Military Review

Afghan virus for the communist bloc

21

The "Afghan Peace", conditional, of course, was signed on April 14. Soon after the agreements entered into force, in January 89, Soviet troops left Afghanistan. Among the many reasons that led to this, the split in the pro-Soviet bloc is considered not the most significant. Today they generally prefer not to remember him.


Chinese protégés


However, the signing in Geneva of a package of agreements on a political settlement in Afghanistan did not return the bloc's unity. And it is communist China, as you know, was among the "co-organizers" of all kinds of collective assistance to the Afghan mujahideen.

According to Pakistani and American sources, which no one refutes, the total financial and military-technical assistance of Beijing to the Mujahideen in 1980-1986. reached a third in the total volume of what was received by the anti-Soviet Afghan opposition.

Chinese delegations have constantly initiated discussions at the UN and the UN Security Council, as well as in other international forums, on the "occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet social-imperialism." It is also known that the PRC boycotted the Moscow 80 Olympics, not only because of Moscow's support for the invasion of Vietnamese troops into Cambodia in 1979, but also because of the Afghan factor.

But the PRC also organized its protégés in Afghanistan, who often collaborated with the mujahideen in a number of operations against Soviet troops. It was the Stalinist-Maoist Organization for the Revolutionary Liberation of Afghanistan (OROA), secretly created back in 1973 in Kabul.

Afghan virus for the communist bloc

It still exists today, sometimes interacting with the Taliban (banned in the Russian Federation) or with its opponents - now in terrorist attacks against US troops and the Kabul government. Although the official political position of the OROA excludes even a tactical partnership with anyone in Afghanistan.

Albania Enevra Hoxha also helped in the 70s - mid 80s of the OROA. But this organization has long had no illusions about its massive support from the local population. So, in the statement of the OPOA dated October 21, 2001, it is noted that

“The situation in the country is fundamentally different from 1979, when Soviet social-imperialism undertook a direct invasion of Afghanistan. The possibility of a war of resistance and a massive uprising against the United States and its allies seems extremely remote and almost unrealistic. Our country is now a bloody battlefield between world and regional powers. At one time, America and its allies took advantage of this opportunity to drag the now extinct Soviet Union into the war, and subsequently split it into pieces. "

And a month earlier, the OROA called for the collective overthrow of regimes in almost all "main" Islamic countries:

“Our organization, which has been fighting against the dirty religious creatures of the USA, Iran, Pakistan and a number of other Islamic countries for many years, will continue to fight against the Taliban and other reactionary gangs. The liberation of Afghanistan is impossible until the structures dependent on Pakistan and the criminal regimes of Iran, Saudi Arabia and others are overthrown. "

The founder of this organization, publicist and historian Faiz Ahmad (1946-1986) and a number of his associates were killed on November 12, 1986 by the group of Gulbeddin Hekmatyar. The new leadership of the organization, like it itself, according to a number of data, continues to receive assistance from the PRC. Having, as before, their military formations. But for obvious reasons, now in Beijing this support is not advertised.

International traitors


The condemnation of the USSR for the Afghan adventure united very many, and cemented such alliances that seemed to someone simply ephemeral. So, Romania, the GDR and the PRC made up a trio, which with its unity surpassed, not only the Big Three during the war, but also the earlier Entente.

The Romanian delegation to the UN is the only one of the delegations of the pro-Soviet socialist countries that did not "keep silent" when the West, China, Albania, Islamic countries condemned the Soviet policy in Afghanistan at the UN. The Romanians quite demonstratively refused to participate in a series of meetings of the Soviet delegation and representatives of pro-Soviet socialist countries in the UN to jointly rebuff the positions of the opposing countries on the Afghan issue.

Moreover, Bucharest out of the blue rejected Moscow's proposed draft of a joint statement by the Warsaw Pact countries, Cuba and Vietnam on support for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Moscow immediately abandoned the idea of ​​joint "approvals" on Afghanistan, remembering what a scandal the official protest against Nicolae Ceausescu about Operation Danube - the introduction of troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968 - turned into a scandal.


The leaders of Romania and the GDR N. Ceausescu and E. Honecker agreed on many things behind the backs of their Soviet colleagues

As for the position of the GDR, it actually closed in with the Romanian one. According to the historian and political scientist Harald Wessel, published in the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" on December 27, 2001, since the operation in Afghanistan, Moscow's allies

“We were informed after the fact, this was perceived even by the most loyal friends of the USSR as an unbearable insult. Accordingly, Erich Honecker also had a "sour" look.

“I will not betray any secret in our circle,” Honecker said on November 17, 1988 in Berlin to his Romanian colleague Nicolae Ceausescu, “that from the very beginning I took a negative position on how the problem of Afghanistan was solved.

And added:

- I was immediately skeptical about the path that Afghanistan was set on. This is recorded. If asked, we would not advise.

Honecker's point of view regarding the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 is true: there is evidence and evidence of this. "

The position of the GDR was soon embodied quite concretely:

“When, from May 19 to May 21, 1982, Babrak Karmal (the head of Afghanistan in the early 80s) was on an official visit to the GDR and asked for a gas turbine, Afghanistan supplied natural gas to the Soviet Union (to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan since 1973 - Approx. VO) - Honecker sharply retorted: unfortunately, a gas pipeline has not yet been laid between Kabul and Berlin, the turbine had to be bought for foreign currency in the West. And so he says literally: "You do not have, and we do not have dollars." There were no special actions of "solidarity" in support of pro-Soviet Afghanistan in the GDR. "

Taking into account the positions of Romania, the GDR and the PRC on Afghanistan, the USSR had, let's say, to prepare for a retreat. Moreover, the number of countries that voted for the UN resolution of January 14, 1980 condemning the Soviet invasion increased from 104 in 1980 (out of 155 UN member states) to 125 later (out of 169 member countries).


Source: Mouthpiece of Moscow, youtube.com

Both socialists and Islamists


At the same time, there were no more than twenty countries that supported the Soviet veto on this resolution. It is characteristic that, along with Romania, they did not support the Soviet position, abstaining from voting on the resolution, and countries friendly to the USSR, such as India, Islamic Bangladesh, Algeria, Iraq and Libya, as well as the socialist DPRK, Nicaragua, Laos and Yugoslavia. It is no less characteristic that Iran and Turkey were among those who condemned the entry of troops, including to the UN.

It is well known that since the early 80s Beijing's position on Soviet-Chinese relations has become less rigid ideologically, but more harsh and even pro-American in foreign policy. Chinese historian and political scientist Lu Xiaoying notes in his study "Foreign policy of the USSR-Russia: from confrontation to normalization of interstate relations with China: 1976-1996":

“For the first time, the thesis about the foreign policy“ three obstacles ”on the way to improving the Soviet-Chinese relations was officially expressed by the Chinese side during the conversation of the Chairman of the Military Council of the PRC Deng Xiaoping with the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Romania N. Ceausescu (in Beijing in 1982 - Note . IN). Deng Xiaoping asked N. Ceausescu to convey to Leonid Brezhnev that the Chinese side "expects real actions from the USSR" - such as the withdrawal of Soviet military contingents stationed in the territory of the Mongolian People's Republic; termination of the Soviet Union's support for "armed provocations of the Mongolian People's Republic on the borders of Mongolia and the People's Republic of China"; an end to the "aggression of Vietnam in Kampuchea"; withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan ”.

At least with regard to Afghanistan, Moscow had to concede over time ...
Author:
Photos used:
i.ytimg.com, geopolitica.ru, aIo.maoism.ru, wikimedia.org
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Far B
    Far B April 27 2021 03: 33
    +9
    From the article, I still did not understand, but what, in fact, is the virality of Afgan for the communist bloc? By the time the limited contingent was introduced, the disagreements, even the tough confrontation between the USSR and the PRC, were no longer a secret to anyone. Moreover, Beijing fully cooperated with the Americans, without hiding it. And why does the article keep repeating about the "Soviet invasion"? Was the Afghan occupied?
    1. depressant
      depressant April 27 2021 07: 23
      +2
      "Soviet invasion" is a special reproduction of their terminology to show how they perceive us. This is a syndrome of the Second World War, as well as Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Since then, any peacekeeping mission, first by the USSR and then by Russia, has been perceived only in this vein. Psychology is based on fear and despicable "You gave us something, but we will not be grateful. And wherever you come with your troops, we will scream about an illegal invasion! Because we are afraid of you." This is the fear of those who fell under Hitler in World War II, who lost the war. And then we walked over them, showing frightening superior power. They do not want to return what they have taken, they do not believe in our good intentions. The same China. Do not do good, you will not get evil. It’s time to understand for our government that good given without the demand for bestowal frightens and causes rejection, as everything is incomprehensible and therefore terrible.
    2. Prisoner
      Prisoner April 27 2021 07: 54
      -2
      The purpose of the article is to remind once again that we already remember to try to spoil the attitude towards China. Hence the "occupation" of Afgan by our troops.
  2. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. April 27 2021 04: 26
    +6
    Surprisingly, later the same Romania, Germany, the Czech Republic and Europe as a whole voted in support of the US invasion of Afghanistan.
    Your deeds are wonderful, Lord. what
    And again, Afghanistan led into the swamp those who invaded its territory.
    Afghanistan is a wonderland ... entered a village and disappeared there.
    1. samosad
      samosad April 27 2021 05: 32
      +4
      Yes, and most interestingly ... did Ceausescu help his Poles?
  3. Mitroha
    Mitroha April 27 2021 05: 27
    +2
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    Surprisingly, later the same Romania, Germany, the Czech Republic and Europe as a whole voted in support of the US invasion of Afghanistan.

    I understand, it has already set the teeth on edge, but: You don't understand, this is the same different laughing
  4. Olgovich
    Olgovich April 27 2021 06: 01
    +4
    Bucharest out of the blue rejected Moscow's proposed draft joint statement of the Warsaw Pact countries, Cuba and Vietnam to support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

    This is the Romania that the USSR recently forgave for its wild atrocities on its territory, forgave reparations, returned Transylvania to it, saved it from hunger in 1946-47 (to the detriment of its citizens), invested in development. And what did you get for all this? As a result, in general, the Romanians are in NATO and again threaten with amero-missiles and amerbaz.

    short-sighted, short-sighted was the policy ...
    1. Far B
      Far B April 27 2021 07: 31
      +1
      short-sighted, short-sighted was the policy ...
      Ay, and don't say. That’s the business of the tsars-fathers: for a century, Russian blood was shed in Bulgaria, and then grateful Bulgarians ... Oh, but they generally ended up on the side of the Axis in WWI. How so ??? After all, the policy was so far-sighted crying
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich April 27 2021 09: 06
        +1
        Quote: Dalny V
        That’s the business of the tsars-fathers: for a century, Russian blood was shed in Bulgaria, and then grateful Bulgarians ... Oh, but they generally ended up on the Axis side in WWI. How so ??? After all, politics is farsighted was

        you compared a root crop with a finger: Romania in Bessarabia alone killed 300 thousand civilians, reached the Caucasus and the Volga, destroyed and robbed trillions of dollars.

        WHAT is similar to Bulgaria? Nothing at all

        and the Romanians FORGIVE everything and also fed land and money. Now look out the window, under what tail are all our gifts and forgiveness.

        And yes - Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, Greece - on the side of Russia in both wars, and Bolgraria against the USSR in WWII - did not fight - and this is the result of the work of Russia in the 18th, 19th centuries
        1. Far B
          Far B April 27 2021 09: 29
          0
          and the Romanians FORGIVEN everything and also fed them with lands and money
          From the Romanians (as well as the GDR, Hungary, Slovakia) they made a buffer from the collective West, which loved to go to fight through these territories. Normal strategic decision. And yes - those who especially deserved were not forgiven anything.
          and Bulgaria against the USSR in WWII - did not fight - and this is the result of the work of Russia in the 18th, 19th centuries
          These are the times. Just like that, and I see an oil painting: Alexander 2 says to the Bulgarian people: "Only this one, brothers ... There, here, after 1917, the Bolsheviks will come to power, then there will be a big war, so you do not harness against the Bolsheviks, do not shame me. "
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich April 27 2021 10: 22
            -1
            Quote: Dalny V
            From the Romanians (as well as the GDR, Hungary, Slovakia) they made a buffer from the collective West, which loved to go to fight through these territories. Normal strategic decision

            where is the buffer, what is the buffer - they are ALL against Russia and on the same path of aggression -forgiven, fed and pumped up by her money -Look at the window. And they pissed off at once, at the slightest weakening of the grip.

            But all you had to do was just read the HISTORY in order to know what would happen just like that. Great "achievement", yes!

            What reality do you live in?
            And yes - those who especially deserved were not forgiven anything.
            Call them Hungary, Romania, who?

            It's funny!

            They were FORGIVED our genocide, they didn’t call genocide genocide, they didn’t take reparations, now they are legally speaking, and there was no genocide, you yourself were silent about it

            Quote: Dalny V
            These are the times. This is how I see an oil painting:

            here are the two: Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, Greece - on the side of Russia in both wars, and Bolgraria against the USSR in WWII - did not fight - and this is the result of the work of Russia in the 18th, 19th centuries
      2. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman April 27 2021 10: 38
        +1
        First, there was no "Axis" in WWI. This is a later union. Berlin-Tokyo-Rome.
        Secondly, the policy towards Bulgaria was indeed not the most far-sighted. They themselves imposed a pro-German prince on the Bulgarians, and when the pro-Russian-minded Bulgarians overthrew him, they defiantly did not interfere and try to put a more sane monarch on the throne.
        As a result, Ferdinand, not out of great intelligence, got into the war, which was practically lost by the Central Powers.
    2. tatra
      tatra April 27 2021 09: 40
      -5
      Yes, the Communist Bolsheviks, beginning with Lenin, did not foresee that you, their enemies, would seize the USSR and divide it among yourselves, and seize Eastern Europe. Then they would not have invested so much money in the development of the USSR and Eastern Europe.
  5. nikvic46
    nikvic46 April 27 2021 07: 37
    +2
    Every war must leave behind a historical and combat experience. There are fears that the experience of the Afghan war was lost. Many leading generals were removed after the hostilities, and this influenced the negative moments in Chechnya.
    1. Lynx2000
      Lynx2000 April 27 2021 10: 14
      +2
      Quote: nikvic46
      Every war must leave behind a historical and combat experience. There are fears that the experience of the Afghan war has been lost. Many leading generals were removed after hostilities. And this influenced the negative moments in Chechnya.

      The "negative moments" in Chechnya, especially in the first, were influenced by populists and demagogues-politicians (including the Minister of the RF Ministry of Defense), defenders of the rights of any people except Russians ...
      The army and the FSK (FSB), the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Federal Border Guard Service would not interfere, it would have ended in the first Chechen war.
    2. Richard
      Richard April 27 2021 17: 20
      +2
      Many leading generals were removed after hostilities

      Who exactly? take the trouble to clarify.
      By the way, today is a kind of anniversary. April 27, 1978 went down in history as the day of the April Revolution in Afghanistan. The assassination of Sardar (the Afghan equivalent of the titles of prince or prince) of Muhammad Daoud led to armed clashes with opposition forces. A civil war broke out in the country. The army officers, who were all trained in the USSR, supported the leaders of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, which professed a Marxist ideology. The supporters of the concept of socialism who came to power faced powerful opposition to their social, economic and political strategy. The Soviet Army was also directly involved in the civil war, introduced into the country by decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU to support the Kabul government
      1. nikvic46
        nikvic46 April 27 2021 18: 38
        0
        Richard. I will not tell you names. Here are the words of the Russian Defense Minister at the beginning of actions in Chechnya. "It so happened that some generals, my assistants, for various reasons, or could not lead a group of troops, to conduct hostilities, I do not want to call their names." Grachev P.S. He probably meant Gromov. The most important generals either left for the administration, while the chief of staff committed suicide. We had to treat them humanly. And they were treated like enemies. We like to look for enemies where they are not.
  6. tatra
    tatra April 27 2021 09: 48
    -5
    First, the enemies of the communists seized the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe back in the Perestroika of their "Liberator" Gorbachev, and everything that happened in the late 80s, including the withdrawal of the USSR from the Afghan war, was their responsibility. Secondly, the entry of the USSR into the Afghan one is an analogue of the entry of the Russian Empire into the First World War - not for the sake of its own interests, but for the sake of "friendly regimes", but the enemies of the communists, who always and in everything have double standards, believe that Nicholas II had the full right to plunge the country and people into the First World War, and the Bolsheviks were obliged after the October Revolution to continue participating in the First World War, but the USSR did not have the right to join the Afghan one, and the enemies of the communists had every right to withdraw the USSR from this war.
  7. Artashes
    Artashes April 27 2021 11: 01
    -1
    EXACTLY - Afghanistan was occupied to support the Kremlin puppets in Kabul (only there they ruled). NONE of the Kremlin dignitaries has been to Afghanistan (but the US presidents have always been to South Vietnam ...) - the "Leninists" were afraid. At the same time, drug trafficking began from there in the USSR, with the complicity of "internationalists".
    The occupation showed a systemic crisis in the Soviet army, the leaders of which believed that there would be "no problems", as earlier in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Novocherkassk. At the same time, the first - after the 30s - sabotage took place in Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan (for example, the Nurek hydroelectric power station was hardly blown up, and not only; they often smashed windows on trains from Moscow ...) ..
    The world reaction was not calculated ABSOLUTELY - at least the reaction of Iran, Pakistan (even India did not support the invasion). Kosygin, Katushev, Dolgikh warned about the indefinite consequences of such an action, but they did NOT decide ...
    THIS IS A CRIME OF THE KREMLIN AND ITS SERVANTS! Moreover, it aggravated the split in the world communist movement.
    And then - as usual - they left those who fought in Afghanistan to the mercy of fate, many of whom were forced to replenish criminal and "related" groups.
    As for the "myth" about the non-participation of "fraternal" Bulgaria in the wars against Russia-USSR - this has long been exposed even in socialist Bulgaria (but not in the USSR-RF ...). For example, Sofia was able to grab a large contribution and free supplies of grain from the losing Russia - under the Brest Treaty (1918). And the like in the future ...
  8. iouris
    iouris April 27 2021 11: 24
    +4
    What does some "virus" have to do with it? The Soviet leadership did not consult with the allies, but demanded unconditional support. It is not right. In addition, in the end, everything ended very sadly for the USSR and the world socialist system. In addition, the USSR and Russia were exposed as anti-Islamic forces.
  9. faterdom
    faterdom April 29 2021 00: 38
    0
    What's the difference?
    Honecker then had time to regret the collapse of the USSR, Ceausescu did not. But both of them felt a lot easier, apparently.
    The multi-vector approach did not arise today.
    But even looking at today's Gorbachev - horror: "And this is the head of the camp?"
    Confused, comrades from the communist and workers' parties.
    And what is the West today, albeit stupidly, but hollow, hollow and hollow? Solidarity, even in absurdity, but a united front - Petrov-Boshirov, Hailey-Likli, Polonius - 210.
    But their Afghanistan is coming to an end, and I hope their Viskuli is not far off.