Talk:Soviet–Afghan War

Afghan civilian death count includes conflicting info

The numbers in these two sentences do not agree. 11.5% of 13.5 million isn't close to 3 million. "The war resulted in the deaths of approximately 3,000,000 Afghans, while millions more fled from the country as refugees; most externally displaced Afghans sought refuge in Pakistan and in Iran. Approximately 6.5% to 11.5% of Afghanistan's erstwhile population of 13.5 million people (per the 1979 census) is estimated to have been killed over the course of the conflict." Sdfoltz (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian

@Seoul1989, describing Peter Beaumont as a "columnist" is clearly misleading. Remsense ‥ 论 07:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Move to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Most sources seem to call it "Soviet invasion of Afghanistan" (google scholar: 25,000) as opposed to "Soviet-Afghan war" (google scholar: 6,000). Remsense any thoughts? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I always thought the title being "Soviet–Afghan War" was weird. Most sources I've engaged with describe it as the "Soviet invasion of Afghanistan". Without prejudice on motivations, this was not a war between the states of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union, but Soviet troops did unilaterally enter and occupy much of Afghanistan's territory on behalf of the new revolutionary government. Yue🌙 22:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you have a point. The title makes it look like the Soviets were fighting Afghanistan as a state, but in reality they were fighting alongside the DRA against the Mujahideen who were being funded by numerous foreign countries. The Afghan government, under the Khalq, made 9 requests for the Soviet Union to enter our country but this was rejected. One request even involved Taraki asking for Soviet soldiers to dress up in Afghan Army uniforms but this was also rejected. The USSR reportedly did not want to enter Afghanistan because they knew it was a bad decision, but after the death of Nur Muhammad Taraki (at the hands of Hafizullah Amin) changed their minds.

This is all according to The Great Gamble: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mj45URQ1lpIC&pg=PP5&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Date?

The infobox has the war starting on 24 December 1979, but the text seems to indicate either 25 or 27 December - it gives both dates for Soviet troops entering Afghanistan. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It was on 25 December 1979.

At midday on 25 December Ustinov issued the formal order to move: ‘The state frontier of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan is to be crossed on the ground and in the air by forces of the 40th Army and the Air Force at 1500 hrs on 25 December (Moscow time)’. The Soviet intervention had begun.

--Jo1971 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jo1971 Thanks - I've updated the infobox. There's still a bit of a muddled section in Soviet–Afghan War#Soviet invasion and palace coup - second paragraph has 25 December, sixth starts "Soviet ground forces, under the command of Marshal Sergey Sokolov, entered Afghanistan from the north on 27 December...". I've not changed that for the moment in case there's a subtlety I'm missing. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Result of war

Several issues with leaving the result as "Mujahideen victory" and why I think it should be changed to "See aftermath" or removed entirely. 1. The claim that the war is universally accepted as a Mujahideen victory is FALSE. I have given sources that contradict this statement, and I can give more, you could say an overwhelming amount of sources claim that, but saying universally is false. 2. The Soviet Union itself didn't view this war as a war against Afghanistan, rather seeing it as an intervention at the request of the Afghan government (which is true in a way), which makes the result of "see aftermath" make more sense. Officially, the Soviet Union announced that it completed its responsibilities signed at the Geneva accords of 1988 after fully completing its withdrawal, and that it had ended the operation on providing direct military assistance(boots on ground) to the Afghan people and government, rather than admitting defeat.(https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/57911/files/A_44_131_S_20472-RU.pdf?ln=es) Of course, it didn't win either, so a more detailed Aftermath section than the one I provided is better. 3. The war continued until 1992, and the Afghan government that the USSR supported outlived the Soviet Union itself. The soviet intervention in Afghanistan ended in a military stalemate, and the reasons for the withdrawal are disputed. If the Afghan Civil war (1989-1992) was included in the Soviet Afghan war, I would have no problem with the result being Mujahideen victory. But as it only refers to the period of Soviet intervention, a see aftermath result with a detailed explanation of the result to me seems like the best result to put. Grechkovsky (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dushnilkin

@User:StephanSnow Grechkovsky (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Noorullah21 Grechkovsky (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind, it sounds quite reasonable. Dushnilkin (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I see. I think changing the result to "See Aftermath" is fine. I also noticed the aftermath section in here is almost completely empty with only a link to another article, so this information in here can be added there. StephanSnow (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Grechkovsky Nope. What you're suggesting goes against sources, and also WP:OR (since you're arguing against sources)...

"Babrak’s claim to have widespread popular support was soon shown to be a delusion and all the Soviet intervention did was precipitate a full-scale civil war and internationalize the Afghanistan crisis, turning it into a proxy war between the USSR and USA-NATO. The Soviet Union now found itself condemned to fight an unwinnable war on behalf of a government that was unsustainable." [1] pg 605-606

"Just two months after Najib Allah became president, Gorbachev accepted that a military victory in Afghanistan was impossible and ordered his chiefs of staff to plan an orderly withdrawal." pg. 618

[2] Page 368-369.

"By late 1985, the Soviets realized that they were not going to win the war. They negotiated a settlement and completed their withdrawal in February 1989." [3]

"But the Afghan struggle was more than an embarrassing colonial defeat for the world's last multinational empire." [4] Pg. 228

A lot more to go off of here.

Also, please don't ping your friends who haven't been involved in the discussion for them to weigh in their own opinion. See WP:INAPPNOTE and WP:MEATPUPPET (as it is block able on Wikipedia). Their userboxes/userpages make it seem fairly obvious that you're attempting to votestack in this regard. Noorullah (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll respond to your first point later as I have irl shit to do atm. Regarding the meat puppet accusation, you asked me to seek consensus on this subject, so I pinged 2 editors I believed would contribute to the conversation. As without pinging other people it would just be you and I arguing over this. I never asked them to agree with me on this topic, nor did I have guarantees that they would do so. I have had disagreements with both of these editors on a number of issues. Grechkovsky (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

You don’t need other users to come to a consensus alone. You can still discuss with me and see the aforementioned points.

Moreover, you were involved in numerous discussions with said users. Not that this means anything warranting meatpuppetry alone, but the interactions and then a jump to here is suspicious at best. (Hence why I said it looks like votestacking)

WP:RS and WP:HISTRS all point to the war being a Soviet failure and Mujahideen victory, which is the end of it. A see aftermath is not justified here since all sources are in line with this narrative. Noorullah (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't expect a ping in this issue at all, since I wasn't at all interested in this topic in order to add at least something worthwhile. But please note that only one of your sources puts the outcome of the war as a victory for the Mujahideen, while others claim that the USSR cannot win the war - this is a dead end situation described by the user above. Dushnilkin (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

...And are there any WP:RS sources that state otherwise? Nothing about sources say the USSR was ever in a favorable position when they withdrew. All the sources clearly say the war was a Mujahideen victory.

Cause there's more: [5]

[6]

To quote further... "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the ensuing decade-long unsuccessful military action to control the country became Moscow's longest foreign war of the 20th century."" [7]

""The Red Army had fought their war to a military draw but that was not enough to stave off political defeat at home.""

"While a number of conditions in Afghanistan contributed to Soviet defeat, it is essential to take account of the decisions made by Soviet political leaders before and during the war." [8] (Page 5) Noorullah (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, you probably didn't understand what I meant. I did not state anywhere that it was a Soviet victory or anything, I just noted that your sources ("the Soviet Union understood that it could not win" and so on) are a statement of a stalemate, not a victory for the Mujahideen. Consider that this is just a tip to quote more specific sources. It is better to wait for a response from @Grechkovsky. Dushnilkin (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Are we being serious? Sources universally agree this was a Mujahideen victory. Your small number of sources to disprove this is worthless. Don't think bringing people you often discuss these things with strengthens your point, it does not. This is straight up delusional and forceful. Setergh (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I think a “See aftermath” result is reasonable for this article, as the aftermath of the war overall is complex and cannot be dubbed down to as “Mujahideen victory”. The mujahideen themselves were not a united body but rather numerous factions united under a single umbrella term. The unification of certain mujahideen factions comprise of groups such as Peshawar Seven and Tehran Eight. Additionally, the Soviet-Afghan war did not end the war in Afghanistan overall, as the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan still remained in the country as a force that fought the Mujahideen (until 1992) after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, with battles occurring such as the Battle of Jalalabad directly after.

However I am also in favour of leaving it as “Mujahideen victory” and then adding bullet points underneath like many other articles do in their results tabs. ;) AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Nope, that violates WP:RESULT (for bullet points). Your proposal also doesn’t make sense. “…as the aftermath of the war overall is complex and cannot be dubbed down to as “Mujahideen victory”. The aftermath of the war saw the collapse of the DRA and a Mujahideen victory, how is it complex? Noorullah (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• A lot to unpack here. 1st of all: we need to define what warrants a see aftermath result:
  "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."
  I do not have to prove the soviet union had the advantage in 1989 before it withdrew to warrant a see aftermath result. Now, let's start with the fact that one of the users above quoted a source that said The red army fought to a military draw, but that did not prevent a political defeat. This already gives leeway for a see aftermath result
• Since your source concedes a stalemate militarily and a political defeat for the Soviet Union, a result of "Mujahideen Victory" hides the ambiguity of a military stalemate. The recommended course in cases like this to link to the Aftermath section that fully describes the results. “Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result.”
• The war ended with an agreement (Geneva accords) signed by the Soviet Union, Pakistan, the US, and the DRA. In what your own source describes as a political defeat and military stalemate. Moreover, the immediate result, as I have demonstrated with a source from University of California Press… “The year began with great hope that a withdrawal of Soviet forces would usher in peace for Afghanistan and an opportunity for its people to choose a new, noncommunist government and commence the reconstruction of their devastated country. As the year drew to a close, however, these hopes had not been realized. The war continued, bringing further death and devastation to large areas of the country. The Soviet-sponsored regime, aided by large shipments of Soviet arms, held on to its bastions in Kabul and the major towns of the country. Some five million refugees stayed in Pakistan and Iran, and more continued to flee the com-bat areas. Foreign assistance to rebuild the country was largely held in abeyance. Afghanistan remained a sore point in the otherwise improving Soviet-American relationship and a source of instability in western Asia.” https://online.ucpress.edu/as/article-abstract/30/2/158/22653/Afghanistan-in-1989-Stalemate?redirectedFrom=fulltext … was the continuation of the civil war in Afghanistan. The war lasted until 1992, which means "Mujahideen victory" was not the immediate result of the Soviet-Afghan war. Now point 2: The claim that sources universally agree that the war ended in a military victory for the Mujahideen and a defeat for the Soviet Union is false. I have addressed this before and provided sources from both the New York Times: “Like the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the first Chechen war ended in a stalemate.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/world/europe/photos-chechen-war-russia.html and a Russian historian “The Soviet Union did not lose the war in Afghanistan, said the Chairman of the Russian Historical Society, Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin at a round table dedicated to the 35th anniversary of the withdrawal of a limited contingent of Soviet troops.
• "There is no need to say that our country suffered a defeat in Afghanistan," he said.” https://ria.ru/amp/20240220/afganistan-1928404754.html
• that contradicts this. But here are a few more:
  “Conventional wisdom states the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was defeated in Afghanistan and forced to withdraw in ignominy. A closer look at history, however, reveals the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1992 capably orchestrated its diplomatic, military, and economic efforts to disengage from the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) on its terms, under the aegis of an international agreement. It left behind a semi-stable regime, an improved military, a dreadful economic situation, and a commitment to a long-term relationship.” https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2632&context=parameters “– The debate about whether the 40th Army won or lost the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing. The most correct thing is that there is no subject of debate, because we did not have the task of winning by military means. Such a task did not exist in nature. It did not exist in the orders of the Minister of Defense, nor in the directives of the Chief of the General Staff, nor, moreover, in any instructions of the Central Committee of the CPSU or the Soviet government. That is why the appropriate structure and number of the limited contingent of Soviet troops in Afghanistan were selected.
• Therefore, the periodic statements and statements by various politicians and representatives of other professions that the 40th Army "suffered a defeat" in Afghanistan are ordinary lies and cheap populism on the bones of our guys. And if such a task, God forbid, had been set, then rest assured - it would have been accomplished, but a sea of ​​blood would have been spilled.
• During the entire time we were there, we did not allow any army in the world to violate the border of Afghanistan, or even try to invade its territory. Preventing this was our main official task. In the course of its implementation, we "ground up" a huge number of militants and terrorists. This was our great contribution to the world's impending fight against terrorism.” - General Boris Gromov, the last General to leave Afghanistan https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2022/02/15/14535337.shtml Britannica is fairly ambiguous and doesn’t mention a result for the Soviet-Afghan war, but nevertheless provides a summary in line with how the events are described by me and other sources: “The Afghan War quickly settled down into a stalemate, with about 100,000 Soviet troops controlling the cities, larger towns, and major garrisons and the mujahideen moving with relative freedom throughout the countryside.” “The war in Afghanistan became a quagmire for what by the late 1980s was a disintegrating Soviet Union. (The Soviets suffered some 15,000 dead and many more injured.) In 1988 the United States, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union signed an agreement by which the latter would withdraw its troops (completed in 1989), and Afghanistan returned to nonaligned status. In April 1992 various rebel groups, together with newly rebellious government troops, stormed the besieged capital of Kabul and overthrew the communist president, Najibullah, who had succeeded Karmal in 1986.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Afghan-War Just so we’re clear, this isn’t me talking, and some of this has been provided to demonstrate different perspectives. There may be sources that contradict this, but that is part of the point I’m making, that there’s disagreement on the outcome. Point 3, original research: This mainly applies to part 2 of my argument, which aimed to point out the Soviet Perspective on the war. As I have provided a source for part 3, and part one was just saying that there are sources saying otherwise, I’ll dedicate this section to examining part 2.
  Me: The Soviet Union itself didn't view this war as a war against Afghanistan, rather seeing it as an intervention at the request of the Afghan government (which is true in a way) Directive of Soviet Government: On December 24, 1979, the Minister of Defense of the USSR Dmitry Ustinov signed Directive No. 312/12/001:
• “A decision has been made to introduce some contingents of Soviet troops stationed in the southern regions of our country into the territory of the DRA in order to provide assistance to the friendly Afghan people.”
• (Although I didn’t link this, my bad: https://historyrussia.org/sobytiya/35-let-nazad-zavershilsya-vyvod-ogranichennogo-kontingenta-sovetskikh-vojsk-iz-afganistana.html ) Besides the “Which is true in a way”, hinting at the fact that there were requests by the Afghan government to intervene, which I can also provide, all of this has sources. Me: Officially, the Soviet Union announced that it completed its responsibilities signed at the Geneva accords of 1988 after fully completing its withdrawal, and that it had ended the operation on providing direct military assistance(boots on ground) to the Afghan people and government, rather than admitting defeat.
  Official statement of the Soviet Government that I linked: Acting in strict accordance with the Geneva Agreements, the USSR completed the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Not a single Soviet soldier remained in that country.
• When signing the Geneva Agreements, the Soviet Union and the Republic of Afghanistan proceeded from the fact that the clear implementation of the obligations under the agreements by all parties participating in them can and should create a reliable basis for ending the protracted conflict between the opposing Afghan groups, facilitating the restoration of peace on Afghan soil and stabilizing the situation in the region as a whole.
• Leaving Afghanistan in good will and in agreement with the Afghan leadership,

The Soviet Union will continue to contribute to a peaceful and comprehensive Afghan regulation.

Point 4, examination of your sources: I never claimed that there weren’t sources that say the war ended in a Mujahideen victory/Soviet Defeat, however I will also examine your sources.

1. I cannot examine this source as I do not feel like finding it on the internet archive or buying the book, but your quote indicates a Military stalemate rather than a defeat, as Dushnilkin pointed out, it doesn’t contradict my claim.

2. “Fourteen years and a day after the 1978 coup that brought the PDPA to power, the Kabul regime gave up its few remaining bits of that shattered power. A cutoff of Soviet aid led to the downfall of a leadership decimated by internecine strife, deserted by key domestic supporters, demoralized, and overwhelmed by enemies. But the mujahideen interim council that assumed the tattered trappings of an Afghan state on 28 April 1992 was disunited. While the victory ended the Communist effort to shape Afghanistan, it only began another bloody stage in the struggle over power and policy that had wracked the country for decades. Authority was dispersed into regional fiefdoms as a fight for the national symbolism of Kabul devastated the capital.”

1992, not 1989, this isn’t the immediate result, and is exactly what I’ve been saying.

3. "By late 1985, the Soviets realized that they were not going to win the war. They negotiated a settlement and completed their withdrawal in February 1989."

This does not contradict what I've been saying, and the point about a negotiated settlement is exactly what I’ve been saying.

4. This source does mention a Mujahideen victory, yes. However even here much of what I’ve been saying before applies. For one this source mentions a military stalemate multiple times, and as I’ve pointed out, a military stalemate and political victory is enough ground to warrant a see aftermath result.

“By mid-1987 at the latest, from the Soviet point of view the military situation was a stalemate at best. On the one hand, the mujahideen could not capture the big cities because they could not overcome the combination of Soviet air and firepower, plus fortifications and the mines that defended them; the Soviets in fact laid down between 10 and 16 million mines in Afghanistan, which served to keep mujahi-deen out-and Kabul soldiers in. 179 On the other hand, the Soviets and their Kabul allies had lost their complete air supremacy and controlled little of the countryside; they held only the larger cities, the key airports, and the vital north-south highway to Kabul.”

“a U.S. State Department paper summarized the situation, "by 1987 the Mujahideen had fought the Soviet and regime forces to a stale-mate: Moscow's Afghan policy had alienated it from the Islamic, Western and non-aligned countries; and the Soviets failed to find a client leader in Kabul who could capture the loyalty of the Afghan people.””

“At a truly frightful price and with good help from their well-wishers in the outside world, the Afghan people fought to a stalemate the forces of a superpower on their very border. “

Moreover, this source describes Mujahideen failures following the withdrawal of the Soviets:

“The consequences of the increased willingness to fight on the part of the Kabul forces were quite serious. In March 1989, in contrast to their previously successful guerrilla tactics, the insurgents launched a major conventional attack on the city of Jalalabad, chosen in part because of its proximity to the Pakistan border and in part because it was large enough for the Afghan Interim Government (AIG), the leaders of the seven largest parties, to move in and proclaim it the capital of a liberated state. But the expected defection of the garrison did not occur; on the contrary, the Kabul troops at Jalalabad fought tenaciously, because of earlier prisoner killings by mujahideen. Moreover, the garrison possessed massive amounts of Soviet sup-plies, plenty of Soviet Army advisers, abundant firepower, good defensive positions, and numbers equal to those of the attackers. The insurgents assaulted the place in broad daylight, thus abandoning any hope of surprise, failed to coordinate their movements, and took a tremendous mauling from regime air and artillery units.”

“The successful defense of Jalalabad showed that the city of Kabul itself was safe, at least for a while. Within the capital, many who would never have joined the PDPA nevertheless supported the city's defense”

5. This by definition does not describe an immediate Mujahideen victory.

6. “The Soviet-Afghan War differed from other conflicts of the Cold War era. Although it was a limited conflict, it was longer than most slightly over nine years in length - and thus did not share the decisive nature of the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, or the Falklands War of 1982. The Soviet imbroglio lacked the scale of either the Korean War (1950-53) or Vietnam (1965-73) and did not conclude with a clear political outcome, in contrast to those proxy conflicts.” So this does not describe from what I can see the war as a Political victory for the mujahideen, which is different from other sources. I cannot examine deeper as the preview does not allow me to see the pages where it talks about soviet defeat.

7.  I am only able to see part of this, and as I don’t feel like buying it I won’t comment. Again, I never claimed there weren’t sources that describe the war as a Mujahideen victory.

8. ”Nevertheless, the war in Afghanistan was, in military terms, a stalemate even before the arrival of Stingers, with both sides limited to inconclusive tactical victories. In late 1985, under General Zaitsev, the Soviets initiated more aggressive tactics, which put the resistance on the defensive but failed to disrupt its supply lines. The Stingers gave the Afghan resistance greater confidence and freedom to maneuver but did not displace any Soviet forces.21 The introduction of Stingers complicated the Soviets’ military challenges on the ground, but, based upon evidence found in the Politburo archives, they were not responsible for Gorbachev’s decision to withdraw Soviet forces.”

Military stalemate is a repeated theme in even the sources you provide. There are countless sources describing the war as a military stalemate. Grechkovsky (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not writing another one of these lol, it's too time consuming to write this stuff. Grechkovsky (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but see WP:WALLOFTEXT, respectfully I'm not reading that.

But from your citations here's what to dissect:

The New York Times is not a WP:HISTRS source to be used in articles.

Theodore L. Eliot Jr. is not a Historian, and thus unqualified per WP:RS and WP:HISTRS.

David G. Fivecoat was a U.S soldier, and likewise, not a historian.

You again cite Russian news pieces, which aren't WP:RS nor WP:HISTRS.

You also cited Brittanica which said nothing regarding the result -- it even elaborates militarially ...: "The war in Afghanistan became a quagmire for what by the late 1980s was a disintegrating Soviet Union" Noorullah (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)