Military Review

Western observer called the generals of the US army "losers who have no victories over a strong adversary."

61

The western edition of Contra Magazin published material that touched upon the topic of numerous cases of American military invasion of foreign states. The author of the material, Marco Mayer, writes that the overwhelming majority of armed conflicts in which the US army has become a party in recent decades were such that Washington a priori understood its military advantage over the enemy. Mayer writes that wars and conflicts with the participation of US troops have recently turned into wars in the interests of billionaires.


A Western observer writes that hundreds of US military bases around the world speak of the ineradicable desire of the American authorities and the oligarchy to control the whole world, all financial flows and benefit from it.

From the material:

There are enough "hawkish" politicians in both the Republican and the Democratic parties. And they are constantly leading the US army to the point that somewhere it is necessary to invade under any pretext. The usual pretext is change of regimes "to democratic". Under this slogan they invaded Syria and Iraq. Now they are interested in regime change in Russia, Belarus, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and other "unfriendly" countries.

Marco Mayer writes that in this regard, it is customary to consider the American army to be the strongest and most combat-ready on the planet, but recently it has not really had a victorious practice in relation to an enemy comparable in strength.

A Western observer calls the current generals of the US Army "losers, who have not won a single victory over a strong adversary."

Contra Magazin:

And at the same time, these people dream of controlling the whole world militarily.

The author cites Afghanistan as an example. At one time in Washington, they declared about the "shameful outcome of the war for the Soviet Union," and now they themselves are trying to make a good face in a bad game, trying to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and declare their "victory". And besides, as Mayer notes, most of the territory of Afghanistan is again under the control of militants.
Photos used:
The US Department of Defense
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Svarog
    Svarog 17 March 2021 09: 09
    +10
    Western observer called the generals of the US army "losers who have no victories over a strong adversary."

    Loser is a favorite word among Americans .. but in general, the columnist is right ..
    1. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 17 March 2021 09: 13
      +5
      Western observer called the generals of the US army "losers who have no victories over a strong adversary."

      And this is essentially how it is. "Victory" over Iraq as a result of the campaign and a victory cannot be called, the same is true with regards to the war in Afghanistan. The Americans could not keep these countries under their control and began to withdraw their troops. Is this really a victory? A defeat.
      1. dauria
        dauria 17 March 2021 09: 36
        +1
        the same goes for the war in Afghanistan. The Americans could not keep these countries


        Who could? The British fought three wars there in the 19th and 20th centuries. Are gone. Ours are gone.
        And the USA are good fellows - they bought it cheap. 10 thousand military - this is so, only to guard the airfields. And nafig they don't need the rest - let the locals fight among themselves, and the Americans will buy the winner. And again they will remain sitting at airfields in an important strategic area. Having the opportunity to work in Iran, Pakistan and Central Asia. Why do they need dear bloody mess? Their diplomats do a five-plus job in all wars.
        Good English construction, even cast-iron drainage hatches with "English" inscriptions wink ... Kunduz airfield.
        1. Kyrgyz
          Kyrgyz 17 March 2021 11: 27
          +6
          To defeat Afghanistan, you first need to create a state there
          1. Vladimir Mashkov
            Vladimir Mashkov 17 March 2021 15: 25
            +2
            Marco is absolutely right: America as a whole, and all these formidable star generals-admirals, whose entire chests are in orders - order stocks, "losers, who have not a single victory over a strong enemy." They "dream of keeping the whole world under control," and even the much weaker Vietnamese, Afghans, Syrians, Iraqis have lost and are losing. There is impudence and pretensions, but there is no mind and strength. Moreover, they themselves do not like to fight, but basely substitute the aborigines.
        2. paul3390
          paul3390 18 March 2021 20: 03
          0
          and the Americans will buy the winner

          It is a big mistake to think that if the eastern people took your money, then you bought it. No - he just took your money. That he absolutely does not oblige him to anything .. Why not take something when they give it?
          1. dauria
            dauria 18 March 2021 20: 33
            0
            No - he just took your money. Which does not oblige him to anything at all ..

            Not so primitive. Afghan motley, a bunch of specific "princes", warring among themselves. Anyone who seizes power in Kabul has enemies on the ground. A promise not to support them is enough.
            The Americans behave this way everywhere - they do not allow any of the forces to gain an absolute victory.
        3. Yngvar
          Yngvar 19 March 2021 08: 57
          0
          To be more precise, ours did not leave! And they brought it out thanks to the traitor "Marked Bear"! The process of setting Afghanistan at that end, the existing community of tribes (sometimes not childishly warring) stopped and even worsened with the help of the Americans, which is in general inherent in the Americans in all conflicts and wars - "divide and rule!" Smoldering hotbeds are the key to success, including for the American economy. The military strategy is aimed only at making a profit both inside the country (military budget) and in external aggression - wars of conquest with the maximum extermination of the population and the export of "booty". These guys are fighting only with militarily low-tech countries, hence the strategy and experience gained as a result of such wars. An example is simple - "let's strike at the DPRK", but ... having received a warning about the possible delivery of strikes by the DPRK to the United States, they quickly retreated! They simply did not succeed in robbing, and remembering the Korean war in the 1950s, they were also frightened of the possible negative consequences for themselves.
      2. dorz
        dorz 17 March 2021 10: 29
        -1
        Quote: OrangeBigg
        Western observer called the generals of the US army "losers who have no victories over a strong adversary."

        The Americans could not keep these countries under their control and began to withdraw their troops. Is this really a victory? A defeat.

        And what is it called in the East of the country? Maybe like in chess - a draw? And this is with 14 thousand officially dead!
    2. WHAT IS
      WHAT IS 17 March 2021 09: 17
      +18
      Say, too, there are no victories .. Yes, about only one great victory over Grenada for centuries people will make up legends as about the capture of Troy.
    3. apro
      apro 17 March 2021 09: 23
      +3
      Quote: Svarog
      but in general, the browser is right ..

      I strongly doubt respected Svarog. Americans in general achieve their goals. Albeit not always by military methods. But control over areas important for them is exercised. If we consider that running into the attack and shedding a sea of ​​blood is the key to success ... that is, the methods are more economically effective. destroy the enemy without even engaging in fire contact.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 17 March 2021 09: 39
        +4
        We achieved our goals, yes. China kicked them out of Africa, Russia and Turkey rule in Syria, the Middle East is completely lost, the Far East is also lost, Europe is in confrontation with the United States - from 2% of the budget for NATO to the abandonment of the F-35 and the demonstrative flight from Iraq of all allies in general after the very first shelling of the base in Iraq ... Even in the backyard there are anti-American regimes again, which could not be thrown off - Venezuela and Chile confirm.
        Is this where they achieved their goals? Iraqi oil and gold reserves are great, but it was there that they lost the Middle East - what kind of authority can the United States have while Iran is shelling it with impunity and they are running from their own bases?
        1. apro
          apro 17 March 2021 09: 44
          -2
          Quote: Cowbra
          Is this where they achieved their goals?

          Is there a direct military threat or any other threat in the world today ???? I don’t see. But today’s sga are capable of delivering problems to everyone. By moving the fountain pen ... in the stock markets.
          1. Cowbra
            Cowbra 17 March 2021 10: 29
            +3
            Quote: apro
            Is there a direct military or any other threat of sga in the world today?

            Exists. Broken embassy in Baghdadd - US territory. The broken-down ARAMCO plant - after all, it is called the ARABO-AMERICAN COMPANY. They owe the absence of landing barges at the borders to geography. but not politics.
    4. Klingon
      Klingon 17 March 2021 09: 32
      +3
      judging by the name and surname, the columnist is rather German
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 17 March 2021 10: 44
        0
        This is a German leftist magazine.
        Of course, he had not heard of the capture of Baghdad in 2003. laughing
        1. Nyrobsky
          Nyrobsky 17 March 2021 14: 51
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          On the capture of Baghdad in 2003 he didn't hear, of course.

          He (the author) says more about the fact that the United States attacks only those who are obviously weaker and cannot give a worthy rebuff. You don’t think that Baghdad in 2003 had equal military capabilities with the United States? And so they have it everywhere and in everything.
          The mattresses entered Iraq under the slogan of overthrowing the "tyrant" and building "democracy". The tyrant was overthrown, but the "democracy" was not built, and therefore did not cope with the stated goals, that is, they did not achieve victory, but they raised ISIS. Any "victory" of the United States, in recent wars, in fact turns into an exclusive, image defeat for mattresses at the international level. hi
    5. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 17 March 2021 09: 32
      -1
      Quote: Svarog
      Western observer called the generals of the US army "losers who have no victories over a strong adversary."

      no war, no victories ... which means a war is needed, but! so that the General was alive, right, and loved by the authorities. and so ... let's see ... who will be the next victim of democracy ... after the lapse of time, I already think that Pinochet is not the worst ruler ... and in general, dictatorship is the only way to keep the country in rut, but, Tough dictatorship. and not liberal-Putin.
      1. apro
        apro 17 March 2021 09: 55
        0
        Quote: Aerodrome
        Tough dictatorship

        It is possible to take power with bayonets, but it is impossible to sit on them.
        A dictatorship for the sake of a dictatorship is a conservation of the situation without the possibility of further modernization and the choice of an acceptable path of development.
        1. Aerodrome
          Aerodrome 17 March 2021 10: 56
          0
          Quote: apro
          Quote: Aerodrome
          Tough dictatorship

          It is possible to take power with bayonets, but it is impossible to sit on them.
          A dictatorship for the sake of a dictatorship is a conservation of the situation without the possibility of further modernization and the choice of an acceptable path of development.

          uh. dear Oleg ... again to Chile ... and jerks and all that ... somehow it does not fit with your "conservation" ... huh? I have a few more facts when there was no "conservation", but there was a breakthrough in the economy ... let's remember Comrade Stalin ... and then further ..
          1. apro
            apro 17 March 2021 11: 00
            -2
            Quote: Aerodrome
            back to Chile ...

            Not an example. In a detailed analysis, the achievements are exaggerated. As it was under the thumb of transnational corporations, it remained so.
            Quote: Aerodrome
            Let's remember Comrade Stalin ...

            TovVSStalin does not have a dictatorship, but a state of the whole people, and its goals are somewhat different from those of a dictatorship.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 17 March 2021 11: 23
              -2
              TovVSStalin does not have a dictatorship, but a state of the whole people, and its goals are somewhat different from those of a dictatorship.

              A national state?
              There was a slave system. One plan for the landings was worth what.
              And as soon as after the IVS they tried to soften the regime, they began to rot. The state of the whole people does not live without universal fear.
  2. Doccor18
    Doccor18 17 March 2021 09: 11
    +6
    Vast experience in operations around the world. Positive or negative, but experience ...
    ... the ineradicable desire of the American authorities and the oligarchy to control the whole world, all financial flows and benefit from it.

    And they control these flows ...
    And they continue to benefit ... For now ... But, sadly, it is.
    So (for all the negativity towards the United States) Mayer turned down the "losers" generals ...
    1. Alecsandr
      Alecsandr 17 March 2021 09: 24
      +7
      This is yes. The United States does not take up experience in hostilities. They constantly fight somewhere and with someone. Communists in the USSR did not call them aggressive imperialists and militarists for nothing.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 17 March 2021 09: 44
        +3
        Quote: Alecsandr
        It was not for nothing that the communists in the USSR called them aggressive imperialists and militarists.

        And they were right.
        But now they call it "partners" ...
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 17 March 2021 09: 14
    +5
    Western observer called the generals of the US army "losers who have no victories over a strong adversary.

    Obvious, incredible !!!
    From any side other than their own, it’s obvious ... and to them all this seems unlikely.
    1. cniza
      cniza 17 March 2021 09: 22
      +4
      Good time! hi

      They fight only on the basis of the computer's decision that they will win and with minimal losses ...
      1. dzvero
        dzvero 17 March 2021 09: 43
        +3
        When the forces are equal, the Jedi retreat (see Star Wars; Obi Wan Kenobi's line is the quintessential US military doctrine) smile
      2. rocket757
        rocket757 17 March 2021 09: 44
        +3
        Welcome soldier
        They now have the most reliable clue, the sciatic nerve !!! He became especially sensitive after being kicked off so weakly in Vietnam and Korea.
        1. cniza
          cniza 17 March 2021 10: 09
          +3
          For many, it seems that it fell off and they believe that they can fight a strong enemy, though if the computer allows ...
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 17 March 2021 10: 17
            +2
            Change of generations ... the young are not inclined to listen to those who are kicked off! And he m mi ..... themselves grew up on .... Hollywood blockbusters.
            1. cniza
              cniza 17 March 2021 10: 28
              +3
              So they want to fill their bumps, this is their choice ...
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 17 March 2021 10: 42
                +2
                Well, yes, they are substituted under the kick, with all the zeal and noticeable stupidity ... their choice.
                1. cniza
                  cniza 17 March 2021 12: 55
                  +2
                  What kind of modern war will be, no one knows and it would be better not to know, but many say it is already underway and everything will shift into cyber space ...
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 17 March 2021 13: 19
                    +1
                    Quote: cniza
                    will shift into cyber space ...

                    It is obligatory for them, so far, almost all the trump cards ... they covered this "clearing", for themselves !!!
                    1. cniza
                      cniza 17 March 2021 15: 45
                      +2
                      They created it, placed their chains and launched everyone there, including us ...
      3. dauria
        dauria 17 March 2021 10: 05
        +4
        that they will win and with minimal losses ...

        Do you think this is "unworthy"? Who among them, and even in Europe, knows who broke the back of Hitler? At what cost was this victory given? Except Jews in Israel, no one, probably.
        Any American knows that the United States beat everyone, liberated Europe and hanged the Nazis. And the "Papuans" Russians were swarming around there. Either for Hitler, or against it.
        This is how you have to fight. Diplomats. And to appear at the end of the war in new uniforms, not worn out shoes and not used up rifles. Satisfied and cheerful, exchanging trophies with the vanquished.
        What's in the first, what's in the second. Read the "Return" Remark. There is an episode of a meeting between the Germans and the Americans in the 18th year.
        1. cniza
          cniza 17 March 2021 10: 13
          +3
          All of you correctly said, but we are a little about something else - they are parasites on the body of all states ...
  4. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 17 March 2021 09: 15
    +4
    At one time in Washington, they declared about the "shameful outcome of the war for the Soviet Union," and now they themselves are trying to put on a good face in a bad game

    The United States quickly forgot about this, and itself captured Afghanistan, but with the beautiful wording "We bring peace, American democracy and Western values ​​to Afghanistan," while not forgetting to kill Afghans.
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 17 March 2021 09: 20
      +4
      Quote: tihonmarine

      The United States quickly forgot about this, and took over Afghanistan.

      They just forgot that sometimes the entrance costs a ruble, and the exit is ten! tongue
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 17 March 2021 09: 35
        +5
        Quote: Egoza
        They just forgot that sometimes the entrance costs a ruble, and the exit is ten!

        No, they just perfectly know why they are there. How to get away from such wealth? You can’t quit.
        1. iouris
          iouris 17 March 2021 11: 57
          +1
          The US Army has been successful in stealing oil and drugs from powerful adversaries.
  5. cniza
    cniza 17 March 2021 09: 20
    +3
    Marco Mayer writes that in this regard, it is customary to consider the American army to be the strongest and most combat-ready on the planet, but recently it has not really had a victorious practice in relation to an enemy comparable in strength.


    Everyone knows about it, but not everyone dares to say it out loud ...
  6. A.K.
    A.K. 17 March 2021 09: 27
    +3
    Everything is true straight to the point.
  7. knn54
    knn54 17 March 2021 09: 27
    +3
    Well equipped, but poorly trained army. Burn out. Destroy, yes.
    In normal countries, officers are trained by military academies of the combat arms, and there is also an Academy of the General Staff. The training lasts for two to three years.
    And in the United States, there is a system of advanced training courses for command personnel (the so-called "Military Colleges") with a training period of 10 months.
  8. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 17 March 2021 09: 28
    +3
    The United States and its allies will be able to smash into trash from the air any country that doesn’t have a vigorous loaf. But it’s impossible to bring Western democracy with ground forces. It’s a pity for Denyuzhkov, we need to restore what was destroyed. We need to raise the living standards of the vanquished, and not plunder to the last. And to learn to the occupants "to fart with butterflies", and not to bring down everyone from the helicopters.
  9. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 17 March 2021 09: 36
    +10
    And who in recent history has victories over a "strong adversary"?
    1. WHAT IS
      WHAT IS 17 March 2021 09: 44
      +12
      Thank God, no one has. Otherwise, they would have hunted mammoths again and with digging sticks worms from the ground would be picked out by those who managed to survive after someone's victory over a strong enemy.
    2. dzvero
      dzvero 17 March 2021 09: 46
      +3
      Offhand - Israel versus the united Arab forces in 1967.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 17 March 2021 09: 59
        +3
        Quote: dzvero
        Offhand - Israel versus the united Arab forces in 1967.

        I think, yes.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Engineer
      Engineer 17 March 2021 10: 52
      +4
      Vietnam. As many as three strong opponents France, the United States, China. Absolute top
  10. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 17 March 2021 09: 45
    +4
    And with a weak enemy, you can suffer heavy losses. .. and the strong one is better to weaken and then hit on the head.
  11. Trapp1st
    Trapp1st 17 March 2021 09: 49
    +6
    USA "losers who have no victories over a strong adversary"
    After the end of the Second World War, not a single state had victories over a strong enemy, thank God the opportunity did not present itself. Although the same Iraq could not be called absolute weak (just imagine the Russian army of the 2000s performing a similar task), and it is worth noting that the United States is the most belligerent country in the world, in general, Ostap suffered.
  12. Growlers
    Growlers 17 March 2021 10: 19
    +4
    "You have only those friends who cannot tell you no," Nebenzya retorted harshly. "And this is the only criterion of friendship in your understanding." So don't add don't subtract. Anyone who says there is no target for the American army.
  13. APASUS
    APASUS 17 March 2021 10: 40
    -2
    Not typical material for the Western media. Usually it is a set of accusations, everyone and everything and the fierce struggle of the United States for democracy and human rights, fanning bombing ..............
  14. Woland
    Woland 17 March 2021 11: 03
    -1
    Does anyone know about the serious victory of the Americans over an equal adversary? Please tell me. Otherwise, for some reason I don’t remember ANY example
  15. yehat2
    yehat2 17 March 2021 11: 47
    0
    I would not be in a hurry to call American generals losers.
    firstly, you need to be able to use the advantage in strength
    secondly, they still have great limitations - the motivation of soldiers and a very high sensitivity to losses.
    They may not be super generals, but most of them have limited experience,
    almost all of them had practical training in one way or another.
    Yes, they do not have high-profile victories like Stalingrad, or the capture of Vienna, but they should not be considered completely clumsy either. In addition, the highly developed intelligence, communications and logistics in the US troops allow many miscalculations to be corrected in time.
  16. Puler
    Puler 17 March 2021 13: 16
    +1
    How not ??? The Pingins defeated an army of more than two million indigenous Indians and were captured from the land, the Mexicans were also long and stubbornly destroyed and their lands were seized, then Cambodia and Vietnam, Japan was thrown down by the ATOMIC bombing, Yugoslavia !!!! and notice the seizure of territories everywhere! In the modern world, the bloody Yankees are sowing death in the Muslim world and on Russian soil! And the Akhressors are still Russian ... And God's chosen on what basis occupied the lands of Palestine and the Golan ??? again with the filing of the penguins, so you need to lay down on their opinion ...
  17. Viktor Afanasev
    Viktor Afanasev 17 March 2021 13: 32
    +1
    In fact, great human losses also do not speak about the talent of the commander. Even if the goal is achieved.
    Sun Tzu "The Art of War":

    "Avoiding collision with large forces does not indicate cowardice, but about wisdom, for sacrificing yourself is never an advantage anywhere."

    "Winning one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of martial arts. To defeat the enemy without fighting
    - here is the top. "
  18. Viktor Afanasev
    Viktor Afanasev 17 March 2021 13: 44
    0
    In most cases, all the same, they achieve their goals. If it were not for the Americans, there would be no South Korea, and not only Vietnam would have become communist in that region.
    Unfortunately, their strategy works ...
  19. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 17 March 2021 21: 03
    0
    Well, since the days of Japan, I don't remember any big victories.
    As far as I know, our fighters also helped with Japan.
    Or is there an alternative point of view already?