This article analyzes the comparative military losses faced by Russia in Syria and the United States in Afghanistan following the collapse of their allied governments. Though both superpowers left behind substantial military equipment, the analysis suggests Russia’s losses are more consequential due to the nature and strategic value of the weapons involved. The historical context and ongoing military engagements further complicate this comparison, indicating a pressing need for Russia to replenish its capabilities lost in Syria.
The recent collapse of the Syrian government echoes the fall of the Afghan government three years prior, marking a stark moment in which both Russia and the United States faced substantial losses in military assets left behind. As the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) rebels took control, it remains uncertain how much of President Bashar al-Assad’s extensive arsenal, comprised mainly of Soviet and Russian-made weaponry, actually fell into their hands amidst ongoing Israeli strikes aimed at these stockpiles.
Historically, the arms relationship between Syria and Russia dates back to the Cold War, with substantial military support provided to the Syrian regime. Data illustrates that from 1950 to 1991, Soviet arms constituted a staggering 94 percent of Syria’s total imports, resulting in a formidable military force at the outbreak of the civil war in 2011. However, internal conflicts had led to the loss of significant military hardware over the years, particularly as the Syrian military engaged in urban combat against various insurgents.
In parallel, the United States also faced considerable losses when the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, seizing upwards of $7 billion in military equipment. While estimates indicate that a large volume of arms remained within Afghanistan post-U.S. withdrawal, the nature of the equipment retained was largely of lesser strategic value compared to the military assets potentially available to HTS. The impact of these losses is compounded for Russia, which is currently engaged in a protracted conflict in Ukraine, facing severe depletion of its military hardware as compared to the U.S. in Afghanistan. This context complicates assessments about which patron faced greater losses in the wake of their respective allied government collapses.
The comparison reveals that while the U.S. left behind considerable military assets in Afghanistan, much of this equipment was outdated or of low military significance. In contrast, Russia’s military losses are critical, as the weapons abandoned in Syria held significant operational potential. Given Israel’s ongoing military operations in Syria, the extent of Russian arsenal loss may influence Russia’s capabilities significantly moving forward, particularly as the Kremlin tries to replenish its resources amidst a rigorous military engagement in Ukraine. Therefore, when comparing the two incidents, it appears that Russia’s operational blow from the Syrian government collapse may overshadow the U.S. losses in Afghanistan in terms of military strategic importance.
The historical context behind the military relationships of both superpowers—Russia with Syria and the United States with Afghanistan—provides vital insights into the current implications of lost weapons. The Soviets heavily armed Syria during the Cold War, making it heavily reliant on Russian military support, while the U.S. provided arms to Afghan national forces designed to counter insurgency, often with a focus on internal security. Following the abrupt exits of these regimes, both powers faced the consequent challenges of armament loss and the reshaping of military landscapes in those regions.
In conclusion, while both the U.S. and Russia experienced significant losses of military hardware with the respective collapses of their allied governments, the analysis suggests that Russia’s loss in Syria could prove more detrimental. The nature of the military assets left by Assad, combined with Russia’s current conflict in Ukraine that requires capable reinforcements, indicates a more sobering assessment of consequences compared to the United States’ equipment left in Afghanistan.
Original Source: foreignpolicy.com
