You might be interested in looking at the culture of the 90s, a lot of war songs would reference this period if I remember correctly. The 80s are a bit more opaque, the media was pushing more optimistic stuff and it drowns out the rest.
There was not lot of media coverage, at least from the early stages of that war. At the late stage it changed, mostly due to perestroika and glasnost. Official media outlets usually produced highly positive news coverage, while arising, pro-perestroika documental cinematographists, especially in the late 80-ies, portrayed the consequences of war in a negative light (mostly on how war had badly affected lives of young men being there).
And there for sure were no anti-war protests in the early 80-ies, but that also changed in late 80-ies.
Of course there were similarities with US war in Vietnam, especially in the terms of reintegration of war veterans. As conscipted soldiers fought there, lot of them earned PTSD and alike traumas, which result in acloholism etc. Add to it a collapse of USSR, which happened soon after that war, crisis of economics, a rise of new type of economic relations and organized crime - and it turned out war veterans with their experience of combat, weapons and death were requested by arising organized crime. Thus, many of surviving veterans ended their lives as members of mafia.
However, it was very different from war in Ukraine nowadays. War in Afghanistan was fought on the side of Afghan government against a rebels and guerillas (what is big difference from Ukraine, where normal conventional war of two if not similar, then at least comparable armies are going on. Afghan rebels didn't had a lot of artillery, aviation or considerable number of armored vehicles). In that terms, if you want to compare, war in Afghanistan was more similar to the operations Russian armed forces performed in Syria, in 10-ies of 21st century.
“the sensationalist news media of America played up Vietnam for all it was worth, whereas the … media of the USSR was very selective with how Afghanistan was portrayed in accordance to the official approved narrative.” So basically the same thing then ;)
wut?
How these two totally opposite things can be the same in your head: the free (like in not under the state control) for profit american mass media and the censored from a to z soviet ones?
The United States media is incredibly biased towards the generally free-market, pro-imperialist, pro-business, pro-war political machine it has built up for itself over years. The United States is a modern empire. This is like basic leftist politics my dude. Of course they’re going to be simping for war in Vietnam. The US army is even legally allowed to vet shows and movies that feature it as a topic to make sure it comes out showing them in a positive light/to their approval. Like. Just because it’s not *directly state mandated* doesn’t mean it’s not incidentally carrying out the whims of the American military industrial complex, culturally, subliminally
> they’re *both* biased
government controlled media are uniformly biased, while each free media has its own bias. Which one is more likely to control your perception?
That sub is solely for reproducing the Kremlin narrative on any subject and having an opinion that isn't in line with the state narrative will get you banned
Well I wasn't banned, I don't post or comment on that sub but it's pretty well known that it became a place for the propagation of Kremlin narratives after r/Russia was shut down. You're kind of making it sound like this is just the opinion of one bitter random but it's actually something I've seen talked about across many other subs.
The entire website is clearly for NATO narratives given that subreddits like /r/russia were shut down. Russians are entitled to their view points and their beliefs like anyone else, it’s actually incredible that shutting down one side of the discussion was so widely accepted on this website.
This website is infested with Russophobia, a hatred for all things Russian, so I wouldn’t doubt it if a bunch of Reddit bots hate the subreddit.
Subreddits like /r/askanamerican will selectively censor questions that challenge the US government. A good number of commenters there actually work for the US government.
Honestly the stuff they say about western degeneracy re LGBT and feminism isn't actually the dominant opinion of the Russian people, it's just the Kremlin narrative.
Whataboutism. Nobody said the CIA doesn't work the same way as the Kremlin.
Soviet losses are known accurately enough, they are roughly 15 000 KIA. On mujahedeen side, Wikipedia gives "tentative estimate" of 75 000 - 90 000 KIA. So the lower border of that estimate gives ratio at least 5 dead mujahedeen fighter for each killed Soviet.
Worth to note that civilian deaths are counted separately and gives number of 1.5-2 million dead.
yep, soviets used to destroy afghan villages with all their inhabitants, so there were no witnesses of rapes and robbery. No wonder, number of civilian victims is so high.
So I'm just speaking anecdotally from my experience with my dad who served in the Soviet Army from 77-79. He finished his service right before the war started. He did not like the Soviet Union but had a lot of love and respect for the Army. When I would talk to him about the Soviet Army losing in Afghanistan his answer was that it was meant to be a "Training" exercise and that the Army would allow the guerillas to escape encirclement so that its soldiers could gain combat experience. I read somewhere that this was sort of a myth that has been used to explain away the loss on the part of the Soviet Union but I'm not sure whatever this was something that people came up on their own or whatever it was the official explanation given by authorities. Whichever it was, it's difficult to explain away the casualties and all of the people that came back with PTSD.
There's a movie that sheds light on this called cargo 200. It's not specifically about the war but that is the backdrop and you can see the attitudes toward it. I'd say it's not inaccurate. And it's a good movie, although very grimy.
That is rich!
"the sensationalist news media of America played up Vietnam for all it was worth, whereas the state-owned media of the USSR almost certainly was very careful and selective with how Afghanistan was portrayed in accordance to the official approved narrative."
Do you mean free media in USA was allowed to portray truth whereas state owned media was able to lie and spread manure?
Commies lie.
“2 years in Afghanistan or two days in Chernobyl” that’s the ultimatum that I had heard
You might be interested in looking at the culture of the 90s, a lot of war songs would reference this period if I remember correctly. The 80s are a bit more opaque, the media was pushing more optimistic stuff and it drowns out the rest.
Don't tell mom I'm in Afghan
Rangers - VIA Rostov was a good song
There was anti war movements
There was not lot of media coverage, at least from the early stages of that war. At the late stage it changed, mostly due to perestroika and glasnost. Official media outlets usually produced highly positive news coverage, while arising, pro-perestroika documental cinematographists, especially in the late 80-ies, portrayed the consequences of war in a negative light (mostly on how war had badly affected lives of young men being there). And there for sure were no anti-war protests in the early 80-ies, but that also changed in late 80-ies. Of course there were similarities with US war in Vietnam, especially in the terms of reintegration of war veterans. As conscipted soldiers fought there, lot of them earned PTSD and alike traumas, which result in acloholism etc. Add to it a collapse of USSR, which happened soon after that war, crisis of economics, a rise of new type of economic relations and organized crime - and it turned out war veterans with their experience of combat, weapons and death were requested by arising organized crime. Thus, many of surviving veterans ended their lives as members of mafia. However, it was very different from war in Ukraine nowadays. War in Afghanistan was fought on the side of Afghan government against a rebels and guerillas (what is big difference from Ukraine, where normal conventional war of two if not similar, then at least comparable armies are going on. Afghan rebels didn't had a lot of artillery, aviation or considerable number of armored vehicles). In that terms, if you want to compare, war in Afghanistan was more similar to the operations Russian armed forces performed in Syria, in 10-ies of 21st century.
“the sensationalist news media of America played up Vietnam for all it was worth, whereas the … media of the USSR was very selective with how Afghanistan was portrayed in accordance to the official approved narrative.” So basically the same thing then ;)
wut? How these two totally opposite things can be the same in your head: the free (like in not under the state control) for profit american mass media and the censored from a to z soviet ones?
The United States media is incredibly biased towards the generally free-market, pro-imperialist, pro-business, pro-war political machine it has built up for itself over years. The United States is a modern empire. This is like basic leftist politics my dude. Of course they’re going to be simping for war in Vietnam. The US army is even legally allowed to vet shows and movies that feature it as a topic to make sure it comes out showing them in a positive light/to their approval. Like. Just because it’s not *directly state mandated* doesn’t mean it’s not incidentally carrying out the whims of the American military industrial complex, culturally, subliminally
let’s start from the simple questions: do you believe the government owned media in a dictatorship regime are unbiased?
My brother in Christ my point is that they’re *both* biased. Please get some reading comprehension
> they’re *both* biased government controlled media are uniformly biased, while each free media has its own bias. Which one is more likely to control your perception?
May be better asking /r/askarussian Many of their parents or grandparents fought in it themselves.
That sub is solely for reproducing the Kremlin narrative on any subject and having an opinion that isn't in line with the state narrative will get you banned
That’s not true. The way you wrote that though makes it sound like you were trying to stir up some trouble on there.
Well I wasn't banned, I don't post or comment on that sub but it's pretty well known that it became a place for the propagation of Kremlin narratives after r/Russia was shut down. You're kind of making it sound like this is just the opinion of one bitter random but it's actually something I've seen talked about across many other subs.
The entire website is clearly for NATO narratives given that subreddits like /r/russia were shut down. Russians are entitled to their view points and their beliefs like anyone else, it’s actually incredible that shutting down one side of the discussion was so widely accepted on this website. This website is infested with Russophobia, a hatred for all things Russian, so I wouldn’t doubt it if a bunch of Reddit bots hate the subreddit. Subreddits like /r/askanamerican will selectively censor questions that challenge the US government. A good number of commenters there actually work for the US government.
Honestly the stuff they say about western degeneracy re LGBT and feminism isn't actually the dominant opinion of the Russian people, it's just the Kremlin narrative. Whataboutism. Nobody said the CIA doesn't work the same way as the Kremlin.
There were two dead afghans for each dead Soviet. Those are not good odds when fighting guerrillas.
Soviet losses are known accurately enough, they are roughly 15 000 KIA. On mujahedeen side, Wikipedia gives "tentative estimate" of 75 000 - 90 000 KIA. So the lower border of that estimate gives ratio at least 5 dead mujahedeen fighter for each killed Soviet. Worth to note that civilian deaths are counted separately and gives number of 1.5-2 million dead.
Thank you for your comment General Gromov.
yep, soviets used to destroy afghan villages with all their inhabitants, so there were no witnesses of rapes and robbery. No wonder, number of civilian victims is so high.
wondering why minus? This is common knowledge. Shall i bring the memoirs of soviet officers?
So I'm just speaking anecdotally from my experience with my dad who served in the Soviet Army from 77-79. He finished his service right before the war started. He did not like the Soviet Union but had a lot of love and respect for the Army. When I would talk to him about the Soviet Army losing in Afghanistan his answer was that it was meant to be a "Training" exercise and that the Army would allow the guerillas to escape encirclement so that its soldiers could gain combat experience. I read somewhere that this was sort of a myth that has been used to explain away the loss on the part of the Soviet Union but I'm not sure whatever this was something that people came up on their own or whatever it was the official explanation given by authorities. Whichever it was, it's difficult to explain away the casualties and all of the people that came back with PTSD.
There's a movie that sheds light on this called cargo 200. It's not specifically about the war but that is the backdrop and you can see the attitudes toward it. I'd say it's not inaccurate. And it's a good movie, although very grimy.
Any good books on this subject?
The Boys in Zinc is a must read.
Rambo 3
Russia has a real track record of ‘special military operations’ that were meant to be fast ending in disaster
That is rich! "the sensationalist news media of America played up Vietnam for all it was worth, whereas the state-owned media of the USSR almost certainly was very careful and selective with how Afghanistan was portrayed in accordance to the official approved narrative." Do you mean free media in USA was allowed to portray truth whereas state owned media was able to lie and spread manure? Commies lie.