Comments by "Rick74" (@rick7424) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. Just to give a perspective: US defence spending to counter threats like Russia usually costs $100-150 billion, yet now it can spent much less to reduce Russian military capabilities for at least a decade to come. See: "It’s Costing Peanuts for the US to Defeat Russia" by Timothy Ash for more
    4
  2.  @ssww3  ???
    4
  3. You do realise your nation would not survive a nuclear war either, right?
    4
  4. This is the overlord tank. I am big.
    4
  5. No u.
    4
  6. Gotta love the culture war frames of bots. Try harder next time. They/them army > was/were army
    4
  7. Troll.
    4
  8. Found the Chinese imperialist.
    4
  9. He ignored the sparrow missiles
    4
  10.  @AvroBellow  I see a bunch of Warsaw Pact fans complain that he has a Western bias. Watch his video on the F-35 vs the SU-35. Alot of angry Russians.
    4
  11. Nope. It cannot even role of the production line en masse.
    4
  12. Did you storm the Capitol?
    4
  13. That is not even true. He shows multiple European nations have mediocre air forces.
    4
  14. Why, because Putin tells you so?
    4
  15. ​ @BertoxolusThePuzzled  That is blatantly incorect.
    4
  16. All evidence to the contrary
    4
  17. Oh boy, you must be new.
    4
  18. Your belittling tone prevents anyone from taking you seriously.
    4
  19.  @elvinnunez919  It was a team effort, but the USSR did most of the heavy lifting in terms of the fighting.
    4
  20. ​ @sirmingusdewiv8325  No argumentation, just angry rants.
    4
  21. ​ @akramkarim3780  Laughable claims without a shred of evidence.
    4
  22.  @Leny1777  Why has the battle for Bakhmut lasted longer than the battle of Stalingrad? Can't you even take one town?
    4
  23.  @detroittrickster3327  That's absolutely not how China works. Your racist comment is disgusting.
    4
  24. Least schizo Chinese bot
    4
  25.  Martin_Speaks  Excuse you? Promoting scams harms the viewers and undermines one's credibility. Your defence is rediculous.
    4
  26. Its tradition and a brand.
    4
  27.  @joea5222  The /s is an indication of sarcasm. He is making fun of the fact that Russia claism to be acting in the interests of the Ukrainian people while actively trying to kill them.
    4
  28. Americans call it the House of Representatives, but it is the American parliament.
    3
  29. *Femboy With its wooden screws.
    3
  30. Sure buddy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_anti-war_protests_in_Russia
    3
  31. Yes and no. Seperate branches though technically the marines were placed under the navy.
    3
  32. Obvious troll is obvious.
    3
  33. NEVER!
    3
  34. This truelly is something conjured up by a highschooler who has no idea about the hours of training, organisation of units, doctrine or logistics. I am not ehre to defend of these nations, I am just calling this nonsense. What is this tierlist even based on? You have no theory, no methodology, no research, just empty claims.
    3
  35. Considering the fate of T-72s, T-80s and T-90s, I disagree.
    3
  36.  @ВикторБасенков-о7ж  No they don't.
    3
  37. What do you think the "multirole" in "multirole planes" stands for?
    3
  38. Like the Moskva?
    3
  39. ​ @asahearts1  The US is planning on increasing its artillery shell output by 500% by 2025. So that last statement is not true.
    3
  40. No sources and alot of profanity.
    3
  41. ​ @TheGrace020  Yes it is. $85 million for a Grippen E and around $70 million for an F-35A
    3
  42.  @nextlaunch1  There are no coherent arguments that can be used to justiy their opinions. It is much easier to just use fallacies or emojis.
    3
  43. How is your Crimean Air base doing?
    3
  44. ​ @李大人-m7p No source, bot name and using Chinese while YouTube is blocked in China...
    3
  45. Found the Russian paid troll
    3
  46. Did Crowder tell you that?
    3
  47. "Hello my fellow Western citizens."
    3
  48. Russia invaded Ukraine
    3
  49.  @PISEc412  Claims made without evidence can be refuted without evidence )))
    3
  50.  @PISEc412  Again, you commit the burden of proof fallacy.
    3