What are your thoughts on the Soviet-Afghan war and was the USSR in the wrong?

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but aren't you implying that accelerationism is the only good praxis here?

No, I’m saying that you can’t expect to take a tribal basically pre-feudal society like Afghanistan and expect that modern post-enlightenment values and modes of governance will take root without resistance, even from the people who would benefit from them. Socialism and its values was entirely alien to 99% of Afghans, so as based as the government was for instituting reforms like gender equality, they were massively overshooting the consciousness of the Afghan people. That spurred widespread resistance, and some of their shittier policies like their botched landed reform didn’t help either.

the afghans didnt need communism to begin with. they were already living it.

It was good because burgerstan now has to deal with a problem they created. Also the war was another reason why the USSR collapsed since they drained resources in a war that wasn't going anywhere. So it fucked everyone.

Brezhnev was a pussy. He should’ve invaded Pakistan because they were suppling the Taliban, if he invaded Pakistan he would’ve won the war in Afghanistan.
Give Pakistan to the Indians, they’ve been after it for years. And they were also pro-USSR.

Pol-potists can go

They could be called communes, can't they? Self-sufficient, good social bonds, etc. Their way of life is the end goal since common ownership can only exist when the people know each other well enough to do it.

shithole communism that is

"its not imperialism when *we* do it"
t. stalin

USSR PROTECTION GANG HAS ARRIVED

Obviously there is no Warsaw Pact equivalent today, yet China, Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam and Laos continue to persevere. But Europe was different for two reasons:

1. The Warsaw Pact was created as a counter to NATO and to the threat of a remilitarized West Germany. Its main purpose was defense against external invasion.

2. The Eastern European socialist countries obviously had much in common as well as (with the exception of Yugoslavia and Albania) common histories of coming to power thanks to liberation by the Red Army and its subsequent ability to protect the transition from capitalism to socialism from the threat of counter-revolutionary revolts.

So the restoration of capitalism in Hungary or Czechoslovakia was both a threat to neighboring socialist countries as well as a military threat to the Soviet Union via the possible expansion of NATO and invasion by West Germany.

Well they clearly prevented capitalist restoration in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Hungarian party, to my knowledge, was easily able to convince people that it was Rákosi's inept policies which had been responsible for the counter-revolutionary uprising, and Kádár was able to regain the approval of the people during the late 50s and 60s through raising living standards and adopting a more open cultural climate.

This wasn't the case in Czechoslovakia, where the "normalization" following the Warsaw Pact intervention was seen as more keeping things the way they were, rather than substantially improving the way things were.

There were of course students and workers who felt they were struggling to strengthen socialism, but the actual armed revolt was in the hands of counter-revolutionaries who tore down socialist imagery, killed communists and carried out pogroms.

In the case of Czechoslovakia, "socialism with a human face" was going the same way as Gorbachev's "humane and democratic socialism" twenty years later: the degeneration of Marxism-Leninism into social-democracy. Dubček himself by the end of the 80s praised Sweden as an example of socialism, and presided over the Czechoslovak state after the restoration of capitalism. His chief economic advisor, Ota Šik, became an anti-communist and supporter of capitalism even before then. Gorby and his advisers have acknowledged their own indebtedness to Dubček and Co.

The Warsaw Pact was founded to defend the socialist countries of Europe against NATO. It didn't increase Soviet "control" over these countries except insofar as it helped give a legal basis for military intervention.

kys

Tis a shithole to the unaccustomed, domesticated man.

lol no, women were treated like slaves

Not systematically

The Afghan government was 12 people who lucked out and won in a coup but were only able to control Kabul. You can't just say the invasion was justified because the government you recognized asked you to invade.

Hindsight is 20/20 but they clearly they should've just let the government fall. Nothing could be worse than what ended up happening to Afghanistan.

lol, they couldn't even take over Afghanistan, how the hell could they take over Pakistan. Half of it is the same terrain as Afghanistan and the other half is a relatively wealthy nation with a powerful government, strong army, and tremendous amounts of US support.

The invasion ook only a week. This succeeded. The problem was the insurgency that the Soviets failed to deal with.

you're all wrong, he should've invaded Japan

All incorrect.
They should have fortified Tanzania in order to have further control of Asia and Africa, along with militarization in Guyana.

Attached: tumblr_p8jofrSWUu1w39xsxo1_500.jpg (480x480, 43.55K)

They were invited by the internationally recognized government, and had legitimate national security concerns. Afghanistan was right on their border and a jihadist victory there would have threatened the USSR directly.

Why were the Maoists right in defense of the Poppy growers and fart sniffers? Because they were obligated in defending the non-aggression principal against the soviet roaches. You see, the VIA had this nice private business going on with the pot growers and meth labs among many other drug cartels. They got to give the president his daily fix, so one of their operations extended to Afghanistan. Considering that they do deals with Saudi Arabia this comes as no surprise. The Afghanis were peacefully agitating and blowing up the government because in reality it is rightfully ancapistan for tens of billions of years. Then the subhuman godless Slavs have to come in and ruin the free market of ideas and free exchange. Luckily Talibans god is the CEO Ronald Reagan and he whipped up stingers from the magic at his fingertips through priori reasoning. Through the power of god alone the roaches migrated back to the pits of hell.

rbth.com/international/2016/08/18/5-soviet-infrastructure-projects-that-survived-the-afghan-wars_622105
The Vietnam War: (1964–1975)
US losses only
KIA: 58,300+
WIA: 153,300+
Planes lost: 3632
Choppers lost: 5229
Tanks lost: 600+
Afghan-Soviet war: (1979–1989)
Soviet losses only
14,500+ KIA
53,750+ WIA
125 planes lost
300+ Choppers
147 tanks lost
Despite the USSR fighting a CIA-funded, trained and armed group based in Pakistan, and being in a country far larger than Vietnam for the same amount of time, they lost almost NO major battles if any, and had comparatively fewer casualties.
The main issue, was that the USSR acted on a principle of trying to respect the international conventions, such as instructing its pilots to never directly engage aggressive actions of the Pakistani Airforce, and rarely venturing past the Afghan border after the terrorists. They also were trying to rebuild Afghanistan, not just destroy the terrorists. They were close to winning despite the issues, and had Gorbachev not pussied out, they likely would have eradicated the shit-hole fundamentalism gripping Afghanistan. Instead it is now completely in the hands of the Taliban, and only defacto controlled by the US vassal government in power.
Inb4 the Mujaheds are like the NVA. the Mujaheds were artificially created and not popularly supported, the NVA and Viet Cong meanwhile, were people's movements.

Attached: Советский военнослужащий в Афганистане 1980-е..jpg (850x1062, 156.39K)

I already explained this in the last thread, that is a gross over-simplification of the situational differences. The soviets were not attempting to use military force to overwhelm the Mujaheds, they were attempting to suppress counter-revolutionary activity, because the Afghan government lacked the power to do so. The fact that the USSR resisted such activity on its own is partly due to sheer luck alongside hard work. In Vietnam the USA was fighting the people from the start, and the people, even in South Vietnam resisted them. Afghanistan's people largely welcomed the soviet influence. even if they had minor discrepancies, the majority of the Mujaheds were either CIA assets from across the Pakistan border or were rural youth who had not yet had the chance to learn what the Soviet's were doing and instead only heard the agitational horror stories by said Mujaheds. This was assisted by Western news articles about "the evul soviets putting bombs in toys" and "spraying them with poison gas". Even though both were proven untrue, people still claim this.
Your argument is literally the same argument that porkies use to claim that Iran or Guatemala or the CNT were failures even though they failed due to circumstantial global things. If the USSR removed all influence from the other Warsaw Pact states (as Gorbachev did in 1990) they would and did collapse too, despite stability because the CIA isn't just going to sit on its ass and let them be, they'll take advantage of it the first chance they get and take to breaking them down by inserting their assets and influencing the youth as they did in reality. The people in general supported the socialist government, but Afghanistan was not a powerful country and it's history of Islamic fundamentalism is very long meanig that it would take long years of enforcement to get things across. Inb4 "oppression" that is the same thing done by Lenin and Stalin during NEP and after. For long, LONG years after the revolution they attempted to keep the people from diverting in ignorance and preventing foreign powers from doing that. Afghanistan did not have a Lenin or Stalin, anyone who could have been one, was killed a while ago.
Afghanistan has been under the influence of Islamic Fundamentalism, which goes against many of the root ideas of Socialism. The reason socialism began to rise in Afghanistan was because people in the cities became educated and thus realized the problems of their society, with soviet support they began to try and change their backwards country, educating the youth. However many rural areas took time to educate, because Afghanistan is MASSIVE and also sparsely populated relative to land-mass. Many older people were against these changes because they were set in their ways. Many youths, impressionable and ignorant fell prey to this religious farce and became opposed to it. Combined with the instability of politics it became an area of interest for the USA. It was not yet an established socialist government and its people had not yet been educated, perfect for creating a false dichotomy in the population.
Except that you're thinking of this from the point of view of logic. Think about Zig Forums, /leftypol has debunked their shit time and again, however long, but objective arguments are less motivating to ignorant people as compared to loud, simple slogans and ideas, especially those that are familiar. When the USSR first formed the majority of support was FOR the Bolsheviks, HOWEVER to prevent counter-revolution they had to enforce their ideas, because the situation was raw.

Instability of Afghan politics