Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Military operations are merely one means toward an end. They can be successful in and of themselves and the war itself is still a failure for other reasons.
The goals of the USSR in invading Afghanistan was to initially shore up the government of the communist Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and as a long-term goal to make that government viable against nationalist and Islamic opposition groups - the former goal merely being a necessary precursor to the latter, primary goal. Once the Soviets withdrew in 1988, the government had to survive on its own. It managed to do so capably for a couple of years, but after that it was on the defensive, and collapsed in another two years. It simply could not survive on its own, the Soviet goal of defeating the opposition on a long-term basis having failed.
"War is the continuation of Politik by other means"
-Clausewiz
The politik in question failed. The war behind that politik was thus a failure.
See also:
Britain in the American War of Independence
United States in the Vietnam War
Israel in the Yom Kippur War
I completely agree. Saying the Russians did not lose in Afganistan is like me saying the US did not lose in Vietnam.
IMO when you consider ALL of Russia's wars, they probably won the vast majority of them.
Think of modern Russia's roots started in the far smaller Grand Duchy of Moscow (Grand Duchy of Moscow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). They did not build that vast empire, stretching down to the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and all the way across Asia to the Pacific, just by hosting garden parties! There were many wars and the Russians won plenty of them.
I think the better question is "what wars have the Russians won?" I don't think they won a single war without help from the weather. That is ultimately how they defeated Napoleon and Hitler. The Russians performed poorly in wars against the Finns, Poles, and Japanese.
Even in World War 2 where they defeated Germany, it cost them immeasurable losses, about 3-4 times as many casualties as the Germans to achieve victory. Even then, the Russians were bailed out by a timely harsh winter that the Germans were unprepared for. Had it not been for the harsh 1941-42 winter, the Russians would have lost.
On a neutral battlefield, the Russian militaries of the 20th Century would have lost to Germany, France, Britian, the U.S., and the Japanese every time. They were on par with the Austro-Hungarians and superior to the Italians and Ottomans.
Well the Mongols did conquer Russia including Moscow from 1237 to 1240 led by Batu Khan. The Mongols were able to live of the land and did not have to worry about the logistical challenges of Russia's space. The empire lasted more than 200 years.
Moscow was of no importance at that point; just one of the small city-states among other much more prominent principalities of Kevan Rus. It was precisely Tatar-Mongol domination that brought Moscow to power, because prince of Moscow made deal with Mongols and using their backing, eliminated other rivals - neighboring Russian princes and added their territories to Moscow principality. After the unification of Russian lands under one command has been accomplished, prince of Moscow turned his army against Mongols and their domination was over. So basically modern Russian state was born thanks to Tatar-Mongol invasion, because without it Russian princes were failing to unite their lands and stop warring with each other. Indeed Russians lost some wars, but practically every lost war for them was a lesson learned, that only helped them to progress and turn into a huge empire.
Just curious on this one. I'm thinking maybe the Mongol hordes in 1392, some have even suggested vikings, but were these actual conquests? Has Moscow ever fallen?
There was no even such place as "Rus" until vikings were invited to rule over it, according to old Russian chronicles...
Nowhere in modern Russian history vikings are regarded as "conquerors," they are considered to be the founders of the first Russian state - Kievan Rus.
"The four tribes who had been forced to pay tribute to the Varangians — Chuds, Slavs, Merians, and Krivichs drove the Varangians back beyond the sea, refused to pay them further tribute, and set out to govern themselves. But there was no law among them, and tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against the other. They said to themselves, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom". Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gutes, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Veps then said to the Rus, "Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign as princes, rule over us". Three brothers, with their kinfolk, were selected. They brought with them all the Rus and migrated.
—The Primary Chronicle[11]"
Russia also lost WW1. The Treaty of Brest Litovsk was humiliating. If the Bolshevik Revolution did not occur, this loss would have been avoided.
It's not easy to win international wars, when the civil war is about to erupt in your own country, isn't it?
Same goes to *a-hem* war lost to Poland when Russia was already at a stage of civil war, and practically same was true during "Turbulent Times" in medieval period.
Military operations are merely one means toward an end. They can be successful in and of themselves and the war itself is still a failure for other reasons.
The goals of the USSR in invading Afghanistan was to initially shore up the government of the communist Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and as a long-term goal to make that government viable against nationalist and Islamic opposition groups - the former goal merely being a necessary precursor to the latter, primary goal. Once the Soviets withdrew in 1988, the government had to survive on its own. It managed to do so capably for a couple of years, but after that it was on the defensive, and collapsed in another two years. It simply could not survive on its own, the Soviet goal of defeating the opposition on a long-term basis having failed.
"War is the continuation of Politik by other means"
-Clausewiz
The politik in question failed. The war behind that politik was thus a failure.
See also:
Britain in the American War of Independence
United States in the Vietnam War
Israel in the Yom Kippur War
No, those comparisons are not exactly correct.
Russians ( who are quite experienced in coexisting with Islamic cultures) already knew that in order to effectively turn such culture around, it usually requires the long-term project with extensive presence and gradual Russification of the population. Without it any progress is impossible and any victory is short-lived. So at the end if they decided that they didn't want to commit their time and resources to such goal, that meant precisely that - that they didn't care enough about occupying that region after all.
No, those comparisons are not exactly correct.
Russians ( who are quite experienced in coexisting with Islamic cultures) already knew that in order to effectively turn such culture around, it usually requires the long-term project with extensive presence and gradual Russification of the population. Without it any progress is impossible and any victory is short-lived. So at the end if they decided that they didn't want to commit their time and resources to such goal, that meant precisely that - that they didn't care enough about occupying that region after all.
Of course they're not exactly correct - no comparisons of wars are exact. But those are all examples of wars in which the dominant military power that won most of the battles nonetheless lost the war.
The fact that the Soviets decided, years into their quagmire, that the goal was no longer worth the effort hardly negates the fact that they failed to achieve that goal. In fact, that is how most wars end. Few wars are conflicts that culminate with one power utterly defeated, destroyed, and conquered by the other power - most wars end when one side decides it has had enough and quits and walks away, if it can cleanly do so, or cuts a deal and accepts some sort of sanction(s) short of the absolute destruction of the state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were many wars and the Russians won plenty of them.
