Extremely unlikely. It will at best hold onto a never ending stalemate, and at worst devolve into a loosely federated terrorist state that will fight till the last man.
This will be Afghanistan all over again. There will be no victory here.
It's conventional warfare, not guerilla warfare, nor a suicide bombing campaign. The worst case scenario would resemble the Iran-Iraq war and the initial conditions resembled Northern Cyprus more than Afghanistan.
The Ukrainians don't really even have an equivalent to the Viet Cong. Insurgencies need the support of the local populace to eat and operate without being ratted out. Only Kherson is even close to divided enough for that to have a remote chance of occurring.
The terrain and culture of Ukraine aren't like Afghanistan. Afghans are more loyal to their tribes than Kabul. The underdeveloped subsistence farming economy of Afghanistan means any insurgent knows how to live off the land and survive living in deprivation for long and sustained periods. The terrain of Afghanistan allows insurgents to easily isolate whatever forces the government sends in an attempt to control the countryside. The Taliban won without any state really backing them. The overall population of Ukraine and Afghanistan might be similar but what matters most is the demographic in the age range for military service.
Show
Show
Syria didn't turn into an Afghanistan. The Donbass republics fended for themselves for 8 years while the DRA only lasted 3 years alone. Even then the DRA still outlasted the Soviet Union so had material support continued they might've continued on as a rump state. It wasn't like the US puppet, Ghani's regime, which just collapsed immediately after the US pullout.
Ukrainians are more Northern Alliance than Taliban. Their ideology isn't anywhere near as unified as the Taliban's. The moderate liberals and extremist fascists would turn on each other if living conditions deteriorated sharply.
Show
There can be no defeat either. Pulling out would be political suicide for anyone in the Kremlin. Abandoning Russians in Russian territory would be different from abandoning the DRA. Nukes would fall before Crimea falls.
Anyway, you can't really predict the future by looking at the past. The similarities are only down to hindsight and brute force exhaustion of every possible historical parallel.
Chechnya is infinitely smaller then Ukraine or Afghanistan, with a fraction of the population, little to no industrial base, little international support, poor morale, poor infrastructure, no modern weaponry, and only one real major city.
Comparing Chechnya to Ukraine or Afghanistan seems laughable.
That’s like saying “The US could take on Grenada in days/weeks, so why did they struggle in Vietnam?”
The Soviets would have succeeded in Afghanistan if it weren’t for Gorbachev, besides western equipment is running out and more apathy is growing in American and NATO brass.
The Soviets would not have won if it hadn’t been for Gorbachev. That is an extremely historically disconnected take, and I recommend you study the conflict better.
Also it doesn’t matter if there is apathy, guns will be sent as long as they can, and a terrorist organization doesn’t need much to work off of.
But don’t worry “just one more year and it’ll be over” right?
My grandfather thought the same thing before he and his Mi-24 were shot down in Afghanistan.
Ok? The extremists are still getting help from the US in this situation
Also that is not why they lost. Newsflash, war is unpopular, and having convoy after convoy of caskets return home is very bad for morale. Soviet production was not up to the task. The war was unpopular to begin with and the population could care less about Afghanistan. The military was unprepared for a COIN conflict in the Middle East, and etc.
my friend even you are an armchair general , in which war did you partake recently . lol Historians and people try to understand the past events by facts and ripples in the present that doesn't mean you have to participate in Mongol Invasion or in Great Patriotic war. I will suggest you something instead of accusing everyone here as an "armchair general" have a field day with Azov/UAF or Donetsk militia , either way you can write a great blog here.
Where did I say that you have to participate in the conflict to discuss it?
I said that you should have good knowledge on a subject before you make claims about it. Something that you have not done, so I doubt you’re a “historian”. I am also not accusing everyone here of being an armchair general. I’m accusing you of being one because of your poor take on the conflict.
What connection do you have to the Afghan conflict other then 2 YouTube videos and reading the Wikipedia article?
Also I don’t really understand what you’re saying in your last point. I apologize if English isn’t your first language, but the last sentence makes little sense and I don’t get what you’re saying I should do. Are you saying I should write a blog about Azov or the Donetsk militias? Why would I want to do that?
Even if they don’t, it is certain that Ukraine will get a new Russian-aligned government
Extremely unlikely. It will at best hold onto a never ending stalemate, and at worst devolve into a loosely federated terrorist state that will fight till the last man.
This will be Afghanistan all over again. There will be no victory here.
It's conventional warfare, not guerilla warfare, nor a suicide bombing campaign. The worst case scenario would resemble the Iran-Iraq war and the initial conditions resembled Northern Cyprus more than Afghanistan.
The Ukrainians don't really even have an equivalent to the Viet Cong. Insurgencies need the support of the local populace to eat and operate without being ratted out. Only Kherson is even close to divided enough for that to have a remote chance of occurring.
The terrain and culture of Ukraine aren't like Afghanistan. Afghans are more loyal to their tribes than Kabul. The underdeveloped subsistence farming economy of Afghanistan means any insurgent knows how to live off the land and survive living in deprivation for long and sustained periods. The terrain of Afghanistan allows insurgents to easily isolate whatever forces the government sends in an attempt to control the countryside. The Taliban won without any state really backing them. The overall population of Ukraine and Afghanistan might be similar but what matters most is the demographic in the age range for military service.
Syria didn't turn into an Afghanistan. The Donbass republics fended for themselves for 8 years while the DRA only lasted 3 years alone. Even then the DRA still outlasted the Soviet Union so had material support continued they might've continued on as a rump state. It wasn't like the US puppet, Ghani's regime, which just collapsed immediately after the US pullout.
Ukrainians are more Northern Alliance than Taliban. Their ideology isn't anywhere near as unified as the Taliban's. The moderate liberals and extremist fascists would turn on each other if living conditions deteriorated sharply.
There can be no defeat either. Pulling out would be political suicide for anyone in the Kremlin. Abandoning Russians in Russian territory would be different from abandoning the DRA. Nukes would fall before Crimea falls.
Anyway, you can't really predict the future by looking at the past. The similarities are only down to hindsight and brute force exhaustion of every possible historical parallel.
Russia managed in Chechenya, once they got their marbles together.
Chechnya is infinitely smaller then Ukraine or Afghanistan, with a fraction of the population, little to no industrial base, little international support, poor morale, poor infrastructure, no modern weaponry, and only one real major city.
Comparing Chechnya to Ukraine or Afghanistan seems laughable.
That’s like saying “The US could take on Grenada in days/weeks, so why did they struggle in Vietnam?”
Seeing as how the Ukraine population do everything they can to not stay in Ukraine in multiple methods and directions, soon.
The Soviets would have succeeded in Afghanistan if it weren’t for Gorbachev, besides western equipment is running out and more apathy is growing in American and NATO brass.
The Soviets would not have won if it hadn’t been for Gorbachev. That is an extremely historically disconnected take, and I recommend you study the conflict better.
Also it doesn’t matter if there is apathy, guns will be sent as long as they can, and a terrorist organization doesn’t need much to work off of.
But don’t worry “just one more year and it’ll be over” right?
My grandfather thought the same thing before he and his Mi-24 were shot down in Afghanistan.
The soviets lost because US and China helped the extremists then !
Ok? The extremists are still getting help from the US in this situation
Also that is not why they lost. Newsflash, war is unpopular, and having convoy after convoy of caskets return home is very bad for morale. Soviet production was not up to the task. The war was unpopular to begin with and the population could care less about Afghanistan. The military was unprepared for a COIN conflict in the Middle East, and etc.
my friend even you are an armchair general , in which war did you partake recently . lol Historians and people try to understand the past events by facts and ripples in the present that doesn't mean you have to participate in Mongol Invasion or in Great Patriotic war. I will suggest you something instead of accusing everyone here as an "armchair general" have a field day with Azov/UAF or Donetsk militia , either way you can write a great blog here.
Where did I say that you have to participate in the conflict to discuss it?
I said that you should have good knowledge on a subject before you make claims about it. Something that you have not done, so I doubt you’re a “historian”. I am also not accusing everyone here of being an armchair general. I’m accusing you of being one because of your poor take on the conflict.
What connection do you have to the Afghan conflict other then 2 YouTube videos and reading the Wikipedia article?
Also I don’t really understand what you’re saying in your last point. I apologize if English isn’t your first language, but the last sentence makes little sense and I don’t get what you’re saying I should do. Are you saying I should write a blog about Azov or the Donetsk militias? Why would I want to do that?