Nice read on soviet ops in Afghanistan, courtesy of Wulfie.

[miko2d]

Miko2d,

I think you maybe missed it. I posted a thread for you - I wanted your opinion (if applicable, i.e. if you were involved in some way) of a FMSO study on a series of battles in Afghanistan. I think you'll find it interesting reading regardless of your personal involvement (or lack thereof).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/010900-zhawar.htm
Let me know what you think please (in another thread).
Mike/wulfie

 Thanks. Enlightening read.

 If anything, the report is charitable to both sides, making it appear as if it was an almost orderly affair.

 I was fortunately not in a line batallion but rather in a specialised unit fielding recon/interdiction teams (not strike). Afghans (we called them "dukhi" which literally means "spirits" or "ghosts" but was derived from "dushman" - a term for "counter-revolutionary bandit" in soviet asia 1920s; the term "afghan" was reserved for soviet soldiers who served in Afghanistan) often could not find their tulips with both hands (had no problem finding each-other's tulips though). Soviets could not find their tulips even after having their heads stuck all the way up them.
 That would be my general strategic asessment.

 miko

[Ripsnort]

Good reading so far, about 1/2 way through. Thks for the links Miko/Wulfie.

[Erlkonig]

Is there any literature on the Afghan war from the Soviet POV, either history or veterans' accounts?  The catch being it has to be available in English.

[miko2d]

Erlkonig: Is there any literature on the Afghan war from the Soviet POV, either history or veterans' accounts?  The catch being it has to be available in English.

 There is not much good stuff even in Russian. There is a slew of atrocious fiction novels and probably one could find some good documental accounts but most of it is not worth bothering with.

 You see - the russian society suffers from the same cognitive dissonance as our friend Boroda here.

 They admit that communists were bad and evil and often incompetent but they would not admit that the things we did under communist rule were bad and evil and incompetent. The "Afghans"-veterans are honored and form quite influential power groups.

 With increased fighting against fundamental muslims in Chechnya and ex-soviet repubilcs, it's not likely that russians will soon admit that the same people they are fighting now were in the right just a few years before.

 Even if US I've noticed significant drop in the popularity of the freedom-fighters like Bin Laden last couple of years...

 miko

[Boroda]

Originally posted by miko2d


 There is not much good stuff even in Russian. There is a slew of atrocious fiction novels and probably one could find some good documental accounts but most of it is not worth bothering with.

 You see - the russian society suffers from the same cognitive dissonance as our friend Boroda here.

"Dissonance" has several meanings in English, which one you used?

http://www.lingvo.ru/lingvo/common/Translate.asp

We really suffer from the 180 degree turn in propaganda that was made 15 years ago. Now Afghan war was finaly recognised not only as a "bloody agression", and dem-scizoid "right-protectors" scream that it's another "return to Soviet times"...

There were no good books about Afghan war. Only some-how readable things were stories by Artyom Borovik, published in 87-90. They were probably the first attempt to see Soviet soldiers there as people performing their duty at war, not only planting trees and building schools.

Originally posted by miko2d

 They admit that communists were bad and evil and often incompetent but they would not admit that the things we did under communist rule were bad and evil and incompetent.

Communists were nor "good" or "bad". They were.  Afghan adventure (àâàíòþðà) began as a stupidity and ended up as a tragedy. In fact - it didn't end, the war goes on, but now inside former Soviet borders...

Originally posted by miko2d

The "Afghans"-veterans are honored and form quite influential power groups.

Mostly criminal. We worked with one veteran organisation. They were gangsters, gangsters in terms of early-90s. Interesting people.

Now they mostly lost their influence, some killed, some "retired".

Originally posted by miko2d

 With increased fighting against fundamental muslims in Chechnya and ex-soviet repubilcs, it's not likely that russians will soon admit that the same people they are fighting now were in the right just a few years before.

 Even if US I've noticed significant drop in the popularity of the freedom-fighters like Bin Laden last couple of years...

 miko

Miko, everyone understands that now we fight the same gangsters we fought in Afghanistan, and they are still supported by the same political and financial groups, including American government.

The problem in Chechnya is very similar with the Taliban story. Chechen "armed forces" were bred by Russian government in 1991-93 to serve as a sword of Damocles over Caucasus, and they served well in Abkhazia and some other places. But you can't control prehistoric tribes, so they went off the rocker just like Taliban. As usual, Russian "democratic" regime sacrificed hundreeds of thousands people of Chechnya for some chimeric political benefits. As usual our "democratic" pro-Western government was unprofessional and incompetent.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Boroda
Miko, everyone understands that now we fight the same gangsters we fought in Afghanistan, and they are still supported by the same political and financial groups, including American government.
 

Ahhh, thats a good one! Signature material!

[miko2d]

Boroda: "Dissonance" has several meanings in English, which one you used?

 Not "dissonance" - "cognitive dissonance" is the specific phychiatric term.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which has two major effects on learning:

- if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
             
- if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

 Columbus described the indians that he saw on his first voyage as beautifull, noble, honourable, intelligent people with a highghtly developed civilisation. Once plundering and enslaving them became a goal of his subsequent jorneys, he desribed the same people as ugly, dumb, trecherous uncivilised brutes. Otherwise his actions would appear unjustified to him. That's typical cognitive dissonance.


Communists were nor "good" or "bad". They were.

 Oh, yes - they were bad, or more specifically "evil". They enslaved and oppressed people, killed those that disagreed with them, and performed other quite evil deeds...

 miko

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by miko2d
Oh, yes - they were bad, or more specifically "evil". They enslaved and oppressed people, killed those that disagreed with them, and performed other quite evil deeds...

 miko

You mean those in high power, right? I was the impression that the avg. Communist citizen was no different than the avg. American citizen (other than the alcoholic problems and arrogance that Soviet citizens generally carry, known in these parts as "Eastern Block Mentality")

[miko2d]

Ripsnort: You mean those in high power, right?

 Right. I am speaking here loaded with russian preconceptions, not american. While it was common of americans to refer to russians in general as "commies" (I do not allege any ill-intent here), most of us living in Soviet Union certainly did not think of ourselves as "communists" - even those who had to join the party to advance their careers totally unrelated to politics.

 In fact when I say that communists are evil, I do not even mean soviet communists specifically. All collectivists - socialists, liberals, republicrats, etc. are evil because they rely on oppression to achieve their ends.

 miko

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by miko2d
All collectivists - socialists, liberals, republicrats, etc. are evil because they rely on oppression to achieve their ends.

 miko

Hmm, something we agree on!

[miko2d]

GScholz: Hmmm ... I live in a social democracy. Am I living in an "evil empire" too?

 Are you being taxed for things you do not approve of? Are your actions restricted even though they do not pose a threat to health, life and property of other people and do not break a voluntaryly entered contract? Can other people vote on issues that concern your family life but do not directly affect anyone else? Did you have no choice to accept or refuse such arrangements short of leaving the country?

 If yes, then you are living under an oppressive regime. I'd call it evil. Hardly an empire.

 miko

[miko2d]

GScholz: In that case I am living under an oppressive regime ... and so are you.

 At least I have recently upgraded from even more oppressive one and still enjoy the difference...


Btw. can you stop by the "Russian oil payable in Euro" tread. I seem to remember you had some enlightening views on the whole $ vs. € for oil thing.

 I typed the same notice yesterday (accurately labeled as "rumor", of course) but changed my mind on posting. That is only a rumor so far. It's exactly in accordance with my earlier predictions, but I will wait for the actual event before saying "I told you so".

 miko