To throw a bone to the NATO BAD retards, if you're going to talk about civilian casualties by the Coalition, at least talk about Afghanistan. Afghanistan was way messier than Iraq. The Kunduz hospital airstrike was and almost definitely still is a warcrime, even if they claim it was occupied by Taliban and have a decent amount of proof and so on. There's just a better way to handle these things.
Sure, briefly afterwards Russia bombed a dozen or so civilian-controlled hospitals in Syria as part of the Syrian State-sponsored bombing campaign (the pesky Coalition refused to target urban areas so closely). Sure, they've already hit a maternity ward and a couple of clinics in Mariupol. At least now you have one example of Coalition forces striking civilian infrastructure, instead of zero, right?
Occam's razor says that if the US acted like Russia, there would be reliable direct documentation of it, photos and videos and stories, as there is extensive documentation of Kunduz.
Outside of a few highly publicized events that occurred mainly during resistance phases in the wars, all you gullible bitches bring out are ad hoc numbers.
Meanwhile, they're still digging up civilian mass graves dug during the Russian invasion(s) of Chechnya.
The obvious answer for why that is: Russian doctrine is brutal and US doctrine is not. The US has money to spend on PGMs and tightly targeted weapons that hit the target and communications to light up the correct person, Russians do not. The Kremlin still marches out bigger, more indiscriminate weapons on the regular while US defense competes to make the sharpest, narrowest tool for the job and minimize casualties. The results speak for themselves even in the 90s, no doubt even more-so now.