7 ms·

Possibly, but Russia internally felt that they lost. And this was significant contributing factor to the collapse of their empire.

by genman 3y ago

thriftwy 3y ago
I think it was different and more like the Vietnam fallout, "with the new reconassiance data, it turns out we fought against ourselves" The idea which ended both wars was that continuing this war is a war crime against our own nation even as we continue to score victories.
- genman 3y ago
  USSR simply ran out of resources to continue the war. They would have happily continued if they could have been able to afford it. In the end the country had dire deficit of even basic everyday items including food. But similarly to the Vietnam war it was not able to "sell" the losses to their own people, especially on the occupied territories (Soviet Republics), where it was seen as another Russian expansionist invasion.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    > especially on the occupied territories (Soviet Republics) A majority of these republics were founded by the USSR by carving them out of RSFSR, without the regard of wishes of people who ended up split by these borders. I guess its karma when USSR wanted to be the example of affirmative action socialist state ran by ethnic minorities, only to get framed for imperialism by the autonomous republics it has created.
    - genman 3y ago
      I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I'm talking about Soviet Republics (SSR) post WW2 e.g. the occupied territories that were not in RSFSR. These "autonomous" republics were anything but autonomous. They were autonomous within the very strict framework provided by Russia. Puppet states would be the closest description, but even then not fully accurate. On top of this there was no need for Russian help to "create" these fake republics. Nations were completely capable to create their own governance like was for example the case with Ukraine. All what Russians did was to use the cover of communism to continue their imperialist ambitions. RSFSR contained ASSR (Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics) and these had even less autonomy. Most of these nations should have also been given the opportunity to have statehood as they wanted. If you were talking about ASSR before WW2 that were transformed into SSR then again, see the previous point.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        I don't believe you have the full context and reading Wikipedia on the subject will yield a lot of surprises. USSR got the following bits and pieces after WWII: * Kaliningrad, added to RSFSR * West Ukraine, added to Ukrainian SSR * Some ex-Polish lands added to Belorussian SSR (Poland get even more of better, ex-German lands though) * Baltic states * Tuva. Of these, perhaps three Baltic republics were not happy about Afghanistan (and everything else), but they were quite small. The rest of stuff, such as UkrSSR, BelSSR, Caucasus and Central Asian SSRs, were carved out of RSFSR (Russia) in the 1920's by the USSR, after being part of Russian Empire for a century or more. Most of them did not exist as a separate state previously, especially in the assigned borders. Some briefly existed, often as anarchist or German puppet states, between 1917 and 1921. USSR did indeed gain control of various Eastern European countries such as Poland or Romania, but they were not part of USSR so they did not have to fight in Afghanistan. The rest of stuff about nations and statehood opportunity is frankly bullshit. These ASSRs were also carved by USSR out of Russia, and almost universally have 40% to 80% of Russian population within them - the only separatist opportunity they have is to be a particularly poor reissue of Bosnia. People are not stupid and they understand that.
        genman 3y ago
        I can see who you are. This comment is sufficient. Is this enough context for you?
        thriftwy 3y ago
        [flagged]
        jnsaff2 3y ago
        Your comments come off similar to a slave owner bragging about how many slaves they got at various stages and complaining about how ungrateful those slaves were to you. Completely forgetting the slave aspect that comes with murder, deportations, rape, lack of self determination or any other human rights. russophobia in this case is merely the dislike to being invaded and murdered by russians.

Possibly, but Russia internally felt that they lost. And this was significant contributing factor to the collapse of their empire.

by genman 3y ago

Possibly, but Russia internally felt that they lost. And this was significant contributing factor to the collapse of their empire.

thriftwy 3y ago

I think it was different and more like the Vietnam fallout, "with the new reconassiance data, it turns out we fought against ourselves" The idea which ended both wars was that continuing this war is a war crime against our own nation even as we continue to score victories.

genman 3y ago
USSR simply ran out of resources to continue the war. They would have happily continued if they could have been able to afford it. In the end the country had dire deficit of even basic everyday items including food. But similarly to the Vietnam war it was not able to "sell" the losses to their own people, especially on the occupied territories (Soviet Republics), where it was seen as another Russian expansionist invasion.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  > especially on the occupied territories (Soviet Republics) A majority of these republics were founded by the USSR by carving them out of RSFSR, without the regard of wishes of people who ended up split by these borders. I guess its karma when USSR wanted to be the example of affirmative action socialist state ran by ethnic minorities, only to get framed for imperialism by the autonomous republics it has created.
  - genman 3y ago
    I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I'm talking about Soviet Republics (SSR) post WW2 e.g. the occupied territories that were not in RSFSR. These "autonomous" republics were anything but autonomous. They were autonomous within the very strict framework provided by Russia. Puppet states would be the closest description, but even then not fully accurate. On top of this there was no need for Russian help to "create" these fake republics. Nations were completely capable to create their own governance like was for example the case with Ukraine. All what Russians did was to use the cover of communism to continue their imperialist ambitions. RSFSR contained ASSR (Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics) and these had even less autonomy. Most of these nations should have also been given the opportunity to have statehood as they wanted. If you were talking about ASSR before WW2 that were transformed into SSR then again, see the previous point.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      I don't believe you have the full context and reading Wikipedia on the subject will yield a lot of surprises. USSR got the following bits and pieces after WWII: * Kaliningrad, added to RSFSR * West Ukraine, added to Ukrainian SSR * Some ex-Polish lands added to Belorussian SSR (Poland get even more of better, ex-German lands though) * Baltic states * Tuva. Of these, perhaps three Baltic republics were not happy about Afghanistan (and everything else), but they were quite small. The rest of stuff, such as UkrSSR, BelSSR, Caucasus and Central Asian SSRs, were carved out of RSFSR (Russia) in the 1920's by the USSR, after being part of Russian Empire for a century or more. Most of them did not exist as a separate state previously, especially in the assigned borders. Some briefly existed, often as anarchist or German puppet states, between 1917 and 1921. USSR did indeed gain control of various Eastern European countries such as Poland or Romania, but they were not part of USSR so they did not have to fight in Afghanistan. The rest of stuff about nations and statehood opportunity is frankly bullshit. These ASSRs were also carved by USSR out of Russia, and almost universally have 40% to 80% of Russian population within them - the only separatist opportunity they have is to be a particularly poor reissue of Bosnia. People are not stupid and they understand that.
      - genman 3y ago
        I can see who you are. This comment is sufficient. Is this enough context for you?
        thriftwy 3y ago
        [flagged]
        jnsaff2 3y ago
        Your comments come off similar to a slave owner bragging about how many slaves they got at various stages and complaining about how ungrateful those slaves were to you. Completely forgetting the slave aspect that comes with murder, deportations, rape, lack of self determination or any other human rights. russophobia in this case is merely the dislike to being invaded and murdered by russians.