What's new

Did the USSR really intend to attack Pakistan?

Uncle Mushi answered ur question here.


President Musharraf’s interview in Dosra Pehlu



start around 10-15 mins into the video.

Do you really believe what your Uncle Mushi said? Let me give you few examples of his work/statement:-

1) 1999, Kargil: Mujahideen and Lashkars are attacking Indians not PA.
Sorry it was us.

2) 1999, Post Kargil : Kargil was all Mastermind of Nawaz Sharif. He planned and ordered.
Sorry it was us who did it and it was my coomand.

3) Military Coup : Nawaz Sharif tried to kill me, He is traitor.
None proved, All was drama.

4) India Visit : These are same Indians we attacked but now I am "Peace Messenger".
Liar Liar

5) Every year post 2003 : This year we will hold democratic elections.
Next year surely.

He is not a man of his words, Mark it. This makes him on the same league of Gen Ayub, Zia.
 
.
Why do you and Chinese always keep thinking that we're working for USA when time and again we have proven to have independent policy than them? Perhaps self-fed conviction that whoever isn't anti-US is a US slave? :blink:

You really need to understand what is the meaning of being independent policy maker without getting anti-any country, something which is not defined well in Pakistani foreign policy since it always has sought someone as a backing ally and another as an enemy. Please clear these concepts. It just happens that our interests with West converge at the moment since your new master has some problem with us. That's all. There's a big difference in submitting totally to one "master" and being a partner, getting mutual benefits and try avoiding depending on one another a little too much.

We've been anti-West at one stage as well... so don't tell us the difference please.

Your democracy is as corrupt as ours agreed. But radicalization was done during Zia's period when your entire curriculum was transformed into a war study. That is what is causing so much problems. Most Pakistanis except a few Zia supporters say this and admit this.

I am not amazed at how you are twisting what i said in your post.. here is what i meant..

India has proven itself to be self-centered.. and at the moment it is enjoying the support of USA and the west.. after it was 'friends' with USSR (the then super power).. but you need to understand one difference in between these two.. Americans don't give dolly without getting more out.. so right now.. what was played with Pakistan couple of decades ago is getting played in India..

It will take them time, but in few years, you'll have the same CIA network and 'Paid' leaders leading your country.. You will not be able to stay 'self-centered' as you have stayed.. difference in approach of USSR and USA will painfully dawn on you..

USA right now is going to start supporting you (it has already) because of a [possible] bi-polar world of future.. (China and USA).. so it is grooming India as it did with Pakistan to take down USSR.. so enjoy the dolly until they start asking for return favours.. and by that time your politicians/leaders will start acting like puppets for them.. just like the Zardari Regime...

As far as Zia is concerned, i do not support his policies in total.. i am saying that what Pakistan did to USSR was the requirement of THAT time.. and it was the right step.. i guess that was the topic of discussion.. right?

BTW, our curriculum has always been war study, thanks to your war mongers.. stop the weapons race from your side and we will do the same.. we do not wish to spend the budget on military as much as we are spending.. but a 'failed' test of a missile every 'second' day from India forces us to do a 'successful' test in response.. the concept is to keep your big mouths in control..
 
.
Do you really believe what your Uncle Mushi said? Let me give you few examples of his work/statement:-

1) 1999, Kargil: Mujahideen and Lashkars are attacking Indians not PA.
Sorry it was us.

2) 1999, Post Kargil : Kargil was all Mastermind of Nawaz Sharif. He planned and ordered.
Sorry it was us who did it and it was my coomand.

3) Military Coup : Nawaz Sharif tried to kill me, He is traitor.
None proved, All was drama.

4) India Visit : These are same Indians we attacked but now I am "Peace Messenger".
Liar Liar

5) Every year post 2003 : This year we will hold democratic elections.
Next year surely.

He is not a man of his words, Mark it. This makes him on the same league of Gen Ayub, Zia.

Oh you forgot to add the 50 most wanted criminals list.. Oh sorry, was it India who produced them?? My Bad!
 
.
I am not amazed at how you are twisting what i said in your post.. here is what i meant..

India has proven itself to be self-centered.. and at the moment it is enjoying the support of USA and the west.. after it was 'friends' with USSR (the then super power).. but you need to understand one difference in between these two.. Americans don't give dolly without getting more out.. so right now.. what was played with Pakistan couple of decades ago is getting played in India..

It will take them time, but in few years, you'll have the same CIA network and 'Paid' leaders leading your country.. You will not be able to stay 'self-centered' as you have stayed.. difference in approach of USSR and USA will painfully dawn on you..

USA right now is going to start supporting you (it has already) because of a [possible] bi-polar world of future.. (China and USA).. so it is grooming India as it did with Pakistan to take down USSR.. so enjoy the dolly until they start asking for return favours.. and by that time your politicians/leaders will start acting like puppets for them.. just like the Zardari Regime...

As far as Zia is concerned, i do not support his policies in total.. i am saying that what Pakistan did to USSR was the requirement of THAT time.. and it was the right step.. i guess that was the topic of discussion.. right?

BTW, our curriculum has always been war study, thanks to your war mongers.. stop the weapons race from your side and we will do the same.. we do not wish to spend the budget on military as much as we are spending.. but a 'failed' test of a missile every 'second' day from India forces us to do a 'successful' test in response.. the concept is to keep your big mouths in control..

our politcians are already puppets and more so than anything,like your army which kinda saves your *** we have our bureaucracy and thats what keeps our country on hold.

Secondly,USA can never treat us like they treated you because you are a small country and it doesn't take much to pay off your politicians and army chiefs but it takes a lot more to pay off ours and USA is not that rich anymore.

India is supporting USA or taking its influence to ward china off as this is the only thing that ll keep china on their toes.Else they are our true danger and i dont know what they could do to us.
 
.
anyways, correct me if i am wrong.. you don't believe that 9/11, 7/7/, 26/11, WMDs, Al CIAdah, OBL etc. were real, right? i mean it should all also be the 'propaganda' depending upon your logic, isn't it? (which i highly believe it is, but thats not the question)

Iraq had no WMD's... , and that is a confirmed fact.

Are you for real? or have 'people like you' left their thinking brain somewhere and forgot about it?

No, but speak for yourself.

The domino effect can be considered for USSR side also, so after Afghanistan, there was a strong possibility of it invading Pakistan also, and even if it didn't, and only 'influenced' Pakistan towards communism then what was the guarantee that west wouldn't had 'intervened' to stop Pakistan going in soviet block? and for your information, i am not a kid, i know about the cold war, lived through it..

Tell me, how would the west have "intervened" to stop Pakistan going into soviet bloc when the same West didn't intervene during 1971 war when USSR was openly supplying india tanks, aircraft, and When Pakistan's sovereignty was violated?

The reason for them NOT invading Pakistan has been given in my other posts, do read them 'genius' and if you have some logic, do use it.. It was not 'advantage' which stopped them, it was their economic instability..

You gave no valid reasons backed with proof.

All i can say it LOL to your logic here.. anyways, my suggestion to you would be to explore the reasons a bit more before making your 'learned' comments..

Your avoiding my question! Now let me ask you the same Question again: How did the Soviet Union become a "superpower" without Pakistan's Warm water ports? Since according to your theory the Soviet Union was a "poor desperate country" that needed Pakistan's warm water ports to survive.

Global distribution of proven natural gas reserves:

"The former Soviet Union holds the world's largest natural gas reserves, 38% of the world's total. Together with the Middle East, which holds 35% of total reserves, they account for 73% of world natural gas reserves."-Natural Gas
chart-of-natural-gas-reserves.jpg

Natural Gas



Fighting against Afghans who were not well trained and well equipped is different than fighting against a highly trained army of Pakistan, where the possibility of 'west' helping Pakistan to protect 'western' interests was extremely high..

And i'll ask you the same question again, where was this "Western interests" in 1971 when not the Soviet Union, but the indian army (armed by Soviet Union) crossed international border line and captured some 90,000 Pakistani soldiers? Oh wait i forgot, the Americans imposed arms embargoes on Pakistan.

According to your own 'theory' only introduction of 'stinger missile' dented USSR to some extent.. Pakistan would had gotten MORE THAN THAT.. again.. economic stability was a big question mark for them..

So basically you answered your own question and proved my point right.:lol:

Genius!!..
I don't see how this is supposed to offend me lolz.



Again.. Read the documentation,

Which documentation?

USSR had an already 'bloated' economy but they were keeping it intact (just like USA right now).. the length of Afghan war pushed them beyond the red line and they disintegrated.. again.. go do some research!

The disintegration of the USSR was more to do with the expensive arms race with the USA and internal dissent, the Afghan war was only one of the few reasons why the USSR disintegrated.
 
.
I am not amazed at how you are twisting what i said in your post.. here is what i meant..

India has proven itself to be self-centered.. and at the moment it is enjoying the support of USA and the west.. after it was 'friends' with USSR (the then super power).. but you need to understand one difference in between these two.. Americans don't give dolly without getting more out.. so right now.. what was played with Pakistan couple of decades ago is getting played in India..

That's where you don't know how diplomacy is handled, bro. See, it is not Pakistani people's fault but the fault of some feudal lords who didn't give you the window to see the other side of how it is played. Russia still remains our best friend while we are gaining new friends. Because our friendship is based on mutual partnership; not a position lower to the other country. If we bow in some cases, we make sure that there is enough returns sometime later. Because rigidity in diplomacy is not possible. It is more like business. Your partner also gets profit and so do you. US is right now friendly to us for reasons that they and we feel that converge our interests, but we have also been loggerheads with each other during cold war. So trust me; we know how to handle them. It is TOTALLY different from the way they handled you.

While there are quasi-lobby attempts here, but it usually fails in India.

It will take them time, but in few years, you'll have the same CIA network and 'Paid' leaders leading your country.. You will not be able to stay 'self-centered' as you have stayed.. difference in approach of USSR and USA will painfully dawn on you..

We already have paid leaders, dude. What do you think traitors like Sonia Gandhi and her pet poodle MMS are? Sincere nationalists? :lol:. Trust me, they are the same as Zardari if not worse than him. The only difference is that the social structure and mentality of people here is different and that is what makes the whole US interaction with us and with you different.

USA right now is going to start supporting you (it has already) because of a [possible] bi-polar world of future.. (China and USA).. so it is grooming India as it did with Pakistan to take down USSR.. so enjoy the dolly until they start asking for return favours.. and by that time your politicians/leaders will start acting like puppets for them.. just like the Zardari Regime...

Oh Maino madam is already a puppet that has a very nosy opposition to counter her. There is going to be no bi-polar world anymore because multiple rising countries not just in Asia but in Latin America and even Eurasia (Turkey). So this will be very different scenario. As much as people think that China is the next Soviet Union, Chinese leaders are smart and would take existing scenario seriously. Remember, US-China are intermingled in a way that Soviet Union was never.

This is the Multi-polar era, as much as you'd like to deny it. China is huge no doubt; but this world has multiple rising countries simultaneously unlike Cold War that was characterized by a world divided between newly independent African and Asian countries and their former colonizers.

As far as Zia is concerned, i do not support his policies in total.. i am saying that what Pakistan did to USSR was the requirement of THAT time.. and it was the right step.. i guess that was the topic of discussion.. right?

Well you could say that. But you didn't do much except earn yourself an enemy. Just got lucky that USSR passed away. If they had pulled back before weakening economy, you'd be cursing your government for that mis-involvement today.

BTW, our curriculum has always been war study, thanks to your war mongers.. stop the weapons race from your side and we will do the same.. we do not wish to spend the budget on military as much as we are spending.. but a 'failed' test of a missile every 'second' day from India forces us to do a 'successful' test in response.. the concept is to keep your big mouths in control..
 
.
Do you really believe what your Uncle Mushi said? Let me give you few examples of his work/statement:-

1) 1999, Kargil: Mujahideen and Lashkars are attacking Indians not PA.
Sorry it was us.

2) 1999, Post Kargil : Kargil was all Mastermind of Nawaz Sharif. He planned and ordered.
Sorry it was us who did it and it was my coomand.

3) Military Coup : Nawaz Sharif tried to kill me, He is traitor.
None proved, All was drama.

4) India Visit : These are same Indians we attacked but now I am "Peace Messenger".
Liar Liar

5) Every year post 2003 : This year we will hold democratic elections.
Next year surely.

He is not a man of his words, Mark it. This makes him on the same league of Gen Ayub, Zia.

what are you trying to tell me, be straightforward and clear plz.
 
. .
And in the process created a shytestorm for yourself. Soviets didn't want to strike you but you radicalized your entire country and see what's happening today. Russia had its deal of hardships, still retains almost absolute control on former-USSR countries, is a part of BRICS a global economy emerging body, is exporting energy to energy hungry India and China, corruption is much lower than 90s. But see what has become of what your one general created. So much damage in the long run for a war that was not even there between you and Soviets.

There is enough evidence to state that the Soviets did want to strike us in pursuit of their search for warm waters. There are accounts of ex military personals whom were deployed on Pakistan's Western Borders during the 80's that suggest that the demeanour of the Soviet Army was very confrontational. If the Soviets were not bogged down with the insurgency, there was nothing stopping the 40th Army from marching down to Pakistan.

I agree about the damage that was done because of Zia, he was a moron that he easily let these Jihadis have a "Free Pass". But i still believe that it was in Pakistan's absolute interests to support the Jihadis, getting encircled and sandwiched was the worst thing that can happen to Pakistan from a strategic point of view. Pakistan can fight and defeat these Jihadis if the people of Pakistan actually put their minds behind it, but defeating the Mighty Soviet Army is simply out of the question.

Pak was not feared by the attack. Pak was ally of US and attack by Soviet on Pak could be a WW3, even a strategic nerd can sense that. Whether you accept or not but Pak became a tool of US during "Cold war" and play ground was "Afghanistan". Rest is Gen Zia and group's propaganda for public.

I dont know where you got that from but Pakistan was '**** Scared' about the presence of Soviet Army on our Western borders, chances of a limited incursions of Soviet Tanks were very real. The US at no time offered Pakistan the protection of its nuclear umbrella like it offered its NATO allies, this is one of the main reasons behind Pakistan's fear. You would be a fool to think that the US would risk getting into a head on shooting war against the Soviet Union for the sake of Pakistan, maybe your forgetting but Warsaw Pact had close to 180+ Divisions stationed a stone throw away from Western Europe.
 
.
I have to agree with salman108 here: the Soviets simply didn't have the logistical capability to reach the Indian Ocean (or Arabian Sea) through Pakistan. Soviet vehicles had a maximum unrefueled range of 600km. That means the Soviets would have had to set up supply camps in Pakistan itself - an impossibility for them since Afghanistan had no railways.

You are way underestimating the Soviet Engineering Core, what they did in Afghanistan was nothing short of exceptional. The sort of quick wartime infrastructure that the Soviet Engineers were able to build in record time speaks volume of their excellence. For God's sake they literally built their own roads in Afghanistan for their columns to advance, the natural barriers one would expect that would have slowed down Soviet advance were no match for the Soviet Engineers. Their planning and advance was so good that they did not even let their enemy set up any defences, they simply bypassed it. For all of the Soviet Union's economic and social shortcomings, they did possess a military machine that was nothing short of exceptional. Setting up logistical supply lines all the way to Pakistan was not a problem for the Soviets, it was the level of resistance that was offered by the locals that was a problem for them.

Instead the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Senior Soviet diplomats like their Ambassador to the U.S., Dobrynin, immediately grasped that it was an extremely stupid thing to do - the Politburo had fallen into a trap set by the ISI with the blessing of U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. From then on the political course of events to bleed the Soviet Empire was irresistible.

Sorry but i have a very hard time believing that the ISI would want the Soviets at our Western borders. Throughout Pakistan's entire history the presence of the Soviet 40th Army on our Western borders was the single biggest threat that Pakistan ever faced. The ISI shared no hostilities with the Soviets until they reached our Western borders.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom