Military Review

Afghan trap

32
Afghan trap
Chief of Staff of the 334 th OOSPN major Vyacheslav Kachura on the BTR-80. Afghanistan "the beginning of the withdrawal of the Soviet troops 1988



The Afghan war, as is commonly believed, was unsuccessful for the USSR. From a political point of view, maybe it is. But with the military everything is completely different. The tasks that the Soviet leadership set before the troops were completed. In addition, our military gained invaluable experience in waging war against irregular armed formations.

Time is implacable. Now, those whose fathers of 27 of December 1979 were already in the army ran an epic called “Afghan war”. It was she who forced the generation of the grandchildren of the soldiers of the Great Patriotic War to plunge again into the crucible of battles, to know the bitterness of defeat and the joy of small victories, the loss of comrades and the devil-may-care attitude of officials to the crippled bodies of "Afghans". It is the bodies that were wounded and crippled by that war, and not the souls that were tempered in it.

The “Afghan war” left its mark not only in the hearts of its participants and the military stories our country, but contributed to the development of weapons and its combat use. Moreover, the practical combat use of those or other samples weapons often went far beyond the scope of its intended purpose or took place in completely unforeseen conditions.

The “Afghan war” officially lasted for 9 years and 51. The 15 ended February 1989 in February with the intersection of the last column of Soviet troops on the Soviet-Afghan border. Unfortunately, over the entire post-Afghan period, we have not managed to draw the necessary political and military lessons from that conflict. In Afghanistan, we did not suffer a military defeat and did not win. We simply paid for the mistakes of politicians, our own and Afghan ones, with tens of thousands of human lives of the peoples of both states.

In the foreground is a combat reconnaissance and patrol vehicle BRDM-2 with a sound system. Rear tank T-62M. The additional armored shield of the turret and bulwarks are clearly visible, providing protection against cumulative ammunition from fire.


In Afghanistan, a weak survivability of the BMD-1 was revealed when it was detonated in a mine. By the mid-80s. BMD-1 vehicles were replaced by BMD-2D in the paratrooper units


Afghan commando units remove weapons and ammunition from a captured warehouse of insurgents (center of a gun carriage of an AHC machine gun)


The limited contingent of Soviet troops in Afghanistan became the force with which the leadership of the armed Afghan opposition and their overseas patrons were forced to reckon. Military-technical assistance to the Afghan rebel formations with the introduction of Soviet troops in Afghanistan increased day by day. It was not the flint-guns that the Afghan Mujahideen fought against the Soviet troops, although these guns themselves have been kept in their homes for a long time, because the Afghan society has always been militarized, due to the constant enmity between the tribes. At the beginning of the 80's family flints and borays began to force out the Kalashnikov assault rifle, for the most part Chinese-made - Type "56". But not only the guns were armed rebels. They received portable anti-aircraft missile systems, multiple rocket launchers, mortars, recoilless rifles and grenade launchers, anti-aircraft artillery and machine gun installations, various small arms, anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. All these Afghan "rebels" were generously supplied by their western and eastern patrons. The geography of military-technical assistance provided by the armed Afghan opposition in the 80-ies. last century, covered the entire globe.

Until 1979, the tactics of actions of units and subunits of the Ministry of Defense of the Soviet Union did not provide for military operations against irregular armed formations of the enemy. A similar experience in the struggle of the Red Army with Basmachi in Central Asia, the NKVD and the Ministry of State Security with banditry in Western Ukraine and the Baltic States, which remains relevant in our time, was not reflected in the military manuals and training practices of the USSR Armed Forces. The unpreparedness of army units and subunits to combat irregular formations was compounded by difficult physical and geographical conditions. In the mountains of Afghanistan, mobile operations of infantry units and special forces have gained particular importance. Army special forces proved to be the most effective means of counterinsurgency war in the mountains and deserts of Central Asia. Acting suddenly and decisively, the relatively small reconnaissance groups and special forces inflicted significant damage to the enemy in manpower and weapons. At the same time, scouts used mostly portable means of defeating the enemy and only in individual episodes relied on artillery fire, aviation and armored vehicles. Great experience in the use of various weapons in Afghanistan was gained not only by special forces, but also motorized rifles, paratroopers, artillerymen, sappers, helicopter pilots and other specialists.

Afghanistan has contributed to the acceleration of research and development in the field of weapons. During the “Afghan war” period, the Su-25 attack aircraft, the infantry fighting vehicle BMP-2, 82-mm 2B14 “Tray” mortar and 40-mm Koster grenade launcher developed and adopted by late 25's During the years in which Soviet troops in Afghanistan developed and put into service new types of weapons: 70-mm reactive anti-tank grenades RPG-72,5 (22) and RPG-1981 (26), hand fragmentation grenades RGN and RGO (1985), 1982-mm pistol MSS (7,62) and a knife shooting the NPC-1983 (2), 1986-mm silent machine gun AS "Val" and a sniper rifle BCC "Vintorez" (9), 1987-mm rocket infantry flame-thrower RPO-A "Bumblebee" (officially adopted on armament in 93, but entered Afghanistan from 1988).

BTR-70 on the march. In areas controlled by Soviet and government Afghan forces, the local population treated them quite friendly.


At the beginning of the 80's in the mortar units of OKSV in Afghanistan, the BM-43 mortar (sample 1943) was replaced with the lightweight “Tray” mortar. Mortar calculation 82-mm mortar 2B14 "Tray" consists of four people


Thanks to the Afghan experience, existing weapons were improved and modernized. The experience of the operation and combat use of armored vehicles in Afghanistan demanded enhanced protection of armored objects from the fire of cumulative ammunition and increased the survival of the crew and the landing forces when undermining an anti-tank mine. Additional armor protection appears in infantry fighting vehicles BMP-1D and BMP-2D, BTR-70D, tank T-62M. The armored personnel carriers BTR-70 and BTR-80 in the roof of the airborne compartment appeared loopholes for small arms, allowing the landing to fire with large angles of fire. He received additional armored protection for the cockpit and transport and combat helicopter Mi-8, which increased the survivability of the crew when firing a turntable from small arms.

Combat units of the Soviet troops were significantly superior to the irregular formations of the Afghan opposition in armament at the expense of armored vehicles, artillery and aircraft. However, during the clashes of the Soviet units with insurgent detachments in the highlands or brilliant green (irrigated valleys), especially when conducting close combat, their weapons were almost the same. The rebels' small arms, consisting of Chinese and Egyptian Kalashnikov assault rifles.

Afghan militia with Soviet weapons - PPSh submachine gun and AK-47 submachine gun. long exploitation of weapons "not killed"


Delivery of ammunition to the outpost guard post. foreground machine gunner with PKM, second fighter with RPK-74 machine gun


light and heavy machine guns were not inferior to Soviet infantry small arms, represented by AKM and AK-74 machine guns, RPK and RPK-74, PKM and NSVS-12,7 machine guns. As for anti-tank weapons and mortars, it is not uncommon that their ratio was even in favor of the rebels. But no matter how perfect a weapon is, it is used by people. The outcome of the battle was decided not only by weapons, but field training and morale was of no small importance. Soviet units, even in the numerical minority, were much more likely to emerge victorious than their adversary. Years after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan, the former Afghan Mujahideen respectfully speak of how the Shuravi fought against them (the Soviet - Dari). With the rare exception of units and units of the Limited contingent, they successfully carried out all the tasks set by the command. But to win a war in Afghanistan by military action alone was impossible. The war in Afghanistan was lost not by the military, but by the political leadership of the Soviet Union. The military has an expression - as the task is set, so it is executed. The task of defeating the Afghan rebel formations before the OCRC in Afghanistan did not stand, and the "military assistance" concept is inert and not concrete. Example of OXV in Afghanistan in 1979-1989 did not serve as a lesson for practical Yankees. ISAF, led by the United States and the NATO command, were unable to control the internal political processes in Afghanistan by the international security assistance forces in Afghanistan. For the current leaders of the Afghan Mujahideen, the fight against foreign occupation was only a pretext for reprisals against internal enemies. The installation on building a “democratic society” in Afghanistan, in its Western sense, was lowered by “Uncle Sam” and only contributed to a new round of Islamic fundamentalism in the region.

Soviet infantry on a halt. In the foreground, the main weapon of the infantry is the 5,45-mm machine gun AK-74 7,62-mm sniper rifle SVD AND 40-mm grenade launcher GP-25. Afghanistan, February 1989


Afghan "green". View of the Mi-8 helicopter in the lower right corner of the block of unguided C-5 aircraft


Kalashnikov machine guns, 82-MM mortar M69 (Yugoslavia), 30-mm automatic grenade launchers AGS-17 (Afghan name "Samson") And 14,5-mm anti-aircraft mountain installations ZGU-1


Modern Afghanistan remains the refuge of religious extremists and the main drug exporter to the post-Soviet states and Europe.

Now is the time for Russia to comprehend all the lessons of the “Afghan war.” Wars justified in the context of the political events of twenty seven years old and modern. But not justified by the loss of our compatriots 14333, worthy of the memory and gratitude of the descendants.

The main way of carrying the AK machine, practiced by the Afghans, is on the shoulder with the weapon held by the barrel.


The 14,5-Mm anti-aircraft installations ZSU-1 (Type "76-1", PRC) were the main means of air defense of the Afghan insurgents in the 80-s. Transportation ZSU-1 pickup. If necessary, the anti-aircraft gun can be broken apart and transported by calculation from 5-7 people or transported by 2-3 to pack animals.
Author:
Photos used:
at registration of a material pictures of photojournalists are used. Maksimishin, V. Svartsevich, V. Khabarov, M. Marmur, A. Sekretaryova, and L. Yakutin
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ivan79
    Ivan79 17 July 2013 07: 50 New
    15
    So many guys died there. Eternal memory to them.
    1. valokordin
      valokordin 17 July 2013 10: 18 New
      13
      Quote: Ivan79
      So many guys died there. Eternal memory to them.

      If there were no betrayal and betrayal, the victory would remain with us.
      1. Hleb
        Hleb 17 July 2013 20: 26 New
        +5
        But were we really beats in Afghanistan? Lost? Tell us, because of whose betrayal and betrayal, we were left without victory? what purpose did the USSR pursue in that war?
        1. valokordin
          valokordin 17 July 2013 23: 10 New
          +3
          Quote: Gleb
          Gleb RU Today, 20:26 ↑ New

          But were we really beats in Afghanistan? Lost? Tell us, because of whose betrayal and betrayal, we were left without victory? what purpose did the USSR pursue in that war?

          We won the war, but the victory was stolen from us by Gorbachev and Yeltsinoids, who are now in power.
          1. Cyber7
            Cyber7 17 July 2013 23: 54 New
            +2
            You can not win the war, which is conducted, although in the interests of a state, but not on its territory. The Yankees in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq had plenty of it.
            We did not win this war, we just finished it with dignity.
            IMHO.
          2. Max_Bauder
            Max_Bauder 18 July 2013 22: 27 New
            0
            Nobody stole anyone, the Soviet Union collapsed because the majority did not need it (like Tsarist Russia), time always passes, and each regime comes to an end, sooner or later, when the consciousness of people changes, a just Kingdom only in Heaven, as Yeshua said from Nazareth.

            If the collapse of the Union was not the choice of the majority of the people, then why when the State Emergency Committee in 1991 sent troops to Moscow to frustrate the EBN’s plans to destroy the USSR, then immediately a crowd of Muscovites came out in defense of the White House as Turks are now in taxis (such an area in Istanbul)?

            the answer is obvious, everything from young to one hundred ... although no, the old people wanted to live in the Union and praise it soon, that is, only the younger generation wanted a new Russia, of course they already "knew" (were mistaken) about the "good life" of the West, and even the military did not stand up for the USSR (otherwise it would have been civilian as in 1918-22) so they also wanted collapse.

            I do not want to say that the Union was good or better now, I just want to say that the people themselves choose their ruler, by war or peacefully.
        2. Cyber7
          Cyber7 17 July 2013 23: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: Gleb
          what purpose did the USSR pursue in that war?

          Protection of the southern borders, what is incomprehensible here?
          Victory is the capture or surrender of an attacked state. But we did not strive for this.
          And we didn’t attack anyone, we simply supported the regime of that Afghan government, in which new houses were built in the cities of Afghanistan, people studied and women walked without burqa.
          But too often, the "new" rulers want all the "perestroika" to burden their pocket. That was the main problem.
          Is not it?
        3. Max_Bauder
          Max_Bauder 18 July 2013 22: 14 New
          0
          The protégé of the Union was to remain in power in Afghanistan, and a limited contingent of troops entered into defense of the regime as a guarantor,

          but over the 9 years of the war, the USSR not only did not defeat the Taliban, the latter even received the support of the local population (all uneducated radical Muslims) and finally after the withdrawal of troops 89 (the collapse was close),

          these filth (it’s impossible to call people differently stoning the death of their own sinful children or cutting their faces to naked girls, because it is forbidden by Sharia law) came to power, and even sent their militants to Chechnya in 1995-1996, they were officially in power for 12 years before the Americans entered there,

          that the most interesting Taliban still exist, and after the departure of American troops (whoever doubts) they are going to restore their power again, which is very fraught, because this is not far Antarctica or Guatemala, Afghanistan is right "behind the neighboring house"

          It is unlikely that you will sleep peacefully if you know that there is a maniac behind the house who can kill you when you sleep

          such need to be eliminated, like the Chinese of the Dzungars, the rebellious people (who do not want to work but love to rob and kill) are not needed by anyone

          PySy

          right are those who believe that the loss of the Afghan war is political (we see what came of it, as stated above) but not a military
          1. Chern
            Chern 19 July 2013 22: 26 New
            0
            right are those who believe that the loss of the Afghan war is political (we see what came of it, as stated above) but not military [/ quote]

            war is a continuation of politics. so there is no need to evade - "politically, but not military", he lost the alliance to the Afghan war, he lost. and the puppet Afghan ruler did not last long after the Soviet troops left, and the Soviet military themselves had to negotiate with the Mujahideen so that they would not shoot at the departing columns. and the Soviet economy, this war did not benefit. Alas.
            ps not gloating, but it's time to face the truth.
            1. Cyber7
              Cyber7 21 July 2013 21: 17 New
              0
              You are not right.
              War and politics are not the same thing. Politicians rule with ratings and money, people who are still able to defend this country die in the war.
              War is the quintessence of the failure of politicians in their demagogy. But politics does not always lead to war.
              It sometimes helps, but more often it prevents people from living without an automatic machine under the bed.
              IMHO.
  2. Predator-74
    Predator-74 17 July 2013 08: 28 New
    +7
    It is impossible to justify such sacrifices in principle, but since you can’t change anything, it remains to be hoped that they were not in vain and our army gained invaluable combat experience (certainly priceless), which in the future will save many of the lives of our troops.
    The blessed memory of the fallen.
  3. svskor80
    svskor80 17 July 2013 09: 07 New
    26
    All dogs were sent to the Soviet Army - aggressors, etc. etc., and now no one knows what to do with drugs and gangs of the Taliban, Mujahideen and other evil spirits. They will fight always and everywhere, carry out terrorist attacks and their children will go the same way. The Americans think in vain that this will not hurt them - heroin and militant Islam will get there too.
  4. kirgudu
    kirgudu 17 July 2013 10: 31 New
    23
    But not justifiable loss of 14 in 333 years?

    And 100'000 per year dying young people from 15 to 30 from drugs are not many? And for the most part they are from Afghanistan.
    1. plantagenet
      plantagenet 17 July 2013 21: 31 New
      +1
      It has never happened that a war lasted a long time and that would be beneficial to the state. Therefore, one who does not fully understand all the harm from war cannot fully understand the full benefits of war.
      Sun tzu
  5. ed65b
    ed65b 17 July 2013 10: 34 New
    +4
    we could set up a trap and, in full measure, recoup the United States and allies in present-day Afghanistan. and their situation and losses would be much sadder than that of the USSR. Or maybe just awful.
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 18 July 2013 00: 02 New
      0
      Quote: ed65b
      we could

      Fantasies on the topic of “what would happen if everything was wrong” were always the most impressive.
      And barren.
      Fact.
      Particularly impressive in these fantasies is the use of the adjectives ными scary ’, ужас horrible’, катастроф catastrophic ’and tyda.
  6. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 17 July 2013 10: 47 New
    +5
    The experience of NATO and the USSR shows that it is impossible to set the task of helping a weak government ... If the Karzai government falls, we need to consider the possibility of a joint operation with the whole world to divide Afghanistan from the UN site. It is necessary to agree and give parts to Iran, Pakistan, China, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. The UN will come to life, NATO will solve its problems (if they wanted democracy), Russia too (only three need to introduce temporary visas with Tajiks and Uzbeks), Iran and Pakistan will be glad to see them all. China mountains with glaciers will depart.
  7. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 17 July 2013 12: 51 New
    12
    ... The war in Afghanistan was lost not by the military, but by the political leadership of the Soviet Union. The military has an expression - as the task is posed, so it is fulfilled ...

    More precisely and you will not tell.
    If we set another task, we would accomplish another. This is the Army.

    Thanks to the author for the memories.
  8. kanifas
    kanifas 17 July 2013 17: 02 New
    +3
    Only this invaluable experience in Chechnya was forgotten (scored) nafig.
  9. Andrey Skokovsky
    Andrey Skokovsky 17 July 2013 18: 59 New
    +2
    the more I learn about this war, the more confidence that a radical reassessment of public opinion about the causes, progress and results of the war in Afghanistan is required
    the Western assessment of the war and its outcome, imposed on Russia by the Gorbachev team, is official, and today it impedes the return of our Russian independence
  10. Eric
    Eric 17 July 2013 19: 01 New
    0
    Quote: kanifas
    Only this invaluable experience in Chechnya was forgotten (scored) nafig.

    exactly...
  11. Selevc
    Selevc 17 July 2013 20: 25 New
    0
    The Afghan war is possible and was a victory, but only in the sense of tactics ... But from a strategic point of view, this is a complete failure of Soviet foreign policy !!! Vietnam just died down where the USSR so famously smeared the whole West in the person of the USA and then they themselves stepped on the same rake !!! I read somewhere that on the day the Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, the American ambassador made a lot of fun and until the morning the lights were on in the American embassy - they probably were happy with the sets !!!

    More than 20 years have passed since the end of the war in Afghanistan, but no one can really give an answer - for what or for whom did they actually fight? Therefore, the people did not like this war and tried not to notice - like the 80th time of peace and zinc coffins from Afghanistan came regularly ...
    And by the way - between Afghanistan and Chechnya - it’s only about 5-6 years old and the generals with Afghan experience were in command of the Russian army - why then are there such failures in the 1st Chechen?
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 18 July 2013 00: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: Selevc
      Vietnam just died

      Do you have a very tight history, or is it "just" for you 10-15 years?
      Quote: Selevc
      between Afghanistan and Chechnya - only 5-6 years

      The Afghan war was in the USSR, the first Chechen war was after the collapse of the USSR. This explains a lot.
      These 5 years, people had to somehow survive.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 18 July 2013 00: 27 New
        0
        Quote: Cyber7
        Do you have a very tight history, or is it "just" for you 10-15 years?

        You have problems with history — the Vietnam War ended in 1975, and in 1979 Soviet troops entered Afghanistan — between these events, it’s only 4 years !!!
        And if more, then what? Anglo-Saxons are not at all the people who just forgive humiliation !!!
        1. Cyber7
          Cyber7 18 July 2013 00: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Selevc
          The Vietnam War ended in 1975 and in 1979, Soviet troops entered Afghanistan

          Here you are right.
          But in the Vietnam War, about half a million people officially fought from the Yankees, and several thousand "unofficial" "advisers" and "instructors" from the USSR.
          The war in Afghanistan and the war in Chechnya are separated by the border of the collapse of the USSR. And this is a very tight border. Under the USSR, 13 (it seems) defense ministers who refused to head the campaign would not have been sent peacefully to retirement.
          Why and why they did not like the Afghan war, I wrote above. It was a political war on foreign territory.
          Chechnya was not Stalingrad either. I don’t know how I would feel when I participated in that war. But certainly not at all what the grandfathers felt when defending Brest.

          About the Anglo-Saxons, I did not understand the phrase.
  12. Black
    Black 17 July 2013 21: 43 New
    +2
    Quote: valokordin
    If there were no betrayal and betrayal, the victory would remain with us.

    Well, firstly, those who were beaten there do not feel.
    Secondly, what does it mean - victory? - Afghanistan’s accession to the USSR?
    - total "sweeping" of the population?
    - alignment of the Hindu Kush to zero?
    In a military sense, the army only got stronger. Politically, the country lost in December 79th.
    Quote: Selevc
    generals with Afghan experience - why then such failures in the 1st Chechen?

    For the “Afghans”, when they were in Afghanistan, there was a great and powerful state that demanded of them only one thing - unquestioning performance of military duty, taking on the whole moral side of this war. The "Afghans" in the war were out of politics. When the state collapsed, then the Soviet Marxist ideology was dismantled with it. And most of yesterday’s comrades-in-arms were stretched out at various ideological poles of the new world ...

    The Chechen war was different. The army thrown into the Caucasian meat grinder was thrown to the mercy of fate by its state from the very first day and was under the powerful psychological press of the liberal media. An ideology was not formulated, there was no moral education. All this forced the "Chechen" generals themselves to engage in politics and diplomacy and the development of ideological concepts.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 17 July 2013 23: 21 New
      0
      All this forced the "Chechen" generals themselves to engage in politics and diplomacy and the development of ideological concepts.

      Honestly, I see little connection between idiology and politics on the one hand and tactics of warfare in the mountains and in urban conditions on the other ... :)))

      After Afghanistan there should have been specialists who knew how to guard the columns of armored vehicles, how to conduct reconnaissance, support and support for their troops !!! Moreover, they knew that the Dudaevites had enough RPGs and other means of defeating armored vehicles ... The very beginning of the 1st Chechen one looks like a large setup by the Kremlin top of its own army !!!
      1. Cyber7
        Cyber7 18 July 2013 00: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Selevc
        Honestly, I see little connection between idiology and politics on the one hand and tactics of warfare in the highlands and in urban conditions on the other

        А зря.
        Under the USSR, people were more or less ready to fight for their state. And now such people already have a beard and they are over 30, or even over 40.
        About the setup. Yes it was. And now - there is and will be.
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 18 July 2013 00: 33 New
          +2
          What difference were the Russian soldiers ready to fight in the 1st Chechen or not? No one asked them - they were drafted into the army and simply threw for slaughter like cannon fodder to the hysterical screams of the liberoid press !!! The stupid top military leadership of the country should be responsible for this - and in Russia, as always, everyone and everyone are to blame !!! And the boys died because of high-ranking nonsense specifically !!!
          1. Cyber7
            Cyber7 18 July 2013 01: 11 New
            +2
            Quote: Selevc
            What difference were the Russian soldiers ready to fight in the 1st Chechen or not?

            That sounds disgusting.
            But no one ever asked the soldier if they were ready to fight for the interests of their country.
            Hitler was eager for the Caucasus, including for conquering the resources of Chechnya. But we did not give him these territories. Not then to Hitler, nor now to anyone.
            And the soldiers in Chechnya died for good reason.
            Another question is that with proper command of the victims, there could be much less.
            In this I completely agree with you.
            1. berimor
              berimor 18 July 2013 21: 13 New
              0
              Why come from an intelligent command, if the fish rots from the head ?! Everything is rotten in the Danish kingdom! Such a betrayal had to be sought when the plans of operations for the enemy were often known before the troops had time to set the combat mission !!!
              1. Cyber7
                Cyber7 21 July 2013 21: 22 New
                0
                It has always been strange to me.
                For centuries, at the head of the Russian armies (with rare exceptions) stood cowardly generals. And we, contrary to all, won victory after victory.
                The Russian army does not rest on the generals, but on the soldiers.
                Suvorov was right. It is pointless to argue with such a general.
      2. berimor
        berimor 18 July 2013 21: 05 New
        0
        Have you forgotten who stood at the political helm of the Russian Federation ?! Yes, many politicians benefited from the continuation of this war in Chechnya! Read documents, watch movies - there are tons of them! In this war, fortunes were made. Remember how during the battles (with the outlined success of the federal forces) they “suddenly” decided to conclude a truce or “suddenly” arranged negotiations. And during this time, the Chechens received, again, from behind the hillock and from the “volunteers” at the top of the government of the Russian Federation, who benefited from this war, finances, reinforcements and managed to regroup. And how many weapons our corrupt politicians from the army left there, too, remember. Is it possible to compare the policies of the USSR (though before the appearance of the spotted ka), its military leaders with what appeared after perestroika, and especially in the nineties in Russia ?! Remember MO Shaposhnikov, who left huge reserves of weapons in Chechnya, remember PASHA-Mercedes, who promised to capture Grozny and put things in order in 3 days, but at the same time cowardly threw his tankers to the mercy of fate on New Year's Eve! Remember Gaidar, Chubais, Shakhraev, all this Gorbachev-Yeltsin thief and rotten camarilla and everything will become clear and understandable!
  13. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 17 July 2013 21: 49 New
    +5
    <<< In Afghanistan, we did not suffer a military defeat and did not win. We simply paid for the mistakes of political figures, our own and those of Afghanistan, by the tens of thousands of human lives of the peoples of both states. Modern Afghanistan remains the refuge of religious extremists and the main exporter of drugs to post-Soviet states and Europe. >>>
    And here it was not without Humpbacked Judas a fool who, with his wretched “new thinking” for the sake of his Western “friends”, refused the option they offered us of a way out of the Afghan war, but simply withdrew our troops from Afghanistan, betraying and abandoning Najibullah and all pro-Russian Afghans to their fate without any support that the West had NOT EXPECTED! Naturally, he immediately took advantage of the situation, reinforcing the already powerful support of the opponents of Najibullah, which led to his fall and the bloody massacre that the victors over the conquered - our supporters! Thus, Humpbacked Judas devalued everything positive, which, along with mistakes, undoubtedly was made by us in Afghanistan and could have survived, and made the sacrifices made by our soldiers useless! Eternal memory to the fallen, who have fulfilled their duty!
    1. omsbon
      omsbon 17 July 2013 23: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: Goldmitro
      And here it was not without Humpbacked Judas the idiot who, with his wretched "new thinking" to please his Western "friends", refused the option they offered of which was advantageous for us to get out of the Afghan war

      Dimon iPhone awarded this humpbacked Judah the Order. It's disgusting!
  14. krpmlws
    krpmlws 17 July 2013 21: 49 New
    +2
    There is no need to compare the war in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Afghanistan bordered on the USSR and the support of the union government, the introduction of troops was a natural and logical step. Our government should have provided comprehensive explanations of the necessity of sending troops, but then we limited ourselves to talk about international duty. In Russia there is a huge experience of successful development of Asia, therefore, it is puzzling that it was not used in Afghanistan. If a prudent policy was pursued, Afghanistan could turn into an ordinary socialist republic within ten years.
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 18 July 2013 00: 24 New
      0
      Reasonable. Everything went to that. Only most people always want something more. And, preferably, at someone else's expense.
      On this we got burnt.
  15. EdwardTich68
    EdwardTich68 22 July 2013 03: 22 New
    0
    The senseless slaughter started by soviet gerontocrats, which led to the impoverishment of the peoples of the USSR drinks
    1. Michael HORNET
      Michael HORNET 10 November 2019 22: 12 New
      0
      It was just necessary to more precisely set the most realistic tasks and try to fulfill them with all our might. And everything will work out and if you simulate military operations and behave passively, not daring to touch the bases in Pakistan, it’s clear that you are kicked and forced to get out.
      There was a military decision, but the leadership did not take responsibility
  16. klerklenovo
    klerklenovo 13 September 2013 20: 36 New
    0
    Good evening. I ask the creators of the site for help. Two days ago, a certificate "Union of Veterans of Afghanistan" was found at my work.
    Musienko
    Alexander
    V.
    Cherkasy city.
    Perhaps the author of this article is the owner of this certificate.
    I just want to do a good deed and search for this person. I don’t need a certificate. Maybe someone on the site knows this person, please tell him that his ID was found. I thank everyone for any feasible help.