WI: Soviets win in Afghanistan - what are the effects?

As it says on the tin. I'm curious what people think the effects of a Soviet victory in Afghanistan would be.

As to the path to victory, let's say either the Soviets equip their army better, employ better tactics, or restrict themselves to economic and training support of the Afghan government (which, from what I have read, was probably their best path to victory).

I'm particularly interested in what people think the regional implications of a victory - how it would effect India, Pakistan and Iran.

And is there any particular year that a Soviet victory would have a particularly large impact? Or is it simply a matter of "the sooner the better"?

fasquardon
 

PsihoKekec

Banned
There is no way for them to win Afganistan. Afganistan government was in freefall by the time they intervened, just training their forces and sending material wouldn't do it, they were building up their forces entire time, yet they had to do most of the fighting in 1979-1988 period. Crushing the resistance to the point where Afghan government could take over responsibility, would require 300-400.000 troops for more than a decede and Soviets had troubles supplying 100.000 strong force. Thus they would need to launch massive building project to create needed infrastructure, railway through Kunduz-Kabul-Kandahar-Herat corridor would be needed to maintain such force. And even Soviet ''victory'' (unlike convetional war, it's hard to quantify victory in guerilla conflict) wouldn't guarantee the survival of DRA.
 
They will pull out anyway, either through US pressure (or even threats of war, which is improbable) or the worsening economic problems back home (which is the most probable thing if the POD is Andropov living longer or Gorbachev not rising to power)
 
Their goals were to prop up DRA. Which means either create soemthing that can actually stand up by itself (unlikely) or prop it up indefinetly (even less likely). The only way Soviets can "win" is to crush Mujahedeen by mid 1980s (possible with better leadership, both political and military, larger contingent and earlier switch in doctrine) then declare victory and with draw with soemthing resembling straight face.

On a side note, it's interesting nobody claims Soviets won in Afghanistan even though DRA didn't collapse when they were still there and in fact outlived Soviet Union for a couple of years. (AKA "US didn't lose in Vietnam school of thought")
 

RousseauX

Donor
There is no way for them to win Afganistan. Afganistan government was in freefall by the time they intervened, just training their forces and sending material wouldn't do it, they were building up their forces entire time, yet they had to do most of the fighting in 1979-1988 period. Crushing the resistance to the point where Afghan government could take over responsibility, would require 300-400.000 troops for more than a decede and Soviets had troubles supplying 100.000 strong force. Thus they would need to launch massive building project to create needed infrastructure, railway through Kunduz-Kabul-Kandahar-Herat corridor would be needed to maintain such force. And even Soviet ''victory'' (unlike convetional war, it's hard to quantify victory in guerilla conflict) wouldn't guarantee the survival of DRA.

Afghanistan was winnable as long as no foreign government (so Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the US) supplies the Mujaheddin.
 
Continuous low level Guerrilla strikes from the displaced Afghans across from Pakistan and Iran continue to try to avenge their lost ones and devastated homes killed & wrecked from the Soviet invaders...
 
Afghanistan was winnable as long as no foreign government (so Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the US) supplies the Mujaheddin.

But that still leaves DRA that can't stand up by itself and having to be propepd by Soviets. Which I guess is sort of victory, if you want to get all technical
 
I thought it's been argued that the Soviets were winning the War in Afganistan but that political and economic pressure from Moscow is ultimately what led to the withdrawals. I remember reading somewhere that the number of attacks against Soviet forces were decreasing rapidly in the last few years of the war and the friend to foe kill ratio was increasing to a stable level (whatever that means is beyond me)

Also factoring in that DRA survived the USSR, I think it's possible the soviets could have "won" the war and insured the survival of the DRA
 
On a side note, it's interesting nobody claims Soviets won in Afghanistan even though DRA didn't collapse when they were still there and in fact outlived Soviet Union for a couple of years. (AKA "US didn't lose in Vietnam school of thought")

I have actually read opinions claiming that the Soviets "won" in Afghanistan. After they pulled the bulk of troops out they had embarked on a very successful policy of letting the DRA fight the bulk of the war and limited themselves to subsidies, training and possibly air support/special forces support. The problem is, they started this policy too late/they collapsed too early. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was unable to maintain the same level of support to the DRA, and things in Afghanistan slowly degenerated.

Had the Soviets started their hands-off policy earlier (or better yet, never invaded in the first place), then the hands-off approach would likely have had the time needed to throttle the Mujaheddin (at least according to the commentators I have read).

Anyway, to pull this back on target: let's not discuss "could they win or could they not win", let's please focus on "if they win by these means, these will be the effects on the world".

fasquardon
 
I thought it's been argued that the Soviets were winning the War in Afganistan but that political and economic pressure from Moscow is ultimately what led to the withdrawals. I remember reading somewhere that the number of attacks against Soviet forces were decreasing rapidly in the last few years of the war and the friend to foe kill ratio was increasing to a stable level (whatever that means is beyond me)

Also factoring in that DRA survived the USSR, I think it's possible the soviets could have "won" the war and insured the survival of the DRA

They weren't "winning". they were blundering around Afghanistan, not sure about what to do, how to do it or have enough troops to do it anyway. It didn't help that in early war years Soviets changed SecGens more often then they changed underwear. By the time Gorby took over it was irrelevant since Soviets decided to withdraw anyway.


I have actually read opinions claiming that the Soviets "won" in Afghanistan. After they pulled the bulk of troops out they had embarked on a very successful policy of letting the DRA fight the bulk of the war and limited themselves to subsidies, training and possibly air support/special forces support. The problem is, they started this policy too late/they collapsed too early. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was unable to maintain the same level of support to the DRA, and things in Afghanistan slowly degenerated.

Had the Soviets started their hands-off policy earlier (or better yet, never invaded in the first place), then the hands-off approach would likely have had the time needed to throttle the Mujaheddin (at least according to the commentators I have read).

Anyway, to pull this back on target: let's not discuss "could they win or could they not win", let's please focus on "if they win by these means, these will be the effects on the world".

fasquardon

Soviets faced same problem as US did in vietnam. First they decided that propping up friendly regime was something they had to do. Then they sent aid. then they realised that friendly regime wasn't able to fight the war on its own and actual troops had to be sent. then they realsied that local forces weren't worth shit and they took ont he bulk of fighting. then they realsied that war is getting too expensive, too unpopualr and too damaging and decided to hand over things to local and bugger out. which eld to friendly regime collapsing at some point later.

So they didn't have option of not intervening, if they wanted DRA to stick around
 
Russians took too long to learn that it is impossible for outsiders to govern Afghanistan, much less Kabul.
The only way Hamid Kharzi stayed in power for long was because he knew how much to pay off each tribal chief.
IOW, Hamid Kharzi understood that all the different Afghan tribes could only be "rented."
Russians might have been able to "rent" Uzbek Afghans in the Northern Provinces, but Pashtuns in the southern provinces would have laughed until Moscow paid sufficient "rent."
Similarly, US Special Forces "rented" the Northern Alliance post 9/11. They paid "rent" with boots, ammunition, rifles, FACs and bundles containing millions of US dollars. Not all of those dollars went to feeding and equipping Northern Alliance soldiers. FACs spent more time ensuring that they were not dropping bombs on "almost friendly" Northern Tribes, than they devoted to dropping bombs on Taliban, because the various Afghan tribes distrust each other even more than they dis-trust: Russians, Americans, Persians, Canadians, Brits, etc.

Bottom line: at best foreigners can only "rent" Afghan loyalties.
 
Would the opinion of the ISI brigadier- general responsible for running the support and aid system to the Mujahideen be of relevance?

Mohammad Yusuf did write his memoirs, and he pretty much reluctantly admitted that without support- fighters, weapons, and money- from most of the Arab world, as well as America, Fortieth Army would have won.

The mujahideen did not have the weapons or logistics to fight on their own, and the Russians had superior mobility, firepower, no rules of engagement to speak of, and just enough psychological warfare ability to turn that into pacification by intimidation.

Without anti- aircraft weapons, without being able to keep the Hinds off, there would have been no base and no training camps, no organised bodies of mujahideen, and ultimately nothing left of the resistance but refugees inside Pakistan.


The end will reflect the means, and it would have been a very dirty war, the Russians being just as brutal as the muj but on a larger scale with better toys.

If they had won in such a faction, the lessons would have been that when the great powers of the world take an interest in you, you find someone to hide behind or go down. There are spheres of interest, but no neutrals.

That the red army is still the same force that robbed, raped and murdered its' way across east Prussia, just rather better equipped. That firepower versus fanaticism equals dead fanatic.

That the Soviet system still has enough belief in it's own future to be wiling to do terrible things in its' name.


it would be quite a different world, wouldn't it?
 
Bottom line: at best foreigners can only "rent" Afghan loyalties.

Facts would be at variance with what you are saying here. Indeed, Afghanistan has spent most of its history being a province of some larger empire or as a highway for invasions.

They weren't "winning". they were blundering around Afghanistan, not sure about what to do, how to do it or have enough troops to do it anyway. It didn't help that in early war years Soviets changed SecGens more often then they changed underwear. By the time Gorby took over it was irrelevant since Soviets decided to withdraw anyway.

I definitely agree that the Soviets were doing alot of blundering about. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the thing that did the most damage to the Soviet effort is that they didn't have a clear idea of what they wanted.

Soviets faced same problem as US did in vietnam. First they decided that propping up friendly regime was something they had to do. Then they sent aid. then they realised that friendly regime wasn't able to fight the war on its own and actual troops had to be sent. then they realsied that local forces weren't worth shit and they took ont he bulk of fighting. then they realsied that war is getting too expensive, too unpopualr and too damaging and decided to hand over things to local and bugger out. which eld to friendly regime collapsing at some point later.

So they didn't have option of not intervening, if they wanted DRA to stick around

Quite possibly if they hadn't intervened the Afghan state would have collapsed and the Pakistani-backed Islamist rebels would have taken over as the Soviets feared. Possibly the situation would have ended up differently, people still argue about this today.

From what I've read, it does sound like the only way the Soviets could stop Afghanistan falling into either the Pakistani or American camp was to invade. I've also read good cases for how not invading might have worked to the Soviet advantage.

If they had won in such a faction, the lessons would have been that when the great powers of the world take an interest in you, you find someone to hide behind or go down. There are spheres of interest, but no neutrals.

You get a cookie for trying to answer the question I posed!

And a Soviet victory probably does mean that guerrilla armies aren't seen as being so powerful in the public perception in the US. I wonder if that would have any knock on effects...

My inner cynic suspects that it would lead to more gung-ho on the part of politicians, right up until the US ends up in another war with insufficient resources and vague goals and ends up retreating from an insurgency against her occupying forces, at which point popular culture decides that only Russians can beat guerrilla armies.

fasquardon
 
Soviet winning the war in Afghanistan would be a big morale boost not just for the military but for hardliner factions in the CPSU, which could cause the USSR to stick around for longer and perhaps not even collapse (though it would just suck way worse). I'm assuming the PoD is between 1980 and 1986, anytime too late in the war and the scenario as presented starts getting implausible.
 
Good point about mujahideen only being able to stay in the fight with massive support from: Iran, Pakistan, Persia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, UK, USA, etc.
 
Yeltsin actually Embargo'd DRA Oil during his Regime.
DRA had Oil to sell but after Russian Federation refused to buy the DRA could no longer pay their troops or arm them.
 
No way. They is no way anyone can win in Afghanistan. Just look at history. Everyone that had come over to Afghanistan wish they never did.
 
As it says on the tin. I'm curious what people think the effects of a Soviet victory in Afghanistan would be.

As to the path to victory, let's say either the Soviets equip their army better, employ better tactics, or restrict themselves to economic and training support of the Afghan government (which, from what I have read, was probably their best path to victory).

I'm particularly interested in what people think the regional implications of a victory - how it would effect India, Pakistan and Iran.

And is there any particular year that a Soviet victory would have a particularly large impact? Or is it simply a matter of "the sooner the better"?

fasquardon

Somewhat hard to picture as we know from USA experience that even when you beat the Afghans they just don't stay beat.

That aside assuming a Soviet victory what 2015 looks like is a USSR still in business and glaring at NATO in middle Europe while trying at home to mimic some of the economic tricks which seem to be working so well in China. Gulf War never happened and the M.E. is a cold war standoff with USA/Israel/Saudi team vs Libya/Syria/Iraq with USSR backing and Saudi is turning out to be a very weak reed with the Monarchy barely able to retain Power. In the USA a drive for energy independence is a much less partisan affair than in our timeline. Conservation and increased production at home have equal billing as both Parties want to get shed of Mideast dependence before Saudi implodes.

Venezuela is ruled by a council of CIA backed generals. South Africa is still in the hands of the Nationalists. The EU fields a highly professional military centering on France & Germany third in the world after the USSR and America
 
Good point about mujahideen only being able to stay in the fight with massive support from: Iran, Pakistan, Persia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, UK, USA, etc.



Iran and persia are the same entity, so?

Still it's not as if other Muslim countries are not going to support the Peshawar 7 or the Tehran 8. I do not know how you would keep all theses surrounding nations from supporting these rebels nor how you can stop the Muhjahideen from crossing into Pakistan and coming back with more Pashtun from Quetta or from Peshawar. I seriously doubt USSR would attack Pakistan or Iran or even Saudi Arabia. If the USSR cannot stop these movements and the constant increase in troop numbers and the material support of Muhjahid by the U.S then there is very little chance of victory, as more and more are alienated. As it is said they have firepower but we have time.
 
I do not know how you would keep all theses surrounding nations from supporting these rebels nor how you can stop the Muhjahideen from crossing into Pakistan and coming back with more Pashtun from Quetta or from Peshawar. I seriously doubt USSR would attack Pakistan or Iran or even Saudi Arabia. If the USSR cannot stop these movements and the constant increase in troop numbers and the material support of Muhjahid by the U.S then there is very little chance of victory, as more and more are alienated. As it is said they have firepower but we have time.

There are a few methods, for example, fencing off the whole Afghan border, making an accommodation with the tribes that support the rebels, bleeding the rebels white, detente between the Soviets and Pakistan and/or Iran.

The real question is, can they manage any of those before the Soviet Union itself crumbles? That is, IMO, the hard part.

No way. They is no way anyone can win in Afghanistan. Just look at history. Everyone that had come over to Afghanistan wish they never did.

You mean the Greeks, Persians, Kushans, Mughals, Mongols, Huns, Scythians and British never actually conquered Afghanistan, they only thought they did?

Gee, it turns out that all of the history I read in these book things is wrong.

Really, why does this "unconquerable Afghanistan" trope stick around?

Somewhat hard to picture as we know from USA experience that even when you beat the Afghans they just don't stay beat.

Afghans are demonstrably as beatable as any other people in the world.

The region has spent most of its history being a province of whatever the strongest empire in the region was.

assuming a Soviet victory what 2015 looks like is a USSR still in business

That's an interesting idea - you're the second respondent to posit an Afghan victory leading to a Soviet survival... Why might such a victory result in continued Soviet rule?

Personally, I think the fate of the Soviet Union was 99% decided by events elsewhere. Chernobyl and Gorbachev as Gen. Sec. are, to my eye, the key steps to collapse.

Now, I could see a Soviet victory in Afghanistan being the result of a Soviet Union surviving longer.

fasquardon
 
Top