US "Dragoon ride" military convoy throughout E. Europe and its reception

[chernomorets]

Parading around their empire, nice way to either boost morale among their supporters or enforce loyalty among subjects, the Austro-Hungarians did the same thing, until someone decided to rain on their parade in 1914...

 

[flamer84]

Yes all wars have collateral damage and rogue soldiers that go a murder civilians (there are cases in Iraq and Afghanistan of that too). The problem is that you keep insisting that Russians are invaders but take a look at NATO, their wars almost never stop, they are constantly at war with someone half way around the world. I also would not call carpet bombing keeping casualties to a minimum, more bombs were dropped on Vietnam then all the bombs dropped during ww2.





Land of a Million Bombs | Legacies of War








Vietnam as Statistics - Earthlink
















Chechnya has nothing to do with Russia's ability to transport men and equipment anywhere around the world. As for the Chechen conflicts, the first one was 20 years ago and the second was 15 years ago and it was a conflict that started in urban areas and then moved into the forests and mountains, literally the worst type of fighting for any military to be involved in. The military is restructured differently today, the training and discipline is superior and the weapons that the modern Russian military posses today were were something that the guys in 1994 could only dream of.










You are ignoring the fact that the Taliban came to be because the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey ect equipped, trained, and helped bring in jihadist to Afghanistan from neighboring regions. Afghanistan was progressive in the 1960s-1980s, the "mujahideen" destroyed schools, factories, hospitals, ect. The narrative in the west back then was the same narrative that the west uses today, bring "freedom and democracy", they sure did bring freedom and democracy:





Afghanistan before:


View attachment 209883 View attachment 209886









This would be the equivalent of Russia and China invading Iraq to go to fight NATO forces in Iraq. It looks good from your standpoint but change the roles.










Like i said if the west truly cared about liberating people from tyrannical regimes they would start in Saudi Arabia. Instead they hold hands with the Saudis while they execute people for apostasy(leaving your religion) , gays, adulterers, ect. Chop limbs off of thieves, publicly lash innocent people and ban all religions other then Islam.








Yea because western countries have never displaced local populations by forcing them to live on reservations and concentration camps while taking their land.










Choose your words carefully.

View attachment 209911

@Desert Fox

Ok,i'll keep it short and simple with numbers that i think speak for themselves in 2 different but similar situations.

Soviet War in Afghanistan (9 years):

Casualties:
Civilians (Afghan):

850,000–1,500,000 killed[23][24] 5 million refugeesoutside of Afghanistan

NATO War in Afghanistan(12 years):

Casualties:Civilians killed: 16,725–19,013 (2001–2013)[26]

So,we got almost 19.000 killed in 12 years versus 1,5 million killed in 9 years by the Russians.And that my friend is the difference between a civilised military which tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum and a savage one that kills indiscriminatly.


I rest my case.

Q.E.D.

 

[ptldM3]

@Desert Fox

Ok,i'll keep it short and simple with numbers that i think speak for themselves in 2 different but similar situations.

Soviet War in Afghanistan (9 years):

Casualties:
Civilians (Afghan):

850,000–1,500,000 killed[23][24] 5 million refugeesoutside of Afghanistan

NATO War in Afghanistan(12 years):

Casualties:Civilians killed: 16,725–19,013 (2001–2013)[26]

So,we got almost 19.000 killed in 12 years versus 1,5 million killed in 9 years by the Russians.And that my friend is the difference between a civilised military which tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum and a savage one that kills indiscriminatly.




I rest my case.

Q.E.D.

Yet you keep ignoring the 2003 Iraq war and vietnam. Most death estimates of the Iraq war are around 1 million, the Vietnam war is 1.3 million (conservative) and 3.9 million killed. So just from two wars we have anywhere from 2.3 million deaths to 5.2 million killed. But the problem is that you started portraying Russians as evil and at the same time acting like NATO are angels that god sent from heaven.

A lot of people have been killed from NATO operation (millions) if you were at the receiving end your attitude would be different.

 

[flamer84]

Yet you keep ignoring the 2003 Iraq war and vietnam. Most death estimates of the Iraq war are around 1 million, the Vietnam war is 1.3 million (conservative) and 3.9 million killed. So just from two wars we have anywhere from 2.3 million deaths to 5.2 million killed. But the problem is that you started portraying Russians as evil and at the same time acting like NATO are angels that god sent from heaven.

A lot of people have been killed from NATO operation (millions) if you were at the receiving end your attitude would be different.

I took one war in the same region and compared the numbers.Fair and square,even scientific i can say.It could be argued that if the Russians were in Iraq or Vietnam the numbers of civilians killed would have increased tenfold,at least.

NATO troops and invasions are not angels but they're certainly better than the Russians.By far.

 

[flamer84]

we germans ride something else too

The brothels of Arab countries or Turkey are filled with Russian whores but somehow that didn't seemed very relevant to a defence forum for me.But seeing that you're a disgusting oxigen thief you somehow dragged a sad story of a woman in here.But one can't expect much from a retard like you.You're not German,you're red trash.Though it was nice of you to let us know that you're such a failure in life that you have to pay women to get laid.

@waz @Horus @Irfan Baloch ...If this isn't ban material,i don't know what else is.

 

[ptldM3]

I took one war in the same region and compared the numbers.Fair and square,even scientific i can say.It could be argued that if the Russians were in Iraq or Vietnam the numbers of civilians killed would have increased tenfold,at least.

NATO troops and invasions are not angels but they're certainly better than the Russians.By far.

I guess they kill with kindness

 

[flamer84]

I guess they kill with kindness

Certainly in lesser numbers.

 

[ptldM3]

Certainly in lesser numbers.

You know that is not true. In just two wars the death toll has been estimated as high as 5.2 million.

 

[flamer84]

You know that is not true. In just two wars the death toll has been estimated as high as 5.2 million.

I've allready compared the two Afghan scenarios which is the only one that can give us a real image of Russ vs NATO in the mirror.The rest enters the domain of speculation.

 

[ptldM3]

I've allready compared the two Afghan scenarios which is the only one that can give us a real image of Russ vs NATO in the mirror.The rest enters the domain of speculation.

Of course its easier to cut down on civilian casualties with today's munitions as compared to that of the 1980s. NATO's has it easy compared to the Soviets, when the Soviets were in Afghanistan Pakistan with the help of Saudi Arabia and the US insured that there was a never ending supply of fighters crossing into Afghanistan. In other words NATO is fighting a low intensity conflict while the Soviet Union was fighting a high intensity conflict, anytime there is more fighters there is greater chance that civilian will be killed.

Lets also not forget all of the IEDs and mines that the "glorious Mujahideen" planted throughout Afghanistan.

 

[flamer84]

Of course its easier to cut down on civilian casualties with today's munitions as compared to that of the 1980s. NATO's has it easy compared to the Soviets, when the Soviets were in Afghanistan Pakistan with the help of Saudi Arabia and the US insured that there was a never ending supply of fighters crossing into Afghanistan. In other words NATO is fighting a low intensity conflict while the Soviet Union was fighting a high intensity conflict, anytime there is more fighters there is greater chance that civilian will be killed.

Lets also not forget all of the IEDs and mines that the "glorious Mujahideen" planted throughout Afghanistan.

I feel like i'm waisting my time.If i come with numbers it's not ok,if i will give examples from A'stan,Chechnya you'll still blame it on "the times".You're waisting your time here to,you should be on another forum argiung with other E. Europeans who love you,in this example,the Poles who want Russian remains excavated and their war memorials removed from Polish territory.

Can't name the forum here but i think you have some clues.

 

[ptldM3]

I feel like i'm waisting my time.If i come with numbers it's not ok,if i will give examples from A'stan,Chechnya you'll still blame it on "the times".You're waisting your time here to,you should be on another forum argiung with other E. Europeans who love you,in this example,the Poles who want Russian remains excavated and their war memorials removed from Polish territory.

Can't name the forum here but i think you have some clues.

In Ukraine you agree that the "Russian terrorists" are causing civilian casualties yet in Afghanistan you deny this? When the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan there were fighter pouring in across the border from Pakistan, much of those fighter were trained on bomb making as well as being supplied with weapons such as mines and mortars. Back in 2012 there was over 16000 IEDs in Afghanistan this is with the Taliban isolated. Now imagine how many IEDs and land mines those glorious Mujahideen placed especially when they had a none stop supply of fighters and weapons including mines coming in across the border.

In other words if the west and its allies in the middle middle east would not have kept pouring gas on the fire then there would have been a lot less civilian casualties. Especially when you consider that not all civilians were killed by the Soviets but by a combination of the Afghan army, mujahideen and the Soviets.

 

[flamer84]

In Ukraine you agree that the "Russian terrorists" are causing civilian casualties yet in Afghanistan you deny this? When the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan there were fighter pouring in across the border from Pakistan, much of those fighter were trained on bomb making as well as being supplied with weapons such as mines and mortars. Back in 2012 there was over 16000 IEDs in Afghanistan this is with the Taliban isolated. Now imagine how many IEDs and land mines those glorious Mujahideen placed especially when they had a none stop supply of fighters and weapons including mines coming in across the border.

In other words if the west and its allies in the middle middle east would not have kept pouring gas on the fire then there would have been a lot less civilian casualties. Especially when you consider that not all civilians were killed by the Soviets but by a combination of the Afghan army, mujahideen and the Soviets.

The same could be said about NATO's intervention so you don't really have a case.

 

[Desert Fox]

@Desert Fox

Ok,i'll keep it short and simple with numbers that i think speak for themselves in 2 different but similar situations.

Soviet War in Afghanistan (9 years):

Casualties:
Civilians (Afghan):

850,000–1,500,000 killed[23][24] 5 million refugeesoutside of Afghanistan

NATO War in Afghanistan(12 years):

Casualties:Civilians killed: 16,725–19,013 (2001–2013)[26]

So,we got almost 19.000 killed in 12 years versus 1,5 million killed in 9 years by the Russians.And that my friend is the difference between a civilised military which tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum and a savage one that kills indiscriminatly.


I rest my case.

Q.E.D.

Okay, i understand what you're getting at but a correct comparison would be comparing the Vietnam War with the Soviet Afghan war since both wars occurred around the same time period and both the US and the Soviets utilized not much different tactics to counter the guerrilla warfare which is why both wars had similar number of civilian casualties.

It is estimated that between 1.3 to 3.9 million civilians were killed during the Vietnam war.

Also, as another member posted, America dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all bombs dropped in the WW2 in its entirety. Carpet bombing, napalm, agent orange were extensively used on the Vietnamese civilian populations. Now that's a scary fact.



As a Eastern European you are very well aware of the brutality of the Red Army, but do you know of the brutality of the Western Allies during WW2 in their portion of occupied Europe??

Of course, you most likely don't since they shoved it all under the rugs.

Did you know that carpet bombing French cities and towns was also considered a strategic objective of America and Britain during the war??

Interesting fact for you, the Luftwaffe not once carried out a massive aerial bombing campaign over any French city during the Battle for France.

On the other hand France's "allies" Britain and America dropped tons of incendiaries on French cities and towns murdering thousands of French civilians and destroying thousands of homes and historical architecture.

More French civilians were killed by American and British bombers than by the Germans.

Allied Bombing of France during World War II - Wikipedia


Did you also know that American GI's raped thousands of French women when they landed in France and took it over from the Germans?

Pillaging and raping French civilians was in fact common amongst American GI's since there was a widespread view of the French as being weaklings who always needed American help and their women as being prostitutes (i guess it was a part of the motivation propaganda in the American armed forces or something).

Rape during the liberation of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

D-Day GI's 'Raped And Killed Their French Allies While US Army Generals Turned A Blind Eye'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/books/rape-by-american-soldiers-in-world-war-ii-france.html?_r=0

'Bandits In Uniform': The Dark Side Of GI's In Liberated France - Spiegel Online


Of course, this was in "liberated" France alone, France which was an American ally, could you imagine what American troops did in occupied and defeated Germany??


Besides the usual raping and torturing of German civilians and POW's, the good old professional & disciplined allied Generals and leaders starved to death deliberately millions of German POW's and non-combatants in many locations, the famous one of which were the Rhine meadow camps. Eisenhower ordered the deliberate starvation of 1.5 million German POW's, this after Germany had already surrendered. Wounded & sick men, women, and children were prevented from being treated, dying for their illnesses.

In 'Eisenhower's Death Camps': A U.S. Prison Guard Remembers

And of course, many GI's were even told to not take any prisoners, often times machine gunning Germans who had already surrendered:

​

I haven't even begun to mention the firebombing of German cities. These are you so called "disciplined" and "civilized" allies at their finest.


I'm sure that 15-20 years down the road classified information regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be released and only then will we truly see the extent of rapes, torture, and murders perpetrated by Nato and co in occupied and oppressed Muslim countries in the middle east.

Marines Rape & Burn Iraqi Girl Alive, Murder Her Family - The Guardian

'I didn't think of Iraqis as humans' Says US Soldier - Daily Mail

Anyhow, i will end with saying that not all American servicemen were/are rapists and im sure not all Russians were/are either. There is no such thing as "the only good side" in any war, nor is there discipline in war, or at least what has become the notion of war. However, the victors write the history in their favor.

 

[flamer84]

Okay, i understand what you're getting at but a correct comparison would be comparing the Vietnam War with the Soviet Afghan war since both wars occurred around the same time period and both the US and the Soviets utilized not much different tactics to counter the guerrilla warfare which is why both wars had similar number of civilian casualties.

It is estimated that between 1.3 to 3.9 million civilians were killed during the Vietnam war.

Also, as another member posted, America dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all bombs dropped in the WW2 in its entirety. Carpet bombing, napalm, agent orange were extensively used on the Vietnamese civilian populations. Now that's a scary fact.



As a Eastern European you are very well aware of the brutality of the Red Army, but do you know of the brutality of the Western Allies during WW2 in their portion of occupied Europe??

Of course, you most likely don't since they shoved it all under the rugs.

Did you know that carpet bombing French cities and towns was also considered a strategic objective of America and Britain during the war??

Interesting fact for you, the Luftwaffe not once carried out a massive aerial bombing campaign over any French city during the Battle for France.

On the other hand France's "allies" Britain and America dropped tons of incendiaries on French cities and towns murdering thousands of French civilians and destroying thousands of homes and historical architecture.

More French civilians were killed by American and British bombers than by the Germans.

Allied Bombing of France during World War II - Wikipedia


Did you also know that American GI's raped thousands of French women when they landed in France and took it over from the Germans?

Pillaging and raping French civilians was in fact common amongst American GI's since there was a widespread view of the French as being weaklings who always needed American help and their women as being prostitutes (i guess it was a part of the motivation propaganda in the American armed forces or something).

Rape during the liberation of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

D-Day GI's 'Raped And Killed Their French Allies While US Army Generals Turned A Blind Eye'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/books/rape-by-american-soldiers-in-world-war-ii-france.html?_r=0

'Bandits In Uniform': The Dark Side Of GI's In Liberated France - Spiegel Online


Of course, this was in "liberated" France alone, France which was an American ally, could you imagine what American troops did in occupied and defeated Germany??


Besides the usual raping and torturing of German civilians and POW's, the good old professional & disciplined allied Generals and leaders starved to death deliberately millions of German POW's and non-combatants in many locations, the famous one of which were the Rhine meadow camps. Eisenhower ordered the deliberate starvation of 1.5 million German POW's, this after Germany had already surrendered. Wounded & sick men, women, and children were prevented from being treated, dying for their illnesses.

In 'Eisenhower's Death Camps': A U.S. Prison Guard Remembers

And of course, many GI's were even told to not take any prisoners, often times machine gunning Germans who had already surrendered:

​

I haven't even begun to mention the firebombing of German cities. These are you so called "disciplined" and "civilized" allies at their finest.


I'm sure that 15-20 years down the road classified information regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be released and only then will we truly see the extent of rapes, torture, and murders perpetrated by Nato and co in occupied and oppressed Muslim countries in the middle east.

Marines Rape & Burn Iraqi Girl Alive, Murder Her Family - The Guardian

'I didn't think of Iraqis as humans' Says US Soldier - Daily Mail

Anyhow, i will end with saying that not all American servicemen were/are rapists and im sure not all Russians were/are either. There is no such thing as "the only good side" in any war, nor is there discipline in war, or at least what has become the notion of war. However, the victors write the history in their favor.

No,the comparison with Vietnam is not valid,the comparison with Afghanistan is.That was a counter insurgency war for the US and the USSR.The War in Vietnam was a war against a state actor with his Air Force,artillery,etc.I'm not a hypocrite and i'm telling you that when a state fights a state boming civillian areas makes sense because you want your opponent to give up ,you want to win.But when you're there as the "liberator" allied with the local goverment which was the case in A'stan for both the Soviets and NATO,you don't kill 1.5 million of them.

I'm pretty sure there were NATO soldiers in A'stan,Iraq who raped women or killed civilians but these are isolated cases unsanctioned by the higher echelons while in Russia's case the generals themselves were ordering their troops to raze entire villages to the ground.Not in WW2 ,not in a Cold War scenario of the 60-70's but in the end of the 90's ! That's why i'll never put an equal sign between those 2 powers.

There is a propaganda war ,a propaganda war against Western values to which the West is vulnerable because it hesitates in taking uncomfortable but necessary steps.Did you even see how RT presented the Dragoonride in the Czech Republic ? They made it seem like a big portion of Czech society was protesting against NATO when there were 50-100 members of the Communist Party who couldn't even make their own voice heard because of the pro NATO crowd.Not even RT could take out from the video people with US flags drowning the commie protest.Ofcourse they didn't show how in every city,every village people were cheering the Americans.That's how low they get.

Part of this propaganda is to to present Russia just like the US,a superpower with mere "interests" but they are not the same,never were,altough the US has its crimes.

Part of this propaganda is to cause a EU split .Who do you think it's behind the campaign against Eastern Europeans in the West ? Always with the subtle message "why do you want them.they're poor,they bring no value to Western Europe","they only bring your Union down".The same,in reverse,in Estern Europe..."the Westerners only use you","they see u as a colony,we respect you","have pride,don't cheer for the US,EU"...yes,yes,i know..."come to daddy".On and on.Plus their usefull idiots...some European parties,Tsipras,Orban.Here the EU has its fault because it didn't listen to the voices of its citizens on many important problems,such as immigration,creating discontent and with it a way for Russians to infiltrate

Part of this propaganda is to cause a EU-US split.The same messages "they're spying on you",they're occupying you ".Do you want to see a real occupation ? F'ucking watch Budapest 56.Prague 68.The EU-US share common values ,share common ideals altough they have their difference.A split coupled with a Russian fragmentation of the EU would let individual countries at the mercy of the Russians .Eastern Europe would be quickly overran,France and UK will survive due to nukes but with a limited influence in the shadow of an all powerfull Russia on the continent.Russia wants to prevent the current TTP negociated between Bruxelles and Washington because it will boost both economies while interlocking them in a powerfull symbiosis.

I can continue,but i'm honestly tired.In essence,i see the stakes in this,i know what Russia tries and i hope to God that it won't work and they'll be kicked out of here.This "continent" doesn't need them,not when they don't reform their entire thinking process.

In the end,i can summarise with a debate on another forum from yesterday.Polish ,German,US members were arguing with a Russian puttinbot who seem to have multiplied everywhere lately.Confronted with links about Soviet atrocities in WW2 against Poles,he desperately proclaimed :"i won't read them,all this knowledge is warmongering"...."knowledge is warmongering"....Russia in a nutshell for you.