• Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Because Russia had so much success against Afghanistan themselves. Pretty sure they’ve had their asses handed to them in the far east as well.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because Russia had so much success against Afghanistan themselves.

      Despite nominally being a staunch supporter of George Bush Jr’s War on Terror, Afghanistan was one place Putin absolutely refused to give support. You can call it cowardice or wisdom or simply being once-bitten-twice-shy, but the Graveyard of Empires isn’t the place you send in troops casually.

      Pretty sure they’ve had their asses handed to them in the far east as well.

      Do you mean the Russo-Japan War? That was over a century ago.

      With the exception of the First Chechen War, The Post-'91 Russian Federation’s record on the battlefield has generally been successful.

      Russian military leadership is well-blooded and one of the only institutions that wasn’t gutted by Perestroika. The folks who were laughing up their sleeves at the “Oversized Gas Station” when the Ukraine fight started may have underestimated the monster that was unleashed.

  • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The difference is that Vietnam and Afghanistan were civil wars. It’s very difficult to win a war when a sizable portion of the citizens are fighting against you. Ukraine seems to be very united against a common enemy: Russia.

  • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    They are not wrong, in typical US style they will just declare its done and leave Ukraine in enormous debt and left to fend for itself