art of the possible. For some reason, the author did not say anything that the USSR actively supported, trained, supplied and armed the Afghan law enforcement agencies -Tsaranda, KHAD, self-defense forces, tribal formations, they were then supposed to restrain the dushmans ... In a poor country torn apart by religious, ethnic , class contradictions, the construction of socialism, in the face of opposition from almost the whole world, turned out to be impossible at that moment. Especially it is necessary to mention the role in the war of the "strategic partner of China" - 95% of the weapons of the dushmans consisted of Chinese-made weapons - small arms, mortars, grenade launchers, MLRS , anti-aircraft weapons - DShK.
  9. stoqn477
    stoqn477 25 December 2019 10: 13
    +3
    We entered Afghanistan legally - at the request of its top political leadership.

    This "request" about what you put after you killed the previous one?
  10. 1536
    1536 25 December 2019 10: 55
    +1
    The mistake of the party and Soviet leadership of the USSR with regard to the war in Afghanistan was that a dull information blockade of the events of the war was carried out. In a distorted form, Soviet citizens received this information from the "eternal" radio stations: "Voice of America", "Free Europe" and "Deutsche Welle" or "word of mouth", as if it were the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. What quality the information was sculpted by the foreign media is not to be guessed at - low, bordering on lies and coverage of events in a favorable light to Americans and others like them. But it was they who twisted, as they wanted public opinion in the USSR.
    So, first of all, the Soviet Union lost the information stage of the war, or rather, the parallel information war in Afghanistan. Kremlin elders did not yet imagine that information is a military weapon, the outcome of a whole war sometimes depends on the successful and successful use of which. And our military, I know for sure, honestly, courageously and faithfully carried out all combat missions, successfully restraining international terrorism and drug trafficking in Afghanistan, generated by American claims to world domination precisely then.
    It remains only to recall the names of all the Soviet soldiers who fell in that war and remember their memory.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 25 December 2019 12: 37
      +1
      Quote: 1536
      It remains only to recall the names of all the Soviet soldiers who fell in that war and remember their memory.

      Most sorry for the young guys who died there, because it was the color of our people, and which could bring many benefits to our homeland. So, because of the stupid decision of the members of the Politburo, we not only lost people, but also huge material resources were wasted, and this could not affect the trust in our leaders of the country, which later affected the collapse of the USSR.
  11. Robertocalos
    Robertocalos 25 December 2019 11: 11
    +8
    The quality of management decisions of the Kremlin elders did not go into any gates. Afgan finished the USSR, accelerated the destruction. There was not a single really significant reason for the introduction of troops. The Kremlin was simply bred.
    1. prior
      prior 25 December 2019 11: 24
      +7
      Afghan - it was a trap for Kremlin idiots.
      1. Robertocalos
        Robertocalos 25 December 2019 13: 51
        -1
        He cited the book below as an example. Very balanced analysis and chronology of decision making. You can see where and why they made a mistake.
  12. protoss
    protoss 25 December 2019 12: 29
    +7
    Russians were real warriors, creators, teachers, helped people build a new, better life

    I am always at a loss from these people who firmly believe that we bring to the world only the rational, the good, the eternal. sort of altruists among other predators, colonizers.
    and the main carriers of all the good and beautiful in the imagination of believers are our wise leaders - these warriors of the world (and everything from princes and kings to the current members of edra).
    however, these same leaders in relation to their own people are never so kind and fair. as soon as it comes to their own country and people, the warriors of the world suddenly turn into greedy and cruel scum, who then kept their own people in centuries-old slavery, and now they are packing their houses and apartments in bundles of euros, gold bars and Swiss watches.
    but interestingly, in the minds of believers (here, in such, by the way, at least half) there is no dissonance. blessed, as they say, believers ...
  13. Robertocalos
    Robertocalos 25 December 2019 13: 45
    +1
    Author, read the book "Afghan: Russians at War". It is very clearly described how the Union got into this swamp. Almost day after day. This was the biggest mistake since the Cuban missile crisis.
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. amr
    amr 25 December 2019 15: 54
    +1
    Quote: protoss
    always at a loss from these people who holyly believe that we bring to the world only the rational, the good, the eternal. sort of altruists among other predators, colonizers.
    and the main carriers of all the good and beautiful in the imagination of believers are our wise leaders - these warriors of light

    it is))). straight saints))) it could be simpler about the self-esteem of their place in this world ..

    This phrase also cuts the ear:
    Therefore, glory to the Russian soldiers - “Afghans” - they honestly and courageously fulfilled their duty to the Motherland.
    Well, how did the Soviets turn into Russians ??? + the so-called "Muslim battalions" came there, I am not Russian myself, my father-in-law lost his leg in Afghanistan and his twin brother was in Afghanistan and his older brother, a helicopter pilot, was in Afghanistan ... and here the current is Russians ...
  16. aloleggry
    aloleggry 25 December 2019 16: 34
    +1
    Quote: Nkv3
    The title is curious. How did you do what?
    So I studied well at school. And he learned that we in Afghanistan were exclusively engaged in the construction of peaceful life, hospitals, schools and roads.
    What kind of war is the author talking about?

    The Pravda newspaper wrote that we planted apple trees there. However, there were many built by the Soviet Union. Saw. I don't know everything, I'm just a soldier.
  17. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 25 December 2019 16: 50
    +2
    The topic is not disclosed! There is no answer to the question posed here in the article!
    So what have we forgotten in a neighboring sovereign state? It was very necessary to build schools, factories, bridges and roads there? It is unlikely. If they did not want to allow the presence of Americans, then what were the prerequisites ...?
    So why, it was necessary to enter Afghanistan, understanding what the costs would be. After all, it was naive to suppose that the anti-Soviet coalition would swallow such an event so easily?!? And there was no reason to count on a warm welcome by the country's population ... So why was this tragic decision made? That's interesting
    In my opinion, this decision was just a poorly thought-out adventure of a handful of dim-witted Kremlin elders who decided to "play" the "American cowboys" staging coups around the world with impunity. Yes, but you could afford it, having the necessary resources, and the world community behind your back, but the USSR does not! And the worst thing, being convinced of this, did not draw conclusions and did not leave in time!
    1. Robertocalos
      Robertocalos 25 December 2019 18: 09
      +1
      The main reason is the reactivity of Soviet foreign policy. It looks very much like a cargo cult. It was necessary to constantly prove to the world that "we can too". Moreover, the world already knew that "we can." The members of the Politburo, who lost their adequacy, fell for the distribution of the Afghans. And in words everyone was against it, but in fact they took a bite at the bit. Well, one mistake piled on top of another. Amin could not be killed. This is against all the rules of the post-war world order - to take and bang the leader of another country. And Gorbachev is to blame for pulling the rubber for another 3 years. A war is easy to start, much more difficult to end.
      1. Dimon-chik-79
        Dimon-chik-79 26 December 2019 13: 10
        0
        Quote: Robertocalos
        The main reason is the reactivity of Soviet foreign policy. It looks very much like a cargo cult. It was necessary to constantly prove to the world that "we can too".

        It is unlikely that the Kremlin elders wanted to prove anything to the world, rather it was more pragmatic, they apparently wanted to establish communist power (following the precepts of the first international) in the muddy waters of Afghan politics) and thereby gain a foothold in this important (but very difficult) region. Flags on the globe. I just sensed the opportunity. But miscalculated.
        1. Robertocalos
          Robertocalos 26 December 2019 13: 22
          0
          Good thing you're trying to analyze. But complicate, in my opinion. Once in the Kremlin it was decided that satellites should be around the perimeter and then followed the dogma. But in fact it’s better to have a sane enemy on the border than a crazy half-friend.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. komandir8
    komandir8 26 December 2019 00: 55
    0
    Before assessing whether the entry of troops into Afghanistan was necessary or unnecessary, one must study what the international situation was in the world at that time and what were the prerequisites for the introduction of troops. The decision was made by the political leadership of the country. The military command was against the introduction of an army group, but then it was forced to agree, but insisted that, within a maximum of a year, defeat the main rebel groups, take control of all large and significant cities, strategic areas, prepare the armed forces and other law enforcement agencies for independent effective actions and then leave the necessary forces, resources, military specialists, advisers and withdraw the group from the country. But this could not be done. In Afghanistan, strong tribal, tribal ties, an almost illiterate population, the unlimited influence of Islam and the mullahs. Under pressure from the leadership of Afghanistan and the inability of the country's armed forces to resist the mujahideen armed forces, our troops gradually became involved in active hostilities.
    It’s easy to talk about it now, knowing how events developed, how it all ended and what consequences were, and you need to start from 1979, when this decision was made.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 26 December 2019 12: 54
      +1
      Quote: komandir8
      and it is necessary to proceed from 1979, when this decision was made.

      By 1979, we had the sad experience of helping China, Albania, the DPRK, Ethiopia, Egypt, and a number of African countries, when we were used, and then sent away. So, it was necessary for our general secretaries to turn on their brains before climbing with our help to those who wanted to milk us and solve their local disputes with the same barmaley as they themselves.
      1. Robertocalos
        Robertocalos 26 December 2019 13: 28
        -1
        Exactly. They put on losers and deceivers.
  20. Good_Anonymous
    Good_Anonymous 26 December 2019 02: 48
    +1
    According to the Federal Drug Control Service, twice as many people die every year from heroin of Afghan production in Russia than Soviet soldiers died during the entire nine-year war in Afghanistan.


    This is 26 thousand people a year. But is the author lying to us? Where and when did the FSKN say so?
  21. Procopius Nesterov
    Procopius Nesterov 26 December 2019 03: 00
    +1
    Stupid and idiotic adventure as history has shown. And now we are aware that these were meaningless sacrifices and a waste of resources.
  22. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 26 December 2019 08: 26
    -1
    Quote: DMB-2020
    Today, the new, legitimate government of Syria, at the request of the Syrian people, looking at a prosperous Afghanistan, has appealed to the leadership of modern Russia for help in growing birch trees in Syria.

    strongly disagree! Afghanistan and Syria are two big differences and perhaps in everything! And the reasons! But the main approach is completely different, which by the way would definitely not hurt with regard to Afghanistan.
    1. Robertocalos
      Robertocalos 26 December 2019 09: 53
      +1
      What is the task of the Russian Federation in Syria? Can you summarize?
      1. Dimon-chik-79
        Dimon-chik-79 26 December 2019 12: 53
        0
        Quote: Robertocalos
        What is the task of the Russian Federation in Syria?

        The President of the Russian Federation formulated in detail; refer to the source.
        And in short, this is to beat terrorists (with Russian passports, including many Russian passports) on a foreign territory, with a foreign army (helping mainly from the air and sea) and by an official "invitation", a legitimate government, in a compartment solving important geopolitical and economic tasks. In short, everything is as if not in Afghanistan.
        And my personal opinion on the topic of the article, maybe it was better in Afghanistan, if we got involved in "this story", it will be limited to control of a mainly small border area, then maybe you (and not only) would always be under attack and the border can be it was better to control and such large-scale operations WOULD not be required, respectively, and there would be no such losses "and costs. But this is so, the thoughts of an ignorant ..
        1. Robertocalos
          Robertocalos 26 December 2019 13: 39
          -1
          Beat the terrorists? And how many more years? Hitler won faster. Any war should have a goal and an understandable time frame. And now this mother is dear to a number of comrades, a way of feeding and strengthening positions. How much more money and people should the Russian Federation spend on the Near East in order to understand that we have nothing to do there? Border, visas, corruption control, competent work of security guards. So they are fighting with terrorists. And without producing generation after generation of haters of Russia.
  23. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 26 December 2019 12: 59
    +1
    You will recognize Samsonov from the first lines! smile
    But he didn’t hide something:
    "by 1986, the price fell to $ 10 per barrel and below.) This was a strong blow to the economy of the USSR, which by this time had already been well hooked on the" oil needle "////
    -----
    Who planted it? Comrade Brezhnev. Who was prompted that the Druzhba pipeline, intended to supply oil to the Warsaw Pact countries, needs to be slightly lengthened to Hamburg. wink
    And such a pruha went! Bourgeois countries paid generously without delaying payments. Currency money and barter flowed into the USSR as a vast river. The so-called "Brezhnev stagnation" began - the long-awaited rise in the people's standard of living.
    But the generals-admirals also caught fire: "a great military fleet, thousands of tanks and aircraft ..." - there was money for all this.
    Next: a giant fleet, the Afghan war, a sharp drop in oil prices, the money ran out ... sad
    1. Robertocalos
      Robertocalos 26 December 2019 13: 32
      -1
      Thousands of tanks and planes have been built since the 30s. Khrushchev began to trade with bowels. Brezhnev decided that for his age would definitely be enough and strengthened exports. The authorities relaxed in the economy, they decided to shine with geopolitics. It’s easier to beat ponty than to work methodically.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 26 December 2019 13: 41
        0
        Khrushchev's army and, especially, the fleet sharply reduced (for this it is customary to scold him). Subsoil in Russia was traded under the kings, and under Lenin, and under Stalin - always.
        Oil simply made more profits than anything else. And - here you are right - the Politburo relaxed and "got hooked".
        1. Robertocalos
          Robertocalos 26 December 2019 13: 48
          -1
          It is impossible to allow people with occupational deformation before the adoption of the most important fateful decisions. Unfortunately, both the military and security are such, the work is this, excuse me. A balance of opinions is needed. Just estimate how much the MiG-31 cost, for example (like a school, approximately), how many nuclear submarines (like a city for 30-40 thousand people). Buran, pre-Avianos, ekranoplans, this is what catches the eye. If these funds were invested in the quality of life of Soviet people, the USSR would be more alive than all living things.
        2. Oquzyurd
          Oquzyurd 29 December 2019 20: 21
          0
          There was also correspondence in all sectors of production, inflated numbers and scams hiding this, for the sake of catching up with the West. The case with Uzbek cotton is one of the episodes that showed the scale of the blown numbers and scams. As a result, everything was necessary, but there were shelves in stores were really empty.
  24. unknown
    unknown 26 December 2019 20: 14
    +2
    Auto only mentioned China in passing.
    But he forgot to mention that Amin was a Maoist. MAOISTOM.
    It was to counter China that our troops were sent to Afghanistan.
    Our main adversary in Afghanistan is precisely China, and not the United States at all, and especially not Pakistan, which was wholly under Chinese influence.
    Our clash with China in Afghanistan is the result of Khrushchev’s policy.
  25. haron
    haron 26 December 2019 22: 50
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    Do you think that only you can appreciate what the author wrote?

    I think that it is necessary to quote the author and not me. Otherwise, the discussion of the article turns into a dispute in no way.
    It's as if I were treating a patient not according to his complaints and analyzes of his body, but according to the story of his neighbor that what this neighbor "seems" to.
    We are talking about completely different meanings.
  26. Dmitry Mariupolsky
    Dmitry Mariupolsky 5 January 2020 09: 45
    0
    Yes, nonsense about "border security"! They decided to help the young republic. Ours were afraid of foreign intervention ... well, now there are Americans - what has changed? They themselves are afraid to stick their noses out there ... This swamp of Afghanistan is sucking everyone in. He may play a geopolitical role, but in wars of conquest. And so .... As for me, in order to ensure the safety of the borders, it was necessary to keep the border in a "blind"! Well, a maximum of specialists could quietly gouge drug caravans, of course, with the permission of the legitimate government.
  27. 1970mk
    1970mk 21 January 2020 16: 32
    -1
    We entered Afghanistan legally - at the request of its top political leadership.

    Legally killed the legitimate Amin ..... More than a million Afghans were killed ... and millions of refugees fled the country.
    Invested in ... in this ... and tore the country!
    In fact, exactly ..... our soldiers are not to blame .... the political leadership is guilty of dragging the country into this adventure.
  28. w70
    w70 5 February 2020 07: 15
    0
    The author has 3 097 publications! I wonder who pays a comfortable life for his team, apparently the liberals whom he scolds so much.