The war of the USSR and the USA in Afghanistan: what is the difference?

38


In November 2001, after the bombardment of Al-Qaida and the Taliban, US forces launched ground operations in Afghanistan. This was the start of the longest and probably the most hopeless war for the Americans that they were waging outside their country.

Over the ten years that military operations have lasted, coalition troops have lost thousands of people killed, and cash costs amounted to more than 500 billion dollars. Meanwhile, the goals that were set during the most large-scale counter-terrorist operation have not yet been achieved. The situation is such that the Americans are forced, having transgressed through their pride, to turn to the experience of the Soviet troops.

There are many similarities between the Soviet war (1979-1989) and the American war, although there are also differences. And the most important of these differences is that the Soviet command sent its troops to Afghanistan to ensure the protection of the friendly state regime and prevent the country from leaving its sphere of interests. The Americans sent their army to destroy the terrorists. And if in the first case we are talking about a global confrontation, which later turned into a so-called cold war, then in the second - this is a response to the events that took place on September 11.

Having transferred to the territory of Afghanistan, the Soviet command did not consider the question of deploying its military units, since it was confident that soon they would be able to quickly crush the souls and return to the place of permanent deployment. But, as it soon turned out, spooks are just a small part of the problem, behind them are enormous forces of the United States of America, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt and a large number of other states that willingly seized the opportunity to start a war against the USSR declaring it an evil empire, and then winning. And at that time, the situation was such that Afghanistan was not left unattended. Thus, a small part of the Islamic East and the imperialist West opposed the small Soviet military contingent. Today, events develop in a completely opposite order. The Taliban are already in the minority, while the coalition forces have the support of virtually the entire world, including Russia. The numbers speak for themselves - on the side of the Americans were military units in approximately 50 countries.

There are common features of these two wars. Thirty years ago, the advanced units of the Soviet troops that entered Kabul, first of all, undertook the liquidation of Amin, who at that time occupied leading posts in the government. He was suspected of collaborating with the American CIA. Instead, the post was taken by Babrak Karmal, who received detailed instructions from the Soviet leadership on the proper governance of the country. The beginning of the invasion of the US-NATO troops was also marked by a loud political assassination. The most famous and respected field commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, who had every chance to become a real leader, was eliminated. According to rumors, representatives of the Taliban were involved in his murder, but even in the country itself, few people believe it. Of course, it is known that he actively opposed the radical part of the leadership, but it is also known that he would never give consent to the deployment of a foreign military contingent on the territory of the country, which he himself spoke about more than once.

At that time, Masud did not suit anyone: neither the American leadership, nor the black mullahs, nor even their closest associates, who very much wanted to engage in looting. And the way the assassination attempt was organized and how all the traces were destroyed, clearly indicates that real professionals were involved in its preparation and conduct.

But in any case, everything went further according to the old scenario: Washington put forward its protégé Karzai for the post of head of state, and then took a huge number of measures to legitimize it in the eyes of the local population.

The military councils, which were created in the early years, actively tried to instill in Afghans their standards regarding the structure of the state and public life. Despite the futility of their attempts, the Americans tried again and again to impose democratic values ​​on the local population. But after all, they did not take into account the fact that most Afghans do not care about the ideas of communism or the principles of Western democracy, and any foreign intervention is categorically rejected.

That is why a decade ago, like thirty years ago, the appearance of Soviet and then American troops on the territory of Afghanistan became a powerful incentive for the development of the partisan movement. And the paradox is that the more coalition forces were in Afghanistan, the more difficult the military-political situation became. This is evidenced by the statistics of terrorist acts, the dynamics of losses, as well as a map of those territories that were in the conflict zone. Therefore, many experts are unanimous in their opinion that if the US government does not change the tactics of behavior, then no positive changes are expected in Afghanistan.

The Soviet contingent also failed to defeat the Mujahideen, although it also achieved some success: after the Soviet troops left the state, the Najibullah regime for three years held offensive against partisan units and collapsed only when the collapse of the Soviet Union was announced, and B. Yeltsin ceased all support for the Afghan government.

There is one more fundamental difference in this: the USSR practically succeeded in achieving its goal, while the Americans have nothing. A completely natural question arises: why the US-NATO troops, with such huge support from most of the countries of the world, cannot defeat a small number of Islamist fanatics? Moreover, recent events - the killing of the brother of the Afghan president during the events in Kandahar, the attacks of guerrilla groups on important strategic facilities located in the very center of Kabul, the elimination of the American helicopter with the identification colors of special forces - show that the character is already for coalition forces and for the ruling regime.

And the reason for all this lies in the fact that the Americans relied too heavily on their military power. Of course, they can be understood; American military equipment and weapons have no equal in the world. However all this weapon can only be useful in open battle conditions. And to use even the latest weapons or means of communication in the fight against the shadows does not make any sense.

In this state, consisting of a large number of ethnic groups and not having the traditions of central government, where everyone is for himself, and today's friend and ally tomorrow can turn into the worst enemy - any attempts to restore order by traditional methods are absolutely useless. That is why Vasiliy Kravtsov, one of the best experts on the Afghan state, a former KGB officer, is confident that the solution of the Afghan conflict is an intellectual task, but not a military one.

Five years after the outbreak of hostilities, the Soviet leadership, seeing that it was impossible to reverse the situation in its favor with the help of forceful methods, decided to move to a reconciliation strategy. The Americans remembered much later, and besides, they also advised Karzai to conduct the corresponding law on national reconciliation through parliament. But the problem is that thirty years ago, Afghan society and guerrilla groups were ready for political compromise. The ruling party numbered about 200 thousands of people in their ranks - this could provide a real power base. Do not forget about the existence of an even larger youth democratic organization. Thus, a vertical of power was built, which was capable of working, as well as the formation, training and arming of the armed forces were carried out, and control was exercised over practically the entire territory of the state. Moreover, the president himself was a strong ruler who had some respect among numerous tribes and national minorities. Even today, many say that Najibullah would have been the perfect ruler in modern Afghanistan.

Finally, the Soviet government did a lot in the socio-economic sphere. Even in those years when the hottest battles were fought, there were a large number of Soviet specialists in Afghanistan who helped develop these areas. A large number of children of Afghans, who, returning to their homeland, became allies of the authorities studied in Soviet universities.

To date, this solution is the only correct one. If hostilities are not accompanied by supporting infrastructure that can change not only the appearance of the state, but also the mentality of its inhabitants, then the Taliban will soon be able to re-enter the Afghan capital.

Americans have every reason to sound the alarm. The president of Afghanistan has lost all his authority with the local population. And he is not able to manage anything. And those billions of dollars that are allocated to the implementation of support, disappear without a trace, the level of corruption is growing every day. In this situation, it is not surprising that guerrilla groups enjoy increasing support from the population.

The commander of the coalition forces, S. McChrystal, admitted that neither he nor his colleagues had any idea about the true state of affairs, they did not know history states, and the new commander, General D. Allen, even announced that his troops would leave Afghanistan not in the 2014 year, but much later. And this despite the fact that the American president claimed the opposite.

Many experts believe that the Americans are keeping their troops in the region not at all to fight the Taliban or al Qaeda. Their main task is to control Pakistan, which has a significant number of nuclear weapons, and Iran. In addition, there is also China, which is a direct competitor to the States. And it is precisely being on Afghan territory that provides an excellent opportunity for the American leadership to follow all the states where there is American interest.

Answer the question of how to treat the Russian government to the military presence of Americans in Afghanistan definitely will not work. On the one hand, there is some discomfort from this neighborhood. On the other hand, if the coalition troops leave, the radicals will soon return, and this will not contribute to the stabilization of society. Such a scenario for Russia is also unacceptable.

But Afghanistan cannot be left unattended, as a military conflict cannot be called an anti-terrorist struggle. History has proven that the Taliban is an ideology, behind which stands a number of powerful Arab countries that have their own interest.

Thus, in the Afghan conflict, the interests of many nations of the world are intertwined, and how to solve it? Unknown ...

In the meantime, 12 February 2012 was held in Tajikistan, an event dedicated to the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the territory of Afghanistan, which was attended by about 200 military internationalists, employees of diplomatic departments and military personnel of the Ministry of Defense.

It is planned that a rally will be held on February 15 and flowers will be laid at the monument to the Hero of the Soviet Union A. Mironenko, and will also visit the relatives of their fallen comrades.
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. grizzlir
    +34
    16 February 2012 08: 45
    The difference between the actions of the USSR troops in Afghanistan and the coalition forces is obvious, the Afghans themselves are talking about it. The Soviet Union tried to boost the economy in Afghanistan, built factories, opened schools, paid great attention to agriculture. The Americans are occupied only with trying to keep the power of the regime under their control. . Perhaps they are right, for so many years the people whose craft has been the war’s craft, it’s very difficult to accustom them to peaceful work.
    1. bagira
      +44
      16 February 2012 10: 26
      Americans also develop agriculture. Crops of opium poppy increased 10 times.
      1. vostok
        +9
        16 February 2012 14: 46
        I don’t understand why we cannot send aviation to Afghanistan and burn all poppy fields, I think the level of drug addiction in Russia will immediately fall.
        1. Shveik
          +8
          16 February 2012 22: 47
          For a month maximum - poppy grows rapidly in their conditions. And the Yankees will howl: they say that 100000 peaceful Afghans died during the bombing. But this is the case if we agree on the air corridor with the Yankees, and this certainly will never happen.
        2. +4
          16 February 2012 23: 06
          Yes, it would be better what kind of power was invented so that she ate well there ...
    2. flukked
      +9
      16 February 2012 10: 33
      So Americans do it right
      What do they care about the people of Afghanistan? Only their geopolitical interests and drug trafficking to Russia are important to them.
      We had to do exactly the same, since all we did there was down the drain.
      1. Mahamont
        +2
        17 February 2012 04: 09
        If the USSR had not collapsed, everything would have worked out. So, the Afghan people also have every right to judge Gorbachev.
        1. Perseus
          +4
          17 February 2012 15: 55
          The USSR introduced troops primarily to support the friendly government in Afghanistan, therefore, the construction of factories, hospitals, etc. is a means to an end, and not an impulse of brotherly love and kindness to Afghans. Whether this war was needed or not, I do not know, but in any case, our soldiers fought for the fact that there would be fewer cattle killing half of the world with the "products" of their activities, and they did not leave the coffins of civilians behind them, unlike ours sworn friends.
    3. SAVA555.IVANOV
      +9
      16 February 2012 18: 15
      Now they felt the difference. And thanks to this difference, the USSR won that war. Yesterday marks 23 years of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.
      Let the earth be rest in peace and honor alive.
    4. Mahamont
      +1
      17 February 2012 04: 06
      Yes. And this people will never recognize liberal and democratic values. Therefore, a leader supported by the Americans will never have respect from the people.
  2. PabloMsk
    -3
    16 February 2012 08: 48
    Neither plus nor minus ...

    Read and read ...

    Auto write escho :)
  3. Force 75
    +4
    16 February 2012 08: 58
    Any war can be won. Only without the destruction of the entire population can not do. And this is impossible.
    1. grizzlir
      +1
      16 February 2012 11: 13
      The hardest thing is to fight with a people whose human life is not worth it; it’s impossible to win in Afghanistan, you can only create the appearance of victory; or use the tactics of a scorched land, if I’m not mistaken, it was this tactic that proved to be effective during the formation of Soviet power in the Asian republics. The Basmachis were destroyed along with auls. But they did not like to remember this in the days of the USSR.
      1. Zynaps
        +9
        16 February 2012 18: 35
        before you blurt out nonsense and tryndet about the "scorched earth", they would have read something smart about the history of the fight against the Basmachis. The Basmachi were supported by foreign benefactors, the OGPU fought against the leaders of the Basmachs abroad, and religious figures were dragged to their side. and most importantly, they campaigned for the Soviets by action: they built schools with hospitals, were engaged in irrigation and taught the dekhan the correct land use. people simply compared the bonuses received from the Soviet power and all the delights brought by gangs of marginalized people. plus a competent national policy, when the inhabitants of Central Asia were shown that they are not foreigners for Russia. therefore, even today the former Soviet Central Asia is something completely different from their closest neighbors.
      2. kalachev-an
        +1
        17 February 2012 14: 14
        The Basmachis were destroyed along with the villages - this is a lie and a slander. And in Hydepark such figures are full and even they cannot even be called by their nature.
  4. +6
    16 February 2012 09: 22
    They are involved in drug trafficking, since there is no oil)).
    1. +13
      16 February 2012 11: 08
      Quote: It's me
      They are engaged in drug trafficking, since there is no oil

      It's a joke, but it's true! One of the main goals, for which the Americans got into Afghanistan, was to establish control over the production and "export" of drugs, primarily heroin.
      1. +4
        17 February 2012 16: 08
        Absolutely right, comrade Col..

        There really is nothing funny here. In addition to huge revenues, the drug business is used as a serious means of weakening a strategic rival. I am sure that this is primarily directed against Russia, and secondly against Europe. Everyone understands the dangers of heroin for the physical and mental health of a person, especially a young one. This is not a weed.
        This tactic in history has already been tested by Britain and the British East India Campaign, which at that time was a supranational organization of imperialists, like the Fed today.
        At the time of the colonization of India by the British crown, China was a completely independent state with an independent foreign and domestic policy, developed trade relations, both regional and global, as they would say now. A completely adequate response was given to an attempt to direct external pressure from Britain and France.
        And then Britain, in the territories of the so-called "golden triangle", organized the production of opium and the supply of this drug to China. Yes, there were opium censers in Europe, but there this tradition did not take root and was perceived as exotic.
        After a short time, smoking opium in China became a mass phenomenon. The population began to degrade. Corrupt bureaucracy through and through the decrepit system of government were unable to withstand disaster.
        However, seeing the menacing nature of the problem, the emperor made a number of decisions. The possibility of free movement and trade in the territory of the state for foreign traders was completely limited. Trade was conducted through the ports of Macau and Hong Kong with strict customs control.
        Then the British East India Campaign organized the smuggling of opium. But that was not enough. And then a provocation was organized in the port of Macau. Britain's more progressive war machine defeated the Chinese forces. The importer was forced to admit defeat. A ceasefire was concluded with the abolition of trade restrictions. Opium again became a daily occurrence in the country. Both the poor and the rich, young and old, men and women smoked. The population has degraded.
        In less than 100 years, China from the subject of international politics was lowered to the level of the object. And then, in general, it is divided between the European powers. By the way, even the Russian Empire had a hand in the section.
        And only Mao Zudong through severe repression solved this problem. For the use of opium was put to death. By the way, who does not know, anti-drug legislation in modern China is one of the most stringent in the world. For kosyachok you can get into the local prison for 10-15 years.

        The parallels with the current state of affairs are obvious.
  5. -1
    16 February 2012 09: 47
    The difference in technology progress is all. BPLP intelligence communications.
    In the absence of support for the Madjahideen by a large state, the opponent of the next agrarian (or defender) of Afghanistan - who, with his help to the Afghans, tarnished the opponent.
  6. Strabo
    +3
    16 February 2012 13: 32
    The numbers speak for themselves - on the side of the Americans, military units of about 50 countries have acted. And why not 3 I'm global. Indeed, in Afghanistan there is a full-blown war. The difference between the USSR and the USA is one, the USSR invested money in Afghanistan, objects were built and food was brought in. The United States takes out all that is possible; commercial interest prevails. And the plantation of drug-containing people in Afghanistan is the highest in the world. Here are the Americans and sat down on this business. It is advantageous to fight there and the longer, the more profitable for the United States.
    1. -1
      17 February 2012 14: 08
      (It is advantageous to fight there and the longer, the more profitable for the United States) in this case, the entire American army and their allies during the war in Afghanistan will become drug addicts with experience (how else can calm the nerves there) then it will be headaches when they return home. ....
      1. Strabo
        +2
        18 February 2012 17: 20
        You are a wild person. The benefit is not that he smokes himself, but heap up other countries, in particular Russia with drugs. And drug trafficking is a lot of money, well, for information. You don’t dumber a lot.
        1. 0
          19 February 2012 08: 52
          I don’t argue with you, about drugs, and so it’s clear, I just expressed my opinion, let it be wild, and maybe not far off ...., yes, by the way, I'm a non-smoker, ...
  7. +12
    16 February 2012 13: 58
    here is a quote from one article:

    at an international conference on terrorism in 2003, the commander of the 16th brigade from Great Britain, who flew in from Afghanistan, said, addressing us: "You say whatever you like, but at the moment the Afghans have no complaints about the Russians." And he added: "Since the Russian paratroopers fought in the mountains - this is fantastic. We do not know how to fight". Here is an assessment of events and actions by" our partners. "
    The NATO troops did not stand near our soldiers.
  8. Born in USSR
    +5
    16 February 2012 14: 35
    But they fantastically earn on drugs. The annual turnover of Afghan drugs is about 60 billion dollars, of which only 2 will go to Afghanistan. I have friends, ethnic Afghans, live in Russia, periodically travel to their homeland, they say that drugs are brought from all over Afghanistan to NATO bases, and from there driven by planes to Koso
  9. +2
    16 February 2012 16: 24
    The Union in Afghanistan fought against half the world, and now half the world are fighting against Afghanistan. If Russia is now being helped by the Taliban at the level that the West, China, Arab countries and Pakistan provided Mujahideen in the 80s, I think everyone will wash their blood there. Moreover, if we had where to go and where to feed from, after all, the common border, then they are likely to be buried there. The only question is where to put these Taliban. A cycle of problems.
  10. zombies
    +1
    16 February 2012 16: 27
    Americans in Afghanistan are supported by half the world (including Russia), and the same half of the world fought against the USSR in Afghanistan or supported the war against the USSR ... There you have the whole difference.
  11. +5
    16 February 2012 17: 09
    Thus began the longest and probably the most hopeless war for the Americans that they wage outside their own country.
    As if they fought on their territory (not counting the so-called civil war "for independence") If they fought and suffered heavy losses, they would think before attacking other countries and destroying their civilian population!
  12. Brother Sarych
    +2
    16 February 2012 18: 40
    The Americans began to fight with the hands of the Northern Alliance, so they quickly pushed the Taliban out of key points with the wrong hands, but then the Northern Alliance ceased to arrange them and spat out - since then everything went awry at the coalition ...
  13. +1
    16 February 2012 20: 03
    Different points of view, different ideologies. But a fact. The USSR climbed into the war in order to have protection from Central Asia. America- questions, questions ... Most of the forum members know (suggest) the answers.
  14. Born in USSR
    +1
    17 February 2012 00: 51
    Returning to my friends, Afghans, they are proud that the empires that enter their territory are breaking up .... Despite the controversy that the USSR collapsed due to the war in Afghanistan (I personally think that our elite merged led by Gorbachev), now the turn is for the United States ...
    1. Hans grohman
      0
      17 February 2012 00: 54
      Quote: Born in the USSR
      Now it's our turn ...

      Now you need to bite your tongue, and knock on the tree three times - so that happens. good
  15. klew
    +1
    17 February 2012 08: 41
    Or maybe the US just does not need this victory? Why do they need them?
    While they are at war, their defense industry is working steadily. Huge expenditures on the armed forces are justified. + again currents, control about 90% of heroin production. + they intimidate everyone with tales of evil global terrorism.
  16. dive
    +1
    17 February 2012 10: 05
    Destroying poppy crops in Afghanistan is vital for Russia, but unfortunately, the heroin stockpiles produced and stored in the territory of Afghanistan at its current consumption in Russia will last for 100 years, so only destroying crops will not help
  17. Nechai
    +1
    17 February 2012 11: 49
    Quote: vostok
    I don’t understand why we cannot send aviation to Afghanistan and burn all poppy fields, I think the level of drug addiction in Russia will immediately fall.

    Therefore, no effective measures are taken. I already once wrote that back in the "XNUMXs" our microbiologists had created an appropriate recipe that guaranteed the death and non-proliferation of the opium poppy in the areas cultivated and "populated" by winds and humans. The quiet implementation was closed.
    Quote: Dimka off
    "Since the Russian paratroopers fought in the mountains - it's fantastic. We don't know how to fight like that."

    And the American rangers are of the same opinion. In their exits, when meeting modest monuments to Soviet soldiers, they will certainly do everything in their power at the moment to restore it, if necessary.
  18. F751
    -1
    17 February 2012 12: 15
    ** They take the WOUNDED and weapons, please allow
    open fire **
  19. -5
    17 February 2012 15: 26
    "What is the difference"? The 40th Army lost about 14000 men killed during the war, the fucking "coalition" - several times less. That's the difference!
    1. Tatars
      +2
      17 February 2012 16: 04
      And the difference is that the whole world was against the USSR and supplied the militants with weapons, money, etc. There is no need to blame the Soviet people, they fought like real heroes, built power plants, invested in the economy, former militants confirm this. If there were no support from anti-Soviet countries, we would have won this war in two counts, but with such support, where no one finances the militants, they still cannot win
      1. +1
        17 February 2012 18: 26
        My message is neglected mercilessly, although this is true pure water. Dear TATAR! The fact is that win - the task was not set. The Soviet Union at that time possessed such military power that, if necessary. could turn Afghanistan into a desert with a lunar landscape.
        And the 40th Army was called the "Limited contingent of Soviet troops in Afghanistan" and solved primarily political tasks to normalize the situation with the country, to unite it under a responsible leadership, etc. At the southern borders of the Union, a stable, peace-loving state was to appear, which did not suit the US and its allies. That is why they began to finance, train and arm all our possible opponents.
        And then, after the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and the collapse of the Soviet Union, they began to look for another "scarecrow" for their society and successfully did it in the form of "world terrorism", which they continue to "fight", including in Afghanistan. For one, the Afghan heroin is thrown at us through its channels (I think this is one of the means of waging a fight against Russia).
    2. direction
      +1
      17 February 2012 19: 28
      "history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood" ......
    3. 0
      19 July 2013 13: 26
      The war has not ended yet, and what losses will be if you just stupidly sit at the bases, and not climb mountains destroying poppy fields, build schools, hospitals and other facilities that you will later protect
  20. Nechai
    +1
    17 February 2012 17: 30
    Quote: Tatars
    If there were no support from anti-Soviet countries, we would have won this war in two ways

    With the then Kabul government, which was headed by Karmal is unlikely. Najibula too late broke through to power. And they threw him ... But he was the head of Amin's bezpeku. And he remained alive "by accident" - they organized a business trip for him in front of "Thunder" away from Kabul. And the functionaries who won with our help were afraid of their own people. They only agreed to work outside their native places. Where they were, no one, and they had no name. Largely.
  21. +2
    19 February 2012 17: 16
    It is no secret that the Anglo-Saxons widely use drugs to achieve political goals. One of the historical examples is the “boxing rebellion” in China at the end of the XNUMXth century, when the British corrupted the administration of coastal Chinese cities through money received from importing drugs from India. Narcotization of some areas of China has reached such a level that it led to a spontaneous popular uprising.

    Now times have changed, and the drug business has entangled the whole world with its networks. Its influence can be easily seen in the behavior of the leaders of various countries. For example, the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is tied with drug money hand and foot, and no one will free him from these fetters. He is totally manageable.

    The situation that is developing in the leading structures of the countries of Central Asia is approaching this. Channels for “irrigation” of these structures are diverted from the powerful flows of Afghan heroin passing through their territories. The United States and England deliberately increase the production of drugs in Afghanistan, with the aim of anesthetizing and taking control of neighboring countries. The leaders of Afghanistan’s neighboring countries could impose severe penalties in the fight against drug crime, including cutting off their hands and the death penalty, but they do not. There is direct interest.

    The Anglo-Saxons do not lead any serious fight against drugs. The whole fight is limited to striking the cocaine distribution network in the United States as a means of killing the American elite. And here we are not talking about destruction, but about restricting cocaine traffic, because members of the most influential groups, one of which is known as the “Committee of 300.

    It is known that anesthesia of Russia is carried out through Afghan heroin. Despite all the efforts made, the process is gaining momentum. The officially registered half a million drug addicts in 2010 do not reflect the real situation. In fact, there are much more drug addicts, we are talking about entire cities that have become the prey of heroin dealers. Here, as elsewhere, corruption is the main obstacle in the fight against drugs. Specific drug corruption, which affected both law enforcement agencies and authorities. Experts argue that this situation can only happen in one case - if representatives of the federal level participate in corruption schemes. This sounds like a verdict to our future, because with the current trend, the twenty-year-old youth of 2020 will be almost completely narcotic. It’s high time for the state’s leaders to address the question - what are the cash flows from drug trafficking and what tall people in Moscow do they close to?

    The hopes of the Russian National Anti-Terrorism Committee (NAC) for effective cooperation with the Anglo-Saxons in the fight against Afghan drugs are unjustified. The course taken by the NAC to destroy heroin laboratories in Afghanistan together with the "allies" is a deceit. These laboratories are mobile and recreated in a short time. The center of gravity in solving the problem should be transferred to its overcoming within the country. But the problem is such that one cannot spare no money, no strength, no imperious, no informational and propaganda resources to solve it. There is a fire in our house that needs to be put out urgently. The fire brought by the Anglo-Saxons.
    1. SAVA555.IVANOV
      0
      19 February 2012 18: 07
      rexby63 Now they will come to the site of the Ministry of Internal Affairs employees and tell how they are fighting drug dealers !!
      Now they will start sprinkling ashes on their heads, rolling on the floor on their backs "they say we are honest," they will start beating themselves in the chest with their fists and telling how they are fighting drug dealers (in restaurants).
  22. Oles
    0
    8 November 2012 15: 14
    the Soviet Union dumped from this stinking country in disgrace losing an incredible number of people ... and the Yankees are great ... it’s worth giving them a debt .. people are cherished ... and they are cutting it all out of the air .. we need to learn to fight them .. and then we treat soldiers like cattle ... it always has been and will be ... for the Russian army is fighting exclusively with its mass and blood .....
    1. SAVA555.IVANOV
      0
      8 November 2012 15: 26
      Oles From whom you already managed to get a minus, nobody has been sitting in this thread for a long time !!!!
      1. Oles
        0
        8 November 2012 18: 10
        I don’t know ... it’s not immediately visible who is minus .....
  23. 0
    11 September 2013 13: 48
    Only thermobaric munitions of increased power sober up the United States.
  24. +15
    4 November 2017 17: 20
    Interesting article