I really need to take issue with this:

"The soviets only had 14,000 killed and 50,000 wounded. How is this even a war when relatively speaking barely any Soviets died and it was the Afghans that were killed in such a large mass?"

Those 64,000 or so casualties definitely are small compared to losses among the people of Afghanistan, but it's worth keeping in mind that 1) the Soviet military was in effect intervening in a civil war in Afghanistan, and 2) those combined casualties are like 11 or 12 percent of all Soviet military personnel who served in Afghanistan (about 620,000 or so total). Afghanistan is in many ways treated as the Soviet Union's "Vietnam" because of some of the broad similarities in terms of the war's waging and its impact. Both were largely counterinsurgency conflicts with similar rates of casualties (US casualties were about 13.5% of total personnel serving in the war), and both dragged on for years without a clear sign or hope of resolution for either superpower (while the opposing superpower in both cases did quite a bit of work arming and supporting the opposition). In both cases, the superpower losses were far lower than their local opponents' losses, civilian losses in country, and even losses among local allied forces. The total Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam war is often placed somewhere around two million, including maybe a quarter of a million South Vietnamese troops killed, 750 thousand North Vietnamese/NLF forces killed, and the rest civilians. The Soviet Afghan War saw maybe 20,000 local communist Afghan forces killed, 90,000 mujahedin killed, and the rest (usually placed around a million) civilian deaths.

But that's far to say that it's "not even a war" from the Soviet perspective. Many towns in the former Soviet Unions have two war memorials - one for the Second World War, and one for Afghanistan. Afghanistan saw Soviet conscripts being sent to a foreign country, with thousands returning dead, disabled, or with severe drug abuse and mental health issues.

Specifically with Afghanistan: the war was disastrous, and a massive portion of the population fled and became refugees. It ruined an already poor country. But does it count as a genocide?

Very specifically, no: the strict legal definition emphasizes intent to "destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." This actually does not relate to numbers killed, let alone disparity in numbers killed between sides in a conflict. The Soviet Union wasn't trying to destroy Afghans as a people, and especially not as an intentional policy aim, despite committing many war crimes against the civilian population.

Or at least they weren't doing this any more than a small military force from a major power involved in a local civil war and counterinsurgency campaign would be. Which is to say - it can be argued that the UN definition is too strict, and I think there is some merit to that. Clearly escalating a civil war that causes so much civilian death and dislocation in many ways did destroy an entire country. But I think the issue here is that if we broaden the definition for the Soviet-Afghan War to count as a genocide, there would be many similar conflicts that also fall into that wider definition. Sadly, the Soviet-Afghan War, as enormously destructive as it was, is not necessarily unique in this regard.

ETA - also, this answer I wrote about whether or not the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s counts as a genocide might help provide a little additional context around the discussion of what counts or does not count as genocide. It has the benefit of also involving the Soviet Union, albeit 40 years earlier than the Soviet-Afghan War.