Why didn't the Soviet Union invade Pakistan in the 80s with India's help?

VersusAllOdds

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
63
Likes
7
Who says the USSR didn't strike back! i bet the KGB had more than a peripheral role in the death of GEn. Zia and the american ambassador(remember the C-130 crash)! Anyhoo coming back on topic the one reason the Soviets could not carpet bomb pakistan into submission(i would personally love to see balckjacks dropping bombs on islamabad one day) was the sheer no of westerners in the nation(albeit in the guise of aid workers)! any assault on pakistan would endenger these lives as well giving the americans a legal pretext to checkmate the USSR, hence the restraint!
You are very wrong when mentioning the aid workers thesis. I doubt that Americans gave a rats ass about them, they only care about them as long as it serves a national interest. Just look at the Korean and Vietnam war. You have losses of Soviet personnel in both (20+ thousand in the Korean war), and nothing happened directly between the US and USSR, because noone wants to destroy the world because of some petty troops (the way they see them). I think that in general, no powerful nation is actually going to do anything serious (take direct military action) because it lost a few hundred troops/aidworkers or whatever to a rival.

Civfanatic, of course I understood you didn't mean the entire Pakistan. But even disecting it is hard enough! To be honest, I don't know how would the Soviets get there in the first place (by getting there I mean litterally that - how would they go throught the guerilla infested mountainous Afghanistan healthy enough to attack Pakistan which is stronger?). Also, the US would certainly involve - they've had a history of not allowing even smaller and less serious incursions. This Indo-Soviet invasion would mean the complete annihilation of all American South-Asian interests, and great danger of the red tide sweeping over Iran, and even Middle East... Imagine a Communist Middle East + India! I doubt the world would be the same today!
Just as the Soviets replied with SSBN deployment, so would Americans reply with deployment of their Navy (well, we all know how badass is US Navy).
You might've noticed that I didn't mention the India factor at all. That's because I think India was way more less capable militarily than the Soviet Union, and more importantly because opposition to India's troops would be as fierce as it gets. Not to mention the Saudi + Emirates funding, China involvement...

I can go on like forever. I just don't think invasion of Pakistan was possible by the Indo-Soviet anywhere near possible.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Why would the Soviets even want Pakistan? If they were going to invade a country, better to be Iran that has raw material wealth.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
Civfanatic, of course I understood you didn't mean the entire Pakistan. But even disecting it is hard enough! To be honest, I don't know how would the Soviets get there in the first place (by getting there I mean litterally that - how would they go throught the guerilla infested mountainous Afghanistan healthy enough to attack Pakistan which is stronger?).
Give the Soviet Airborne some credit. In the 70s and 80s the USSR had the world's largest fleet of transport aircraft. This was necessary because the sheer size of the country made regular land deployment too slow. IL-76s based in the Uzbek and Tajik SSR could probably airlift entire divisions into Pakistan. They did in Afghanistan, so why not Pakistan?

Also, the Soviets actually had a pretty good grasp over the major roadways in Afghanistan, as well as the cities. What they had a problem with was subduing the countryside and the mountain strongholds. It would still be possible for Soviet land convoys and armored forces to pass from Uzbekistan to Pakistan. However, I enivision the Soviet involvement in Pakistan to be mainly limited to the VDV (Airborne Troops), strategic bombers (Tu-16s and Tu-22s based in Central Asia can easily flatten all of Pakistan), special forces, and fighters (MiG-29s and Su-27s from Bagram Air Base can establish air superiority over most of Pakistan, in conjunction with the IAF). Most of the actual manpower and armor will be provided by India.

Also, the US would certainly involve - they've had a history of not allowing even smaller and less serious incursions.
Which one in particular? Keep in mind that the USSR let America invade Vietnam, which would be far more serious than a potential Soviet invasion of Pakistan.

This Indo-Soviet invasion would mean the complete annihilation of all American South-Asian interests
It certainly would, yes. But the US didn't have much interests in South Asia in the first place, since South Asia lacks strategic resources like oil. As you said, the US kept Pakistan only to keep an important strategic asset out of enemy hands. But just as the USSR backed down when the US turned up the heat on Cuba, the US would back down if the USSR turned up the heat on Pakistan. Pakistan was simply not directly relevant to American interest, unlike Cuba, or even the Middle East states. Luckily for India, Pakistan does not contain much oil...

great danger of the red tide sweeping over Iran, and even Middle East... Imagine a Communist Middle East + India! I doubt the world would be the same today!
The US had already lost Iran by this time, due to the Islamic Revolution. Anyway, I doubt the USSR would ever invade the Middle East. That WOULD cause WWIII, because the West would have too much to lose (basically, oil).

You might've noticed that I didn't mention the India factor at all. That's because I think India was way more less capable militarily than the Soviet Union, and more importantly because opposition to India's troops would be as fierce as it gets. Not to mention the Saudi + Emirates funding, China involvement...
The Saudis and the UAE can't do much except send money to resistance groups. As for China, they wouldn't try anything funny with the USSR in the neighborhood.

I can go on like forever. I just don't think invasion of Pakistan was possible by the Indo-Soviet anywhere near possible.
In 1947, Churchill said India was "as much a country as the Equator" and that Indian democracy was doomed to fail because of regionalist feelings.

In the 1950s, people said a great famine in India was imminent and that by the 1970s India would collapse from an enormous food crisis.

In the 1960s, people said it was impossible for India to sever Pakistan into two seperate parts/

Well guess what...
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
Encounter between Soviet MiG-23s and Pakistani F-16s during the Afghanistan War, 1987:


On April 29,1987, L/C Pochitalkin led a flight of four MiG-23s to mine mountain path under Mujahedeen control in the Djavara region,to the south of Host. These routes were used to supply weapons and ammunition to the dykhi(ghosts-Russian translation of Farsi 'dyshman' meaning bandit) who blockaded the town. The strikes delivered 1,100lb(500 kg) bombs onto the highland passes effectively blocking the way for the arms caravans. The MiG-23s were usually armed with up to four KMGU (Ronteyner Malogabaritnyh Gruzov - small weapon container) each carrying 24 anti-personal mines.

At the place where the Griffons would have to 'work' (meaning 'to execute an order' in the Russian Air Force), Mujahedeen had many and varied air defence weapons including Chinese built 12.7mm DShK machine guns, and 20mm Oerlicon guns with a range of 6600 ft. And from 1986, Dykhi used General Dynamics' Stinger shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile (SAM), with a range of 11,550 ft to defend thier main bases. These would have to be destroyed and the flight group leader decided upon the following mission: fly to the target at 26,400 ft, and just before reaching it, dive to 1,320 ft and toss the bombs while climbing, then enter a 90 degree left rolling climb to 23,100 ft. Such tactics would avoid entering Mujahedeen air defence space.

Early on the morning of April 29, four MiG-23s got airborne from Bagram. Meteorological conditions were difficult with multiple cloud layers, known as puff pie, starting at 9,900 ft up to 33,000 ft. The monotonous highland terrain also complicated orientation, but L/C Pochitalkin was an experienced pilot - he regularily led four to eight Griffons during combat missions. Just before the target area, he managed to find his bearings by the little town of Tani, to the south of Host. The three MiGs folloed him closely. The war had provided pilots with the opportunity to gain considerable experience of formation flying, so they are really tight.

Just before the taget, the MiGs descended, then during the steep climb released their bombs and, keeping close formation, climbed left into a combat turn leaving the battle course at 90 to 100 degrees. Having reached 21,450 ft, the flight leader lokked back, and between the clouds saw a flying torch-like flame. Thingking it could be a plane from his group, L/C Pochitalkin turned his MiG aroung and called to his wingman. All three pilots responded immediately that they were OK. The flight leader reported to base that he had seen a burning aircraft, and Major Osipenko, the regiment's intelligence officer, flying in the trailing aircraft, confirmed this. Then L/C Pochitalkin banked left vectoring onto the torch. Suddenly, all the MiG pilots saw an F-16 Fighting Falcon appear from heavy clouds at 13,200 ft, it made a steep bank round its burning co-partner, engaged the afterburner, and disappeared into the clouds, heading for Pakistan territory. On the way home, the airwaves were alive with the questions about the incident to the flight leader.

After landing at Bagram, L/C Pocjitalkin told that his group had been attacked by a pair of Paistan Air Force F-16s and one F-16 was shot down. Later this report was confirmed by Had, Afghanistan intelligence, an offshoot of the Soviet KGB (and a very effective servvice). It reported that the F-16 pilot ejected safely, landing in a rebel controlled region - he was transferred to Pakistan that night. Later, wreckage from the Falcon was also transferred.

Throughout the analysis of the incident, one major question remained unanswered - how was the F-16 was shot down, when the Griffons were not armed with missles. Three possiblities were considered by the committee.

The first, and the most likely, was that the F-16 met the rain of bomb mines on its rising trajectory and blew up. The Falcons probably took off from Kamra Air Base, near Miranshah. Kamra is situated so close to the Afghan border that the F-16 could launch their Sidewinders immediately after getting airborne. PAF pilots intended to intercept Soviet fighters at high altitudes, assuming that they would be dive bombing, but on that day the Griffons'worked' on the climb, and steeply descended before the attack. At that moment, the F-16 could have slipped forward and become caught up in the 'cloud' of bombs.

The second version suggested that during pursuit, the F-16 came upon the climbing MiGs, and trying to avoid them, the Pakistan pilot jerked the plane into a sharp bank and exceeded the maximum g-load.

The final theory was that the Falcon could have been shot down by his wingman. Intercepting th MiGs from the aft hemisphere, the F-16s tracked them on their radar up to the point where they released their bombs. But when the close formation Griffons carried out drastic flak evasion manoeuvers, the F-16s had to carry out the turn and the wingman may have hurriedly fired his Sidewinders accidently hitting his leader.

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/1980s-f16kill1.html
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,258
Country flag
Well, you kinda spoke against your own point there. Why would it concern the US, the Indian invasion of Pakistan? The Cold War included more sabotaging the other side, than improving your own side meaning = Pakistan wasn't held a puppet because the US needed it, but because USSR needed it.

I don't know how do you imagine an invasion of Pakistan by the Soviets. They couldn't hold onto Afghanistan itself. Of course they could I mean, but it cost them so much that it sped up the process of USSR desintegration by at least 5-10 years. I personally don't think Afghanistan was worth the price Soviets paid, I think it's Brezhnev's fault, just like I would blame him the most for the USSR desintegration. He destroyed the ideology (no matter how compromised it already was) for the sake of USSR national interests - no wonder there were never any ideological spies in the 80s.
Back to the topic, I believe that invading any country as large as Pakistan was, is impossible in modern warfare. I don't think you can subdue a 100million country (roughly the pop of Pak back then), just by military. Who would the Soviets/India put their as the puppet government? Noone. Who could they put - noone. The communist movement there was non-existant, and I don't even want to mention what kind of "support" would a pro-Indian govt have in Pak. Also, any invasion of Pakistan would be that much harder by the fact it's much further than Afghanistan (oh and did I mention that supply lines would go through a hostile environment), and the fact that US would be able to ship unlimited resources via sea.USSR could have a strong influence over Pakistan only in the case of their eventual victory in the Cold War. I percieve it as one of the most resilient could-be-invaded places by the USSR.
Dear man, this is where you miss the point. We know Pakistan like the back of our hand. Born out of medieval Islamic imperialism and colonization of subcontinent, we Indians know their weaknesses. The objective of Indian military has always been to pulverize their economy and their weapons/military/retaliatory capability to such an extent that they remain in stone age for at least another 100 years; not destruction of 100 million people.

Pakistan is a country borne out of Islamist radicalism (consider it a bigger version of Chechn mullah mentality), xenophobia of "kafir" mainstream Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhists and other Indic branches of Faith, a false superiority complex to mask their shame and a suicidal desire to adopt everything Arab, Turkish and Persian as a part of their history which never was theirs. These 3 points here itself are the easiest for Indian military to manipulate and with Soviet Union's superpower status, it would have been far more easier for us to operate. USSR's intention was to have a puppet state government installed in Afghanistan by supporting Najibullah's Communist Party of Afghanistan government.

India's objectives were far different. We didn't want Pakistan's sub-servience; we wanted to retake entire Kashmir from them and leave them penniless, economy-less and defence-less to almost non-recoverable extent. 80s could have been simply been an excuse to extend '71's war with Pakistan and continue disintegrating its different provinces that have more tribal loyalty among them than a sense of national unity.

USSR's invasion of Pakistan would have been far easier than Afghanistan because of their engagement with us and our thorough knowledge of Kashmir--the part that is illegally encroached by Pakistanis till date including Gilgit-Baltistan province, Shaksham valley (donated to China for their protection against us) and Aksai Chin (illegally occupied by China today). Entering Pakistan through POK was the easiest thing USSR could do keeping all its armed forces in Tajikistan again.

Afghanistan being chaotic even then could do little to stop Soviets from crossing the Badaghshan strip and entering POK (Pakistan occupied Kashmir) and into Pakistan. What's more, Indian military would have given the full force behind this possible invasion, including filling Soviet generals with all necessary details of terrain, mountain warfare capabilities, situation in fighting in Himalayas etc; since it was noticed that Soviet military lacked skills in fighting in mountainous areas. They were trained to fight NATO in European plains but not the hostile Himalayas.

True there was no Communist government in Pakistan but that was even better excuse to disintegrate their society and mentality to such an extent that if at all USSR later attacked Afghanistan for expanding its empire, it would face zero resistance from a broken down, weak and in-effective Pakistan.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Russians are known for being unknown, unpredictable.
But before thinking on why not attack, I'm trying to understand why should they have attacked Pakistan.
We may have had good reasons to wish for a Russian charge into Pakistan but did the Russians feel the same way. Probably not.
 

A.V.

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
6,503
Likes
1,157
--------------- bumped ----------------------
 

Tronic

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
1,915
Likes
1,282
Russians are known for being unknown, unpredictable.
But before thinking on why not attack, I'm trying to understand why should they have attacked Pakistan.
We may have had good reasons to wish for a Russian charge into Pakistan but did the Russians feel the same way. Probably not.
They would have eventually invaded. Russia entered Afghanistan because it wanted to reach the Indian ocean. Karachi may well have been a city of a Pakistani SSR ;). Alas! How much better the world could have been. :D
 

Poseidon

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
2,000
Likes
6,457
Country flag
Pakistan Dirty, Deadly Game

The Soviet armored personnel carrier, loaded with infantrymen and flying a white flag, rolled up to the Pakistani frontier post of Tor Kham from the Afghanistan side of the border. It was the climactic moment of a battle that had begun after Afghanistan's mujahedin resistance fighters attacked and briefly held three Afghan border posts on the Khyber Pass. The Soviets had reacted with lightning speed, sending in a full brigade by air to retake the outposts. In the confusion of battle, three soldiers of the Soviet-backed Afghan army fled to Pakistan, but their defection had been detected.

A Soviet captain emerged from the personnel carrier. "We want the three men back," he said, addressing Pakistani frontier policemen in English. Beside | him, an Afghan officer repeated the request in Urdu, adding, "If we don't have them back, you will be in for a lot of trouble." The Soviet vehicle then turned around and rumbled back into Afghanistan. "Not a shot was fired," a Pakistani officer recalled. "But just in case we didn't believe they meant business, they dropped 80 artillery shells on our positions that night." For the next two days, sporadic tank and artillery fire fell on the Pakistani outpost--and on the morning of the third day, the Pakistanis sent the three deserters back. Says a Pakistani intelligence officer: "There are a lot of changes on the border. The Soviets are now much closer than they have ever been before."

Indeed, the sounds of bombing by Soviet MiGs and the crash of artillery have been growing louder and more frequent in recent weeks. Last year there were 81 incidents in which the Pakistanis claimed their territory was bombed or strafed by Soviet aircraft. So far this year 56 such violations have been registered, and in the past month there have been at least 60 artillery attacks as well. Soviet and Afghan government forces have also mounted several ground raids along the frontier, including one last month that involved several hundred Soviet tanks as well as fighter-bombers and helicopters. A few days later, Soviet infantry and helicopter gunships in pursuit of guerrillas attacked several Afghan border villages, killing more than 100 civilians.
The heightened activity has led Western intelligence sources to conclude that the Soviets are making a greater effort than ever before to destroy mujahedin units operating from sanctuaries in Pakistan and stem the flow of weapons and supplies provided to the resistance by the U.S., China and several Muslim states. The U.S. pipeline alone is delivering an estimated $250 million in covert aid this year. Additional humanitarian assistance is going to the 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, whose number has increased by 500,000 over the past year.

Pakistani officials suggest that the situation along the frontier has worsened since President Mohammed Zia ul-Haq met last month in Moscow with Mikhail Gorbachev, the new Soviet leader, and Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko. Zia was told by the Soviets that Pakistan's policy toward Afghanistan --collaboration with the resistance and cooperation with the U.S.--could cause the relationship between Moscow and Islamabad to deteriorate. Though that line was not new, Zia was said to have been shaken by the conversation.
Pakistan Dirty, Deadly Game - TIME
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
Reviving an old thread.

I still cannot understand why SU did not invade Pak, when it knew that they were harbouring all the Mujahideens. @gadeshi , @Cadian - any perspective?
 

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,636
Reviving an old thread.
I still cannot understand why SU did not invade Pak, when it knew that they were harbouring all the Mujahideens. @gadeshi , @Cadian - any perspective?
Why to do so?
Afganistan problems were solvable by Najibullah government with Soviet support.
So why to invade another one Islamic country?
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
Why to do so?
Afganistan problems were solvable by Najibullah government with Soviet support.
So why to invade another one Islamic country?
But SU was not able to solve the problem because Pak was constantly thwarting their attempt by arming the mujahideens. A natural reaction would be to neutralize threat at its source. Pak was not nuclear at that time.
 

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,636
But SU was not able to solve the problem because Pak was constantly thwarting their attempt by arming the mujahideens. A natural reaction would be to neutralize threat at its source. Pak was not nuclear at that time.
Mujaheddeens were not a problem.
Problem was traitors like Gorbachov, who has given Afganistan to US and betrayed Najeebullah.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,762
Mujaheddeens were not a problem.
Problem was traitors like Gorbachov, who has given Afganistan to US and betrayed Najeebullah.
They were part of the problem and that is the reason SU could not get a proper foothold. And made life easier for Gorbachev to sell himself.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top