Comments by "Classical LP Vault" (@classicallpvault8251) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. What genocide? There is no genocide going on in the disputed territories. Palestinians have a life expectancy similar to their Egyptian and Jordanian peers. It's actually higher in Judea & Samaria than in Egypt. Only around 30.000 people died in the conflict between Israel and the Arabs since 1948. The Arab population of the disputed territories is around 4.5 million. Up from 1/10th that number in 1947. A genocide is a steep population decline market by a low life expectancy and a high casualty rate to population size. If this is a genocide then it's the most pathetic genocide in history - despite the fact that the alleged perpetrators are the highest IQ population in the world and the most powerful armed forces relative to size, and even low IQ populations like the Somalis and Rwandans armed with machetes and rusty Kalashnikovs have proven perfectly capable of actual genocide.
    14
  2. Because Russian military leadership is extremely incompetent and corrupt. The Wehrmacht had scores and scores of Napoleon-level military minds. Russia's military leadership is in a worse shape than that of Mussolini's Italy.
    8
  3.  @selmirvelic7109  The vast majority of all the gas there is in Israeli territorial waters. Also, the disputed territories are legal terra nullis, they were not recognised as part of any sovereign state when Israel conquered them in 1967, and both Egypt and Jordan relinquished their (unrecognised) claims on the areas in 1979 and 1988 respectively - except for Jordan still holding sovereignity over part of the Temple Mount (where Jordanian police is active in the Muslim parts of the complex). There's nothing stopping Israel from exploiting these gas reserves even the portion that is offshore from Gaza.
    5
  4. A neutral US would have meant no Pearl Harbour, and no freeing up of Russian far east garrison troops for the defence against Germany. The USSR would have fallen in 1942 as a result and by that time Germany would have been unstoppable given their access to resources and vast numbers of slave labourers.
    1
  5. That would make it an APC and not a tank.
    1
  6. I don't think there will be any future battlefields where NATO and Russia meet. There's just no desire whatsoever among European populations to go to war with them, and the Russians know that there won't be as long as they do not invade us, so they resort to proxy warfare and subversion instead. Western Europe is already declining and when our civilisation collapses because of the massive amount of degeneracy going on right now, Eastern Europe will still stand, but Russia will be the only significant military and economic power bordering them so they are practically up for grabs (as in: being added to the Russian sphere of influence). No reason to go to war when your long-term strategic objectives will already be achieved just with current trends continuing. The US, in the meantime, is also in the decline, and if we were to see a reversal due to massive backlash against wokeism, meaning populist/libertarian Republicans are voted in, we won't be seeing much in terms of jingoism there either, and if they're not, the rotten to the core political elites there will still be ruling over a highly divided country and also be in no position to steer it into a conflict with Russia.
    1
  7. They absolutely do, if they have a valid casus belli. Acts of war against the US either by Iran or their proxies is a valid casus belli. And waging war in such a scenario can also include legal (and regulated) occupation of enemy territory.
    1