blackheart said:
And what exactly did the Soviets manage to do besides occupy Kabul and demoralize their men?
They controlled most of the country and practically destroyed the opposition. Their tactic was effective - this village is harbouring rebels? OK, let's erase it. They utilized small, experienced units and Mi-24's to strike at the rebels wherever they wanted.
By this I want to say that the common perception of the Afghan War as a conflict, where Russians were totally beaten by mujahids is simply wrong. They were winning for most of the time and if they had the resources to continue, they'd have prevailed in the long term.
If the Soviets were so strong, why did they pull back and have to rely on locals?
They pulled back because their empire was falling apart. One more thing worth mentioning - the soviet forces in Afghanistan were just a small fraction of their overall strenght.
Their empire was collapsing because their resources were being drained, a big part of it due to the eternal fighting in Afghanistan.
That's a simplification. Soviet empire collapsed from many reasons, the war in Afghanistan and Reagan's tough approach were just the last drops needed for the cup to flow over.
And Russia will waste its time and squabble its resources and men in Chechnya when it can be doing bigger things.
Such as? For Russians, the conflict in Chechnya is about prestige, morale and reputation. If they let go one small republic, there is a chance the other, predominantly Muslim republics near Caspian sea and Caucasus would try to secede too.
They have a motivation and the resources, that's why this conflict won't end up in the same way as Afghanistan or Vietnam.