It's time to learn to fight with someone else's hands!
Lately, seeing the unprecedented patriotic upsurge of our people (which is very pleasing), I often come across these phrases: “Yes, we’ll crush all our enemies with one hand, to someone, and we’re used to chasing any enemy in the tail and mane. .. "
Of course, our army almost always fought, but one comment on one military forum made us seriously think: “Yes, we can fight well. But what we absolutely cannot do is to stand“ wrestling ”competently and skillfully. after all, it was rightly said - we didn’t fight like that! And if they did, it is very rare. And it’s a pity - how many lives of Russian people could we save! After all, the ability to win and divide all trophies and acquisitions without engaging in a hot war and not Putting the heads of his soldiers in the fields is a great skill!
I have long thought about this question: why story not just once or twice, but constantly confronting our people with vile injustice, when the exploits and victories of a simple Russian soldier, officer and Russian bayonet are shamelessly appropriated by all who actually have nothing to do with it, or if they do, very insignificant.
I understand that the topic on which I want to focus attention is very ambiguous, because it is not a national feature of our direct Russian character. I understand that it will cause a clear rejection of some readers, who are especially tuned in to “hurray-patriotism” and hats and moods in this regard.
However, I believe that we definitely need to talk about this, discuss and learn this, since this science will bring much more benefit to our country and our people, without sacrificing the priceless lives of Russian people and Russian soldiers. Russian soul, not nationality.
We have to learn how to fight with someone else
The Russian warrior has long been known to the world for its ability to fight, perseverance, intransigence, ability to stoically endure all sorts of hardships and adversities, and at the same time almost always defeat any opponent. And to fight with someone else’s hands is kind of like a curiosity for us, not in our own way, not in a Russian way! The Russian is used to fighting any enemy face to face, in open battle: with a sword, bayonet, demining shovel, machine gun, helmet, or a piece of stick, or just bare hands, if there are no other means. The Russian is ready to go on the attack and crush, like a dashing princely squad, like the Suvorov grenadiers or the Soviet marines, everyone who meets on the way. To drive the enemy to its capital and on its ruins to end any war. Of course, it is convincing and uncompromising. Of course, the soldiers and officers who are exactly THAT smash the enemy deserve great respect and are rightfully called heroes. So basically all our history was.
But at what cost is such a victory achieved? Indeed, in such open battles die the best representatives of the people. And die in large numbers. Is such wastefulness justified by the living, talented, patriotic, and therefore priceless lives of real citizens of their country? Yes, when the situation is critical, there is no other way to attack - it is certainly justified. When a country or a nation on the verge of death is certainly justified. When the result of a battle, an operation, a war depends on you and on your determination, it is certainly justified.
But there is another side to the coin. Here, for example, the Anglo-Saxons. We absolutely despise them for their cowardice, because they are unable to face a serious adversary, and only know how to bomb from the air, and preferably those who have backward illiterate peasants with XDUMX-18 gunners of the century, or no air defense at all. The second, of course, is best, because in the first case, a harsh lead large-caliber artifact of past centuries, with an accurate hit, usually intolerantly breaks the delicate blades of refined "democratic" technology. Or if they fight, it is only in unions! To skillfully hide behind the backs of the allies, so that those (fulfilling various "obligations") actively climbed the walls and went to the bunkers with chains (and the more - the better), grinding themselves and enemies in uncompromising chops, while sitting around in warm dugouts, trenches or on their islands-continents, so that after stepping over the mountains of the corpses of enemies and allies, enter through the front door and declare themselves "uncompromising" winner, having appropriated all the trophies or the most tasty morsels.
And in fact, if you delve into the history, then you can find a huge number of such examples. Where the Anglo-Saxons were constantly in alliances and always and to the full, as they say, coil, enjoyed the fruits of victories mostly not their army. And do not go far.
Here, for example, the Great Patriotic War. Or for them - successfully forgotten World War II. The terrible tragedy of our people, which killed 25 millions of Soviet citizens (of which 8,6 million - the military).
(I deliberately do not mention here the blatantly Russophobic 90's ravings - the beginning of the 00s, when all "democratic" impostors were promoting the losses of our people, adding extra zeros. People who are interested in losses know their names perfectly well.) United Kingdom, sitting on their islands and trusting in a huge fleet, prayed that Hitler would turn east, leading huge crowds of dumb and passionate Germans there. So it turned out. At the cost of enormous losses and great heroism, the Russian soldier stopped the huge hordes of Western barbarians gathered from all over Europe, grinding on the Eastern front almost 90% of manpower and equipment of Nazi Germany and her jackals-hangers-on. Judge for yourself - Germany and its allies lost almost 7,6 million soldiers on the Eastern Front, while no more than 300 thousand on the Western Front. The Soviet army took Berlin and buried the next failed "lord of the world" and its so-called "supermen", who were in fact only "super-fools" who decided to grab the eastern piece of land, plunder and enslave the Soviet citizens. As a result, the so-called “superhumans” were broken up in their own capital and generously, in Russian, left to exist on earth a sinful one, - for all that these failed invaders were doing on the lands of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.
No sooner had the guns been silenced, the Allies, squealing with joy, immediately began to shred the defeated Germany on absolutely equal rights, despite the apparent imbalance of contributing to the overall victory in comparison with the Soviet Union. Even pitiful France was included in this repartition, which for 40 days folded its paws and surrendered to the "Fuhrer" on "first demand." And even the most important Russophobes on the continent - the Poles, and thus they unfastened a significant piece of East Prussia. The British, who applauded the uncompromising slash of the USSR and Germany, sat on their islands throughout the war and occasionally "spit in the compote" of the Germans employed on the Eastern Front, grabbed themselves very fatty pieces. The Americans, who, seeing how the Red Army famously drove the whole Nazi Eurosaud back to the West, decided that it was time for them to join the common division of the already almost Germanic pie, did not leave themselves deprived.
However, the Soviet soldier, the Soviet people, paid in full for these tasty allied pieces. For the Anglo-Saxons even had nothing to dream about and it was at least somehow resisting the Germans on the continent. Sluggish attempt was, but quickly failed. And if the operation "Sea Lion" on the landing of the Wehrmacht on the British Isles would still be implemented, then I am sure the Germans would have finished the job there pretty quickly. The so-called air "Battle for Britain" before Hitler's eastern adventure is a petty fuss. This victory is not forged in the air, where, in fact, there is nothing to do, but on the ground.
The second example is the First World War. The British, as always, are in the union, and, as always, the Allies on machine guns, while they themselves are in the front door. While Russia was storming East Prussia, fought in Galicia, accomplished Brusilovsky’s breakthrough, held the longest and longest front (Eastern front was 2 times as long as Western — 980 km in the East, against 480 in the West) against three enemies - Germany, Austro - Hungary and Turkey, while the French, bleeding profusely, quickly retreated to Paris, the British did not fight very hard in the West. And when all the opponents and allies, both in the west and in the east, were already drained of blood, the Anglo-Saxons with a bang rushed to finish off the almost defeated Germans. Immediately, seeing the close sharing of the already finished cake, the Anglo-Saxons from the USA are also connected. Austria-Hungary was already on the verge of collapse and was almost taken out of the war by Russia, Turkey was defeated by the same Russia on the Caucasian front. Russia itself, barely holding onto three enemies at the same time, was rapidly falling apart and rolling into the abyss in the same ways, and its army was decomposed not by day but by hour. What is the result?
England and the United States were in fact the main winners and the main dividers of the entire common victory. All the other former powerful empires - both enemies and allies - were left with nothing, turned into completely collapsed and decayed territories - Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Turkey. And France, with its catastrophic human losses in the 1,3 million irrevocable, was severely undermined (the consequences of the losses in the First World War for the French will stretch for many more decades). All reparations, indemnities, land redistribution, profits, influence, dictation of conditions - all to the Anglo-Saxons! Russia, holding three enemies, the largest and longest front, having lost 1,7 a million soldiers, fulfilling all obligations, infinitely advancing / retreating and constantly unloading allies, delaying more than half of the Axis forces, received nothing. In addition to the coup, scrapping of age-old foundations, terrible devastation and bloody civil war, where more people died than in the First World War. The question is, why 1,7 killed a million heroes and what did a huge Russian army fight for; more than 1 a million soldiers of which for their feats on the fronts received St. George's crosses? Why have almost two million lives of Russian soldiers and officers gone nowhere? But how much benefit these country heroes could bring to the country! How many talented citizens — future scientists, teachers, doctors, workers, engineers, builders, designers, artists — could Russia get? Could the Russian Empire with Nicholas II lead in this war in such a way that the main fruits of the common victory were not Anglo-Saxons, but Russia?
Certainly could. If the captain of the huge Russian ship and his entourage would not be without a rudder and without sails.
Here is a third example — the Crimean War, unsuccessful for both Russia and its allies. As a rule, all the battles were fought on themselves by the French, they stormed Sevastopol and were also killed on the approaches, mostly by the French. The British, as a rule, tried to hide behind the French and did not particularly climb into the inferno.
And there are a great many such examples. Do not list everything. If the Anglo-Saxons are in alliance, then allies fight and "fulfill obligations", as a rule. And if Russia is also in this alliance, then the Anglo-Saxons will not rejoice! To set Russia on enemies and force the Russian soldier to crush the common enemy and to die at the same time himself — this is a holy cause for the Anglo-Saxons! First, the victory in such a union is already guaranteed, and its fruits are in the Anglo-Saxon pocket. For to fight and divide the skin are different concepts, and the Russians are just strong in the first. To the joy of the Anglo-Saxons, the Russians are fighting, and the Anglo-Saxons are fighting over the islands, on their islands ... Reaping the fruits of another's victory. Clever? The main thing is beneficial - they didn’t muddle themselves, but there were plenty of acquisitions!
Someone will say that it is mean and vile. May be. But politics has always been a dirty business. And I think that we should not shun this when it comes to their own interests! I agree that this is absolutely not in Russian. But this is not disgusting, but the fact that our soldier, who in all respects is the best in the world (this is generally recognized, if not explicitly, then in our minds for sure), is constantly dying for FOREIGN interests. More precisely, the leadership of our country cannot learn to use the convincing victory of the Russian weapons in the interests of Russia above all, and not providing the fruits of these victories to those who have little to do with these victories. This is really disgusting. Therefore, I want to repeat that we have to learn how to fight with someone else’s hands a long time ago! Approximately as the same Anglo-Saxons do. They do it all the time and consider (and not unreasonably) this as a well-considered and correct policy. And we have something to take from this our weapon.
The ability to stand "above the fray" and use the fruits of someone else's victory to achieve OWN interests, saving your invaluable people and warriors, is worth a lot! We NEED to learn this!
In the 21 century, Russia finally began to do something about this issue, when at last strong politicians began to appear in the country. For example, use for its own purposes the NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. While the Americans and the British were climbing behind the Taliban in the Afghan caves, the southern borders of Central Asia were calm. Quite a long time. Here you can thank the Anglo-Saxon so-called "partners" who, with OWN SOLDIERS, covered us for the south. I hope that we can continue to use the NATO and other Western adventures for our own purposes, without sending Russian soldiers for slaughter.
For with our bayonet we are able to wield the best in the world anyway.
Information