The problem with this idea is, that the Afghans were able to defeat the USSR, and the USA, and the UK, because thye had the advantage of fighting for their homes against an enemy who was only there to prop up a puppet regime, there wasn't really anything in it for them in the grand scheme. It's the same reason Vietnam were able to defeat the USA.
Sadly while Ukraine are also fighting for their homes, Russia have a significantly more vested interest in Ukraine than anyone had in Afghanistan.
There's no perfect analogy, but a much better one than Afghanistan would be Northern Ireland. The USSR, Libya, etc and even many elements in the USA spent most of the 20th century supplying the IRA with weapons, money, training, etc all in the aim of making the UK pull out from NI and allow unification. However unlike a distant colony that would eventually be not worth the cost to fight for NI was seen as an integral part of the UK and so all their efforts failed and the IRA eventually had to come to the negotiating table (obviously concessions were made on both sides but the the results heavily favoured unionism).
Like the UK with NI, Russia aren't going to simply give up on the parts of Ukraine they want, especially Crimea
