"Americans will flee the battlefield": in Europe compared the morale of Russia and NATO


The statement of the American ambassador in Poland that the States could take their nuclear arsenal from Berlin and give it to Warsaw caused a serious resonance in Europe. In Russia, these words, like all others, coming from the lips of Washington officials of various ranks, were taken calmly.


The Bulgarian edition of Facts publishes the thoughts of Russian Senator Alexei Pushkov, who urged Americans not to repeat the mistakes of the Caribbean crisis. Readers of the media agency disagreed. Some commentators correctly pointed out that "the Russians are not afraid of anything," others (the minority) were glad about the threats of "American friends." However, compatriots of self-confident Bulgarians quickly put them in their place with facts.

Selected Reader Comments:

We survived, soon nuclear weapons will be used. Coronavirus, as I understand it, was only a trailer for the main part of the apocalypse

- writes the Bulgarian with the nickname Near the time.

Stop manipulating your brains! The Americans are threatening nuclear weapons not because of Crimea or because of concerns about “the security of Eastern Europe,” but only because the fascist regime in Washington cannot calmly look at Russia's wealth!

- the user is sure Drugar.

States are confidently moving towards the destruction of their civilization. With such statements, they will provoke anyone, any, most patient nation

- says Svetoslav Slavchev.

Now, now Russia will surely return home, wetting itself with fear! It is good that the Russian senator recalled the Caribbean crisis. Now, as in the 60s, Moscow will no longer dare to send ships to the Atlantic in the next 50 years!

- bragging XXX.

A ridiculous comment above ... So far, Americans have come home, to put it mildly, “scared,” especially from the destroyer Donald Cook, and have been undergoing rehabilitation for months with a psychologist

- mocking the unreasonable compatriot user Veche e other.

Where do these silly pro-Westerners come from in Bulgaria? Everyone has long known that the spirit of Russian soldiers is strong. In the event of a conflict, the Americans and the NATO soldiers led by them will simply flee the battlefield without the usual orange juice and hair removal. Without service and three meals a day they do not serve even in a prosperous and comfortable Korea. Overseas warriors created for simulation and parades

- writes Schlachtitz.

The world has forgotten the old lessons. Then, in the 60s of the last century, President John F. Kennedy sent warheads to the Incirlik base in Turkey, and only the obstinacy of Secretary General Nikita Khrushchev saved the situation. The Russians were ready to detonate bombs in order to achieve their goal. Is history repeating itself?

- asked user Toshko.
Photos Used: US Army
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

23 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. AICO Offline
    AICO (Vyacheslav) 22 May 2020 09: 59
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    If you have time - that is far from a fact! Without the usual orange juice for them - they will slurp Bloody Mary from their incontinence and their own blood!
  2. sgrabik Offline
    sgrabik (Sergei) 22 May 2020 10: 17
    +2
    • 3
    • 1
    Those stupid Poles and Bulgarians who seriously still think that the American missiles deployed in their countries will somehow be able to save or protect them, it’s time to clearly understand for a long time that they become number one targets, and at the slightest attempt attack Russia, they will turn into a scorched desert in a matter of minutes.
  3. GRF Offline
    GRF 22 May 2020 11: 30
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    The Americans do not throw the nuclear non-proliferation treaty into the furnace, because wherever they want, it spreads their nuclear weapons ...

    In Russia, these words, like all others, coming from the lips of Washington officials of various ranks, were taken calmly.

    Why do we need such an agreement? If 1 article, which is already violated, and the second ...
  4. Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 22 May 2020 11: 53
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    And, I thought by the headline that something was real, but here they simply pulled the comments, and somewhere on the left, in Bulgaria ...
  5. The comment was deleted.
    1. Cyril Offline
      Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 14: 03
      -3
      • 1
      • 4
      I agree. The article seems like an attempt at self-comfort more.
  6. Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 14: 03
    -3
    • 2
    • 5
    Some commentators right indicated that "Russians are not afraid of anything"

    Patriotism is good. Leavened patriotism is bad.

    Only fools are not afraid. And in the history of our country there have been many cases where "tactfully retreated."
    1. sgrabik Offline
      sgrabik (Sergei) 22 May 2020 14: 53
      +2
      • 3
      • 1
      What are they afraid of? They are not afraid, here the conversation is not about fear, but about fighting spirit and mood. Everything is correctly said, our military traditions are fundamentally different from the Western ones, and this was just noted. You can be afraid, but at the same time be able to motivate yourself at the right time, and despite fear, fulfill your duties and orders, or you can stupidly drop everything and run away. Do you catch the difference? This is not the same thing at all !!!
      1. Cyril Offline
        Cyril (Kirill) 22 May 2020 15: 18
        -4
        • 1
        • 5
        our military traditions are fundamentally different from Western

        What?

        you can be afraid, but at the same time be able to motivate yourself at the right time and, despite fear, fulfill your duties and orders, or you can stupidly drop everything and run away

        Can you give examples from the history of Russia when its troops "stupidly threw everything and fled"?
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Dear sofa expert. 23 May 2020 14: 28
          +3
          • 3
          • 0
          .. our military traditions are fundamentally different from the Western ones.

          Than?..

          Well, for example, the fact that historically for Russia most wars began with the defense of their territories, and ended in the capitals of the aggressors.
          Americans have never had to fight for their territory against an external enemy. Hence the absence of any traditions similar to the Russian ones.
          1. Cyril Offline
            Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 15: 22
            -4
            • 0
            • 4
            most wars began with the defense of their territories, and ended in the capitals of the aggressors.

            For Russia, only 2 wars ended in the capital of the aggressors. And the capture of Astrakhan (the capital of the Astrakhan Khanate) was such aggression already from Russia.

            So we either practically didn’t wage wars, or here it is -

            most wars began with the defense of their territories, and ended in the capitals of aggressors

            - It was still not true.
            1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 00: 54
              +2
              • 2
              • 0
              ... For Russia, only 2 wars ended in the capital of the aggressors.

              Come on) Only Berlin took 3 times. 1760, 1813, and 1945.
              Helsinki - 4 times: 2 times in 1713, in 1742 and in 1809. True, it was borrowed not from the Finns, but from their then colonial masters - the Swedes.
              1774 - Beirut was liberated from the Turks.
              1799 Rome was liberated from the French (“Vivat Pavlo Primo! Vivat Muscovite!”)
              Warsaw - many times).
              Where were not the Russian soldiers? In 1944-45 in Bucharest (the second time, the first time during the war with the Turks in 1806-1812), Sofia (the first time she was freed from the Turks in 1877), Belgrade, Budapest, Bratislava, Vienna, Prague
              Paris - well, even you know)
              1. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 01: 27
                -4
                • 0
                • 4
                And now I will cite your words again:

                most wars started defense of their territoriesbut ended in the capitals of aggressors.

                So, of the three "takeings of Berlin", only for the third time was he an aggressor.

                Helsinki - 4 times: 2 times in 1713, in 1742 and in 1809. The truth was borrowed not from the Finns, but from their then colonial masters - the Swedes.

                Do you imagine the city of Helsinki of these times? Maybe we will consider some Chukchi as a “capital village”?

                1774 - Beirut was liberated from the Turks. 1799 Rome was liberated from the French (“Vivat Pavlo Primo! Vivat Muscovite!”)

                And both times it was not due to "defense against aggression."

                Warsaw - many times)

                Yeah, only in the 18th century, it was precisely Russia that was the aggressor towards Poland. But yes, in the 19th century the Poles were at one with Napoleon and they could be considered aggressors. OK, counted.

                In 1944-45 in Bucharest (the second time, the first time during the war with the Turks in 1806-1812), Sofia (the first time she was freed from the Turks in 1877), Belgrade, Budapest, Bratislava, Vienna, Prague

                In most of these capitals (with the exception of World War II), Russia met no resistance.
              2. Bitter Offline
                Bitter (Gleb) 24 May 2020 21: 58
                +1
                • 2
                • 1
                Come on) Only Berlin took 3 times. ... Helsinki - 4 times

                Indisputable victories. But. Has the enemy always “stupidly thrown and fled”? Is it that easy? If you read how many soldiers there remained to lie there, near Berlin, near Kiev,

                in Belgrade, Budapest, Bratislava, Vienna, Prague ....

                In fact, not so weak and cowardly was an adversary. no
                In the end, one must respect the memory of one's own warriors. soldier After all, they did not have any victories over the enemy in the style of "stupidly abandoned and fled" neither in the south, nor in the west, nor in the east.
                Otherwise, all the soldiers' lives lost on those “walks” look like losses from the exclusively universal stupidity of kings, politicians and military commanders. hi
                1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 23: 22
                  +3
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  ..In fact, not so weak and cowardly was an adversary ..

                  No place is mentioned about the weakness or cowardice of the enemy. On the contrary, I believe that Russia has always made enemies that no one could handle before Russia. The Germans clearly belong to the most worthy military opponents, both intellectually and mentally.
          2. Cyril Offline
            Cyril (Kirill) 23 May 2020 15: 24
            -4
            • 0
            • 4
            Americans have never had to fight for their territory against an external enemy.

            War for independence. The Anglo-American War.
            1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 00: 55
              +2
              • 2
              • 0
              Americans have never had to fight for their territory against an external enemy.

              War for independence. The Anglo-American War.

              Are you serious now?)
              1. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 01: 03
                -4
                • 0
                • 4
                Why not? Both wars took place on American soil, both against an external enemy.
                1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 07
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  ..both - against an external enemy.

                  Yeah) the phrase from Wiki is especially impressive:

                  Many Indian tribes were involved in the conflict on the British side.
                2. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 10
                  +1
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  .. Both wars took place on American soil ..

                  Location:
                  The American-Canadian and American-Florida borders, the East coast of the USA, the Atlantic (including the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies) and the Pacific Oceans (Wiki).
                  1. Cyril Offline
                    Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 01: 29
                    -3
                    • 0
                    • 3
                    American-Canadian and American-Florida borders, East coast of the USA, Atlantic (including the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies) and the Pacific Oceans (Wiki)

                    But, everything is correct. As I said - American land.
                    1. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 01: 49
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      ..But everything is correct. As I said - American land ...

                      - of all the land named there - the eastern coast of Florida), the rest - the borders, seas and oceans .. well, the Indians)))
                      Don’t tell my mouth, Cyril) Moreover, since we are talking about valiant American traditions, then one shameful page replaces another. Read carefully the history of these "wars")
                      1. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) 24 May 2020 01: 55
                        -4
                        • 0
                        • 4
                        I quote you again:

                        US-Canadian and US-Florida Borders, US East Coast

                        Estimate, borders are also land and territory too.
  7. Dear sofa expert. 24 May 2020 23: 24
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    Estimate, borders are also land and territory too.

    I have always believed that borders are lines.