Registration / Login
text version
War and Peace

 Hot news

Main page » Reports » View
Printable version
Soviet lessons from Afghanistan
18.11.09 23:23 f.USSR

Andrew North

BBC News

All the most senior ministers were at the Afghan strategy meeting.

They knew things were not going well, but from their leader there was a whiff of panic.

"We just need to be sure that the final result does not look like a humiliating defeat: to have lost so many men and now abandoned it all... in short, we have to get out of there."

Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev - the speaker of those words - was understandably alarmed.

It was June 1986, almost a year since he had taken the decision to start withdrawing Soviet troops from Afghanistan and hand over more responsibility to the government there.

But Soviet losses, already above 10,000, kept mounting.

With conflicting signals this week about the direction of Western policy in Afghanistan, there is a hint of the same kind of panic and indecision.

Soviet exit strategy

US President Barack Obama is still deciding whether to send in thousands of US reinforcements.

Yet the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown - facing ever-greater opposition to the Afghan war - has been highlighting possibilities for UK troops to pull back in some areas next year.

It is less than two weeks since he was saying: "We cannot, must not and will not walk away."

But as Mr Gorbachev found, getting out is at least as difficult as staying in.

It took almost four years to pull out entirely - because of a combination of dithering over strategy and last-ditch efforts by Moscow to prop up its client government in Kabul in the hope of maintaining some pride and influence.

The former Soviet leader′s difficulties are detailed in previously secret trans of Politburo meetings and diary entries recently released by the Washington-based National Security Archive.

They make sobering reading for British and American leaders, as they decide whether to double-up or cut their losses in Afghanistan.

There are certainly differences - not least America′s determination to make the Soviet withdrawal as costly as possible in blood and treasure.

Lost battle

But there are echoes too of the difficulties the US and its allies face now.

By the late 1980s, Moscow′s exit strategy was basically the same as Nato′s today - to build up an allied government in Kabul with sufficient trained army and police forces to defend itself, thereby allowing foreign troops to leave.

But even with the backing of a 100,000-strong Soviet army and billions of rubles in aid, the Afghan government struggled to establish its legitimacy and authority much beyond the capital - much like President Hamid Karzai′s Western-backed administration today.

This bleak assessment of the situation in late 1986 by the Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, sounds eerily familiar.

"Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old," Mr Akhromeev told Mr Gorbachev at a November 1986 Politburo session.

"There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels.

"The whole problem is that military results are not followed up by political actions. At the centre there is authority; in the provinces there is not.

"We control Kabul and the provincial centres, but on occupied territory we cannot establish authority. We have lost the battle for the Afghan people".

Familiar problems

By that point, Soviet trainers had created an Afghan army 160,000-strong - double the size of the force Nato has trained so far - together with thousands of much-feared secret policemen.

Yet once Soviet forces had left, they could do little more than defend Kabul and a few other cities.

Only massive military aid, coupled with incompetence and in-fighting among the US-backed mujahideen opposition, allowed the Afghan government Moscow left behind to cling on in Kabul for a few more years before finally collapsing.

There were familiar problems too with the financial assistance Moscow gave.

It hoped the funds would bolster the capacity of the Afghan government and pay for projects that would benefit people, winning hearts and minds.

However corruption rendered much of its useless.

As the Politburo discussed a new aid request from Kabul in January 1987, Marshal Sergei Sokolov said: "In 1981, we gave them 100m roubles of free assistance. And all of that went to the elite. And there was nothing in the hamlets - no kerosene, no matches."

SOVIETS IN AFGHANISTAN

  • 1979 - Brezhnev sends in troops
  • 1988 - USSR pledges to withdraw
  • 1989 - final Soviet withdrawal
  • Soviet deaths - estimated at 15,000
  • Afghan deaths - estimated at one million



  • The translated declassified documents mentioned in the above article are avalaible at National Security Archive by the link :  Afghanistan and the Soviet Withdrawal 1989  - 20 Years Later
     

    Ðóññêèé
    Archive
    Forum

     Exclusiveread more rss

    » Destruction of Ukraine’s Central Bank
    » The World files their 27 Grievances against the United States of America.
    » Yom Kippur War Redux – Petrol D0llar’s Last Hurrah
    » How the Alchemists saved the Planet in 2019
    » What will the US Treaty of Paris look like?
    » Addition by Subtraction, (x, y)↦x−y
    » Too Little, Too Late, will there be a Romanov ending for the Sudairi Seven?
    » Week 21: When economic arguments end, the arms race begins

     Newsread more rss

    » Afghan Taliban leader accuses U.S. of creating doubts over pact
    » Kyrgyz President Accuses Atambayev of Violating Constitution by Resisting Detention
    » Chinese foreign ministry slams U.S. interference in Venezuela
    » With an eye on Russia, China and a horse, Pentagon chief visits Mongolia
    » Pentagon Claims Iran Uses GPS Jamming in the Gulf So It Can Lure and Seize Foreign Ships
    » USAF X-37B Military Space Planes Mystery Mission Circling Earth Hits 700 Days
    » China destabilizing Indo-Pacific: U.S. Defense Secretary
    » EU must change its negotiating terms for Brexit, says Barclay

     Reportsread more rss

    » A Brief History of the CIA’s Dirty War in South Sudan
    » US GDP report: Keynes on steroids
    » Are Russia and the US Finally on the Same Page in Afghanistan?
    » The IMF Takeover of Pakistan
    » Voices from Syria’s Rukban Refugee Camp Belie Corporate Media Reporting
    » Report Shows Corporations and Bolsonaro Teaming Up to Destroy the Amazon
    » Ukraine: the presidents change, but the oligarchical system remains the same
    » The Cowardice of Aung San Suu Kyi

     Commentariesread more rss

    » The Biggest Threat to the US Indo-Pacific Strategy? Washington Itself.
    » Ukraine on the cusp of change
    » India’s Looming Agricultural Crisis: A Unique Chance to Change the System?
    » The Saker interviews Stephen Karganovic
    » Media and Politicians Ignore Oncoming Financial Crisis
    » In an astonishing turn, George Soros and Charles Koch team up to end US ‘forever war’ policy
    » Vladimir Putin says liberalism has ‘become obsolete’
    » You Are Fighting In The Most Important Battle Of All Time

     Analysisread more rss

    » A battle for supremacy between China and the US
    » UAE Withdrawal from Yemen
    » US, Pakistan move in tandem to end Afghan war
    » Is Baoshang Bank China’s Lehman Brothers?
    » From the Green Revolution to GMOs: Toxic Agriculture Is the Problem Not the Solution
    » OPEC+ oil supply cuts signal smooth Gulf sailing
    » G20 Osaka: the end of American leadership?
    » Trump’s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember U.S. Dollar Hegemony
     
    text version The site was founded by Natalia Laval in 2006 © 2006-2026 Inca Group "War and Peace"