Russia opposes a military action against Pakistan

[Vinod2070]

True. All these relationships are non existent now. I didn't say they existed. I said that in the future they may very well exist. That is the way it's all heading.

Russia and China are probably going to become allies, even though they don't like each other. Pakistan is needed for Gwadar (which the Chinese have a stake in), so it makes sense for such an alliance.

So you are saying that it makes sense for such an alliance. Pakistan is important only for Gwadar!

So the alliance may very well exist in the future. Your earlier post was a bit more certain of this occurrence!

Currently, the US is the world bully. But it's on its way out. China is the new leader. The US is simply making preparations. India-USA vs China-Russia-Pakistan. Russia is rising again, the Chinese are soon to be the top dogs. Pakistan doesn't really need much else.

So you want to place all you bets on something that makes sense for you but there is no inkling of that happening!

 

[roadrunner]

The original leader of the Northern Alliance was someone I can't mention nor is it easily available information but he viewed Dostum and Massood with caution.

Why can't you mention him?!

 

[S-2]

"Most of the fighting against the Soviets was done in the East of Afghanistan where the Pashtuns are/were."

Doesn't mean that the Soviets weren't heavily and often engaged in the west, northeast, and southwest, though.

Soviet army motor rifle divisions were headquartered in Shindand (south of Herat), Bagram, and Kunduz- hardly Pashtu country. That's three of four divisions, and all of their heavy forces, with only an airborne division in Kabul. I'm certain that you understand who the Bagram division's primary opponent was- and he wasn't Pashtu either.

Need a hint? Try tajik with an "M". So how Pashtu, again is Shindand, the Panjishir, and Kunduz?

Hope that azz of yours is fat enough to cushion the fall.

 

[roadrunner]

So you are saying that it makes sense for such an alliance. Pakistan is important only for Gwadar!

So the alliance may very well exist in the future. Your earlier post was a bit more certain of this occurrence!

Just as India's alliance with the US only makes sense to counter China.

So you want to place all you bets on something that makes sense for you but there is no inkling of that happening!

Your interpretation at fault here.

 

[roadrunner]

"Most of the fighting against the Soviets was done in the East of Afghanistan where the Pashtuns are/were."

Doesn't mean that the Soviets weren't heavily and often engaged in the west, northeast, and southwest, though.

Soviet army motor rifle divisions were headquartered in Shindand (south of Herat), Bagram, and Kunduz- hardly Pashtu country. That's three of four divisions, and all of their heavy forces, with only an airborne division in Kabul. I'm certain that you understand who the Bagram division's primary opponent was- and he wasn't Pashtu either.

Need a hint? Try tajik with an "M". So how Pashtu, again is Shindand, the Panjishir, and Kunduz?

Hope that azz of yours is fat enough to cushion the fall.

What does all that gibberish prove? The reasons that the Soviets could station their troops in certain areas was that they were simply able to base themselves in those areas because they felt safer! Not because they were necessarily doing more fighting in those areas. If I were to choose a place to base troops, it wouldn't be in the hotbed of resistance, it would be in a pacified area and the operations can radiate out to those warring insurgent areas. The main base for the Mujahideen in Pakistan was in Badaber, but there was no fighting going on in that area!! It was simply a base because it was well away from the Soviets. You're really not very tactically minded, are you lol

 

[S-2]

"Commentating is my business."

For whom that I may enjoy your contributions outside here?

 

[deltacamelately]

S-2 has a problem accepting facts, he has to twist it and put a CIA spin to it. Even though the Soviets were invited he will keep on arguing that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan simply because no one invited the so-called champions of human rights when they invaded Afghanistan. It makes him feel guilty and his aggressive behaviour is a symptom of his guilty conscience. He talks of bad company but there is hardly any company more wicked in this world than certified liars like bush and blair.

T-Rex,
You are evidently ignorant about anything concerning the Soviet Invasion and arguing with a person who has actually worn the uniform and is far, far, well versed in military matters.

Inspite of the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness, the very fact that the Soviet Union deployed the 40th Army consisting of two motorized rifle divisions, an airborne division, an assault brigade, and two separate motorized rifle regiments, obviously a offensive force, is vindictive of Soviet intentions and its offensive formations are tentimony of an invasion.
There are numerous incidents that prove that it was not simply an armed intervention but rather a full fledged invasion. Events like the December incident wherein, the Soviet advisors to the Afghan Armed Forces advised them to undergo maintenance cycles for tanks and other crucial equipments while, severing telecommunications links to areas outside of Kabul, thereby isolating the capital, the Soviets VDVs joineing stationed ground troops and begining to land in Kabul in large numbers, later, the Soviet military command's announcement at Termez, Uzbekistan on Radio Kabul that Afghanistan had been liberated from Amin's rule and that the Politburo were complying with the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that former President Taraki signed is proof enough that they accomplished what they sought, i.e. complete invasion.

No one is saying that the treaty wasn't there, but the deployment of the Advisors, then the 40th Army, its size, formation and action all indicate an invasion rather than an simple military intervetion on request.

 

[roadrunner]

"Commentating is my business."

For whom that I may enjoy your contributions outside here?

Nevermind. I'm always curious as to how Massoud is trumpeted as one of the guys who won the war in Afghanistan. He really was quite a two-faced r-at. He could have ended the war much sooner.

 

[S-2]

"Not because they were necessarily doing more fighting in those areas."

Commuted to work, did they? The distance those poor BMPs, BTRs, BRDMs, and T-62s traveled daily from their safe locales? I'm eager to learn, Sun Tzu, and await enlightenment not afforded me by the U.S. Army.

Yours should prove especially fascinating.

 

[Vinod2070]

Just as India's alliance with the US only makes sense to counter China.

May be to you. Not to those who seem to matter in this unfair world.

There is no alliance against China. It may be in common interest for both the countries (along with all others in Asia) that Asia does not become a unipolar continent.

Your interpretation at fault here.

Let us wait and see.

 

[roadrunner]

T-Rex,
You are evidently ignorant about anything concerning the Soviet Invasion and arguing with a person who has actually worn the uniform and is far, far, well versed in military matters.

Inspite of the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness, the very fact that the Soviet Union deployed the 40th Army consisting of two motorized rifle divisions, an airborne division, an assault brigade, and two separate motorized rifle regiments, obviously a offensive force, is vindictive of Soviet intentions and its offensive formations are tentimony of an invasion.
There are numerous incidents that prove that it was not simply an armed intervention but rather a full fledged invasion. Events like the December incident wherein, the Soviet advisors to the Afghan Armed Forces advised them to undergo maintenance cycles for tanks and other crucial equipments while, severing telecommunications links to areas outside of Kabul, thereby isolating the capital, the Soviets VDVs joineing stationed ground troops and begining to land in Kabul in large numbers, later, the Soviet military command's announcement at Termez, Uzbekistan on Radio Kabul that Afghanistan had been liberated from Amin's rule and that the Politburo were complying with the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that former President Taraki signed is proof enough that they accomplished what they sought, i.e. complete invasion.

No one is saying that the treaty wasn't there, but the deployment of the Advisors, then the 40th Army, its size, formation and action all indicate an invasion rather than an simple military intervetion on request.

You've missed the whole point of that treaty. Don't you Indians ever read the threads you comment on? The treaty permitted the use of military force by the Soviets, should the Afghanistan government request for it. Which they did.

You can argue that the shooting of Amin negated that invite, but the puppet that followed (Kamal I think), did not ask the Soviets to leave. They were invited.

 

[roadrunner]

"Not because they were necessarily doing more fighting in those areas."

Commuted to work, did they? The distance those poor BMPs, BTRs, BRDMs, and T-62s traveled daily from their safe locales? I'm eager to learn, Sun Tzu, and await enlightenment not afforded me by the U.S. Army.

Yours should prove especially fascinating.

The Mujahideen were based across the border, away from the fighting. It was simply easier to base troops away from the fighting.

Carry on.

 

[Vinod2070]

First of all what are you accusing me of!?!?! You obnoxious individual haven't you heard of Free speech. You must be kidding me, I hope you don't mind a knock at your wooden door or cage door at 3am Monday Morning by ISI Agents... You will wake up and say "Ooo Pan...Agents Aya hai maraay Gaar!!"

Calling the very country you are living in and that is giving you opportunities in life that your own doesn't an enemy, is not free speech. I am very sure you won't encourage the same free speech in Pakistan, now would you?

It was not clearly an expression of free speech, it was something else.

Also in regards to Russia opposing Military Action against Pakistan, well of course they are opposed to this. Russia knows if India goes to war with Pakistan it will create a geopolitical mess far greater then Mumbai 2008 can ever!

Russia has just made a public statement. There is a lot of diplomacy that is never made public.

Let us watch the events unfold.

 

[S-2]

We're not discussing the mujahideen. We're discussing where the Soviet Army was positioned. You've stated, baldly, that they chose these areas to AVOID combat and roadmarched, evidently, their regiments to battle over great distances routinely just to find and engage the pashtu enemy from safe cantonments.

Horseshit. Ask fatman17 just how easy it is to roadmarch a tank battalion over ANY distance. Even once after an extensive maintenance stand-down. He'll tell you it doesn't matter. They'd STILL lose vehicles. Those vehicles were positioned where they were anticipated to be used. If you've EVER roadmarched in a mechanized force more than fifty klicks at a time you'd know just how many vehicles the maintenance teams sweep up from the trail position.

If you understood the 40th Army's mission you'd also know that they occupied those regions with the express intent of conducting operations IN THOSE regions, and did so routinely. The Soviet Army didn't avoid fights. Once they decided to go to Afghanistan, they did so looking for a fight.

I still want your C.V. and for whom you "comment". roadrunner, I believe that you're a self-important poseur and I'm smelling bullsh!t all the way Mr. think tanky.

 

[Neo]

Interesting debate but how is this all related to the topic?

Russia opposes a military action against Pakistan, I want to know how its going to affect Indo-Russian ties?