A hardliner ATL Soviet Union doesn't withdraw from Afghanistan, results?

[Declan]

You are aware that the Soviets won the war in Afghanistan in OTL right? Yes, going in was almost certainly the wrong call, and yes the war was expensive. But in no way can you say it was hopeless and the "dying" USSR didn't have what it took to win. They could win, and militarily they did win. For all the good it did them.

This sounds a lot like "actually the US won in South Vietnam" type of historical reinterpretation based one or two repelled major VC attacks.
Militarily successs in Afghanistan? Only if you consider holding a few major cities that aren't connected to each other, then yeah.
Otherwise, the Soviets ventures into the countryside yielded gloomy results, even before the stingers came.

Even when the Soviets launched a massive campaign and won an area via brute force, the Mujahideen would wear them down and undo all their gains. As seen in the many Panjshir valley campaigns.

(And what the heck is this "Mujahideen empire"? You know the Soviets were fighting a shifting coalition of tribes right?)

An overlooked typo from a previous draft of mines.

Doing better in Afghanistan doesn't really add any years to the Soviet Union, nor does doing worse really take many years off

To each their own view.

collapsing is what caused the Kabul regime to collapse as well, not losing the war militarily).

Not true. What caused the regime to collapse was it was an unpopular regime and Najib wanted and exit ramp. He wanted to avoid the fate he ultimately got in 1996.

 

[Monk78]

More and more Soviet soldiers die horribly in a ever ending war.
The US and China keep arming Pakistan.

And even more afghans at the hand of other afghans

 

[HelloThere]

Not true. What caused the regime to collapse was it was an unpopular regime and Najib wanted and exut ramp. He wanted to avoid the fate he ultimately got in 1996.

Your source? You made it up. Najib didn't start to collapse until Yeltsin cut off the fuel for the Afghan forces, which grounded his air force (the biggest reason why he managed to fight back the Mujahideen). The USSR could easily have avoided his collapse by simply refueling his jets and helicopters.

 

[walmart]

Your source? You made it up. Najib didn't start to collapse until Yeltsin cut off the fuel for the Afghan forces, which grounded his air force (the biggest reason why he managed to fight back the Mujahideen). The USSR could easily have avoided his collapse by simply refueling his jets and helicopters.

The government control was limited to only 10% of the country by the start of 1991. Khost fall in March 1991, even before the August coup. So I imagine lack of Soviet Aid only speeded up the inevitable.

 

[Declan]

Your source? You made it up. Najib didn't start to collapse until Yeltsin cut off the fuel for the Afghan forces, which grounded his air force (the biggest reason why he managed to fight back the Mujahideen). The USSR could easily have avoided his collapse by simply refueling his jets and helicopters.

Well for starters this entire war was because the vast, vast majority of Afghan disliked the Marxist socialist government forced upon them by the Saur Revolution.

But Najib's government was already falling apart before aid was stopped. For instance in 1990, there was a coup against his government by members of the military. Though put down, it showed, that even within socialist circles, his grasp on the country was imploding. Soviet aid, though helpful, was not the main reason why the regime laste so long after the USSR pulled out(he would have been toppled even if the aid continued). By and large, the biggest reason was that the various Mujahideen groups escalated infighting after the withdrawal. Towards 1991/1992, any semblance of fighting for socialism had largely disappeared from the army: ethnic tensions and a growing sense of warlordism took its place. A prominent government general even abandoned Najib to become a fulltime warlord.

But the argument that Najib was looking for an exit ramp was that, with Mujahideen armies on the doorstep in Kabul, he engaged with the UN to get a peace deal with those who bothered to negotiate. The terms was that Najib would surrender all power to the those specific Mujahideen rebels to form an interim government, resigning and ending PDPA rule in the process, with a temporary guarantee he won't be killed.

Sources:

1990 Afghan coup attempt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Afghan Civil War (1989–1992) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[HelloThere]

Well for starters this entire war was because the vast, vast majority of Afghan disliked the Marxist socialist government forced upon them by the Saur Revolution.

The Soviet intervention was precisely because they didn't like the radicals Afghan comrades and didn't want a government which engaged in stalinist industrial policy. The USSR didn't want to sovietize Afghanistan, the intervention even tried to revert that.

For instance in 1990, there was a coup against his government by members of the military.

Which collapsed, as you said.

Towards 1991/1992, any semblance of fighting for socialism had largely disappeared from the army

What does this have to do with anything? The USSR didn't give a damn if Afghanistan was socialist, they only wanted a pro-Soviet government which would not support Jihadism.

 

[aaronupright]

The ruthlessness needed to crush them would have only invited further Pakistani intervention, a Pakistan that was rocketing towards nuclear power status. If anything, General Zia might put the USSR in a M.A.D. scenario and force a drawdown.

Zia was not much a fan of nuclear weapons ironically enough. He was at a heart a cavalryman who thought the proper place for combat was between armed men on a battlefield.

 

[Monk78]

@Declan
How would pakistan intervene in Afghanistan?
Other than through funding insurgents
I’m sure last time a Indian army attempted it ( under British and shah jehan ) the results were less than satisfactory
Afghans may fight the Soviets bitterly and with ruthlessness but that is nothing compared to their loathing of “daal khor” Hindustani
You would see all pro pakistan factions bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[fasquardon]

An overlooked typo from a previous draft of mines.

Fair enough.

This sounds a lot like "actually the US won in South Vietnam" type of historical reinterpretation based one or two repelled major VC attacks.
Militarily successs in Afghanistan? Only if you consider holding a few major cities that aren't connected to each other, then yeah.
Otherwise, the Soviets ventures into the countryside yielded gloomy results, even before the stingers came.

Even when the Soviets launched a massive campaign and won an area via brute force, the Mujahideen would wear them down and undo all their gains. As seen in the many Panjshir valley campaigns.

Hm, well, the real winning move almost certainly didn't involve invading Afghanistan, so yeah you have a point. (I only say "almost certainly" because while I can't see how the invasion made anything better, it is possible for me to be wrong.)

The invasion actually undermined Soviet aims in the country and alot of conscripts and Afghans suffered and died to get those aims to a slightly better place than they were pre-invasion.

But unlike with the US in Vietnam, those achievements only collapsed when the Soviet Union itself collapsed and couldn't subsidize the urban government. As worn out as the Soviets were militarily, the Mujahideen were even more worn out. And withdrawing opened the door for negotiations that by the end of the 80s all sides in Afghanistan could see were necessary. No one faction could not win completely, and for as long as Soviet backing had continued, the urban government would have had the strongest bargaining position. Then the Soviets collapsed, and everything was in play again.

The Soviets won a war (admittedly, one they shouldn't have been fighting in the first place) then lost the peace. By contrast, when the US withdrew from Vietnam, the South Vietnamese had the least bargaining power with the North than they'd ever had, and were pretty much fed to their enemies by Nixon. (Part of this, it must be said, is down to the Mujahideen being very different to the North Vietnamese - one was a coalition of groups fighting for different reasons, most of whom could be negotiated with to achieve a satisfactory compromise, and in Vietnam, the enemy was a European-style government that claimed the whole country and who'd pay a political price if they ever admitted they couldn't unite all Vietnamese together.)

The government control was limited to only 10% of the country by the start of 1991. Khost fall in March 1991, even before the August coup. So I imagine lack of Soviet Aid only speeded up the inevitable.

Sure, but it was the 10% of the country where most of the people and resources were. So long as the government could negotiate with most of the tribes and contain the groups who didn't negotiate, things were fine. Indeed, the Soviets actually gained from Afghanistan being internally divided, since the Afghans had a long claim to the tribal borderlands that the country had lost to British conquerors and the Soviets didn't want a regional war kicking off with Pakistan.

What does this have to do with anything? The USSR didn't give a damn if Afghanistan was socialist, they only wanted a pro-Soviet government which would not support Jihadism.

Heck, part of why the USSR intervened is they thought that Hafizullah Amin was too Socialist!

Regards,

fasquardon

 

[aaronupright]

How would pakistan intervene in Afghanistan?
Other than through funding insurgents
I’m sure last time a Indian army attempted it ( under British and shah jehan ) the results were less than satisfactory
Afghans may fight the Soviets bitterly and with ruthlessness but that is nothing compared to their loathing of “daal khor” Hindustani
You would see all pro pakistan factions bite the hand that feeds them.

I think Pakistan can just about occupy and pacify Afghanistan. If it commits most of its Army and almost all of its Air Force to the task. And pray the Indians don't do anything.
And thats after it gets over the institutional aversion of S Asian armies to operate in Afghanistan.

A more realistic (and efficacious) way of pacifying Afghanistan is supporting one party with weapons and perhaps airsupport when needed. Accomplishes pretty much the same.

 

[Monk78]

I think Pakistan can just about occupy and pacify Afghanistan. If it commits most of its Army and almost all of its Air Force to the task. And pray the Indians don't do anything.
And thats after it gets over the institutional aversion of S Asian armies to operate in Afghanistan.

A more realistic (and efficacious) way of pacifying Afghanistan is supporting one party with weapons and perhaps airsupport when needed. Accomplishes pretty much the same.

It’s in Pakistan interest to keep Afghanistan divided and weak and I don’t think we can blame them for it. No country wants to secure borders against 2 hostile neighbors. If Afghanistan officially recognizes the Durand line then maybe Pakistanis can review their policies but until that happens any good leader in Islamabad would put security interests before any goodwill gestures towards a country that has shown nothing but hostility for centuries.

 

[walmart]

Sure, but it was the 10% of the country where most of the people and resources were. So long as the government could negotiate with most of the tribes and contain the groups who didn't negotiate, things were fine. Indeed, the Soviets actually gained from Afghanistan being internally divided, since the Afghans had a long claim to the tribal borderlands that the country had lost to British conquerors and the Soviets didn't want a regional war kicking off with Pakistan.

Majority of the Afghan population are located outside of urban areas. Oftentimes Insurgency are based in the countryside and slowly grow in strength before moving onto cities which was the case with the fall of Khost.

 

[fasquardon]

Majority of the Afghan population are located outside of urban areas. Oftentimes Insurgency are based in the countryside and slowly grow in strength before moving onto cities which was the case with the fall of Khost.

Hm, I'll look up some stuff that goes into detail on early 90s Afghanistan and the fall of Khost.

Regards,

fasquardon

 

[Declan]

The Soviet intervention was precisely because they didn't like the radicals Afghan comrades and didn't want a government which engaged in stalinist industrial policy. The USSR didn't want to sovietize Afghanistan, the intervention even tried to revert that.

A motivation, yes. But it definitely wasn't the main one. The main was that the socialist regime was already falling apart. There were protests, mass civli disobediance and even uprisings before the invasion. The Soviets pinned all of this on Amin for being a dogmatic ideologue and being completely oblivious that to the fact that many people didn't want socialism. The biggest proof of this is that the Soviet invasion wasn't seen as an invasion by Amin himself. He considered an act of a friendly nation to help put down a rebellion. It wasn't until Soviet special forces were literally on his doorstep, with orders to kill him, did he understand he fell out of favour with Moscow. After Amin's demise, the Soviets sent back some Afghan diplomats, who were de facto exiled, to help form a more moderate government, headed by Karmal, with the aim to get the Afghans to acquiesce to socialism.

Which collapsed, as you said.

Indeed it did. But it is never good sign when your Minister of Defence, in the midst of a war no less, turns against you. It shows internally, your support is crumbling.

What does this have to do with anything? The USSR didn't give a damn if Afghanistan was socialist, they only wanted a pro-Soviet government which would not support Jihadism.

Well the PDPA wanted to fight for socialism. But as I said, any semblance or motivation for fighting that was rooted in socialism was gone.

 

[Declan]

Zia was not much a fan of nuclear weapons ironically enough. He was at a heart a cavalryman who thought the proper place for combat was between armed men on a battlefield.

But Zia would be damned if he'd allow the Soviets to gain a strong foothold next door to him.

How would pakistan intervene in Afghanistan?
Other than through funding insurgents
I’m sure last time a Indian army attempted it ( under British and shah jehan ) the results were less than satisfactory
Afghans may fight the Soviets bitterly and with ruthlessness but that is nothing compared to their loathing of “daal khor” Hindustani
You would see all pro pakistan factions bite the hand that feeds them.

Discreetly sending troops to directly fight.
But your analogy to previous expeditions falls apart. Pakistan is not aiming to subjugate Afghanistan. It is helping to resist the subjugation by the Soviets.

As I side preivously, Pakistan was rocketing to nuclear power status. Zia might just be bold enough to engage in nuclear game of chicken with the Soviets, the end is likely a mutual withdrawal of both parties from Afghanistan.
Which would be a win for Zia since the PDPA would have eventually collapsed without direct Soviet intervention.

 

[Monk78]

But Zia would be damned if he'd allow the Soviets to gain a strong foothold next door to him.

Discreetly sending troops to directly fight.
But your analogy to previous expeditions falls apart. Pakistan is not aiming to subjugate Afghanistan. It is helping to resist the subjugation by the Soviets.

As I side preivously, Pakistan was rocketing to nuclear power status. Zia might just be bold enough to engage in nuclear game of chicken with the Soviets, the end is likely a mutual withdrawal of both parties from Afghanistan.
Which would be a win for Zia since the PDPA would have eventually collapsed without direct Soviet intervention.

Pakistan biggest vulnerability is lack of ports , Indians have already shown in 1971 what can be done by even a handful missile boats.
Even a few foxtrots lurking there could present huge problems for pak navy esp if they lay mines.
Soviets should try trigger an indian Pakistani war simultaneously even if a limited one in Kashmir.

Zia was a pragmatic ruler though like his role model muawiyah, he would cut a deal with Soviets long before it leads to full scale war. Pakistanis never fully believed US assurances