General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Stephen Jenkins
Binkov's Battlegrounds
comments

Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

@itsjonny1744 Germany was starving but didn't capitulate until Entente forces were literally in Germany, and German forces didn't make their desperate assaults on the Western Front until news of US reinforcements were coming. None of that would occur, if anything, it would be the Entente making desperate moves before the entire might of US industry kicks off.
222
@antimatter4733 Yes, you can tell that to the Middle East. If you haven't noticed, there are many factions in the ME; and most of them want the US around.
132
@johnrock7255 52% is pretty decent, and 17% considering China a threat is also abysmally low. Idk why you're taking that as "Americans being very angry" with China. That's pretty positive all things considered, and that's despite China being an authoritarian nation which Americans generally dislike on principle. US opinion on Saudi Arabia has always been on the "hate" side than anything. Meanwhile, China's opinion of the US has always been pretty bad. So idk.
48
@antimatter4733 Raising tariffs on China to actually match Chinese tariffs on the US is considered an "act of war" by US standards? Imagine being this deluded. This is hardly sabotage; but by your own definition China has been sabotaging the US economy since at least the Nixon Presidency -so I guess the US has a right to go to war with China now, huh?
38
@Airdrifting Woah, what? Idk about feelings in East Asia, but China lost the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979. China invaded, its armies pushed to Hanoi but was too damaged to continue and force Vietnam to leave Cambodia -which was the objective. The casualties inflicted on the CCP was evenly matched to the damage done to the Vietnamese forces, but it was done via open battle rather than the massive guerilla warfare Vietnam had engaged with the US. In short, China was humiliated by not being able to subdue a tiny nation that fought them in nope combat and withdrew before it got worse. It wasn't exactly a decisive Vietnamese victory, but China definitely lost that war.
36
Why? Russia gave up on Kyiv and gave up the aspect of "denazification" and demilitarization of Ukraine; meaning that Russia must've been given a bloody nose at least. More than that, the US has been doing really well in being honest about information in Russia, thus they have enough trust for people to take them at their word. Around 18k dead for Russia, I think.
30
@antimatter4733 Ah yes, its all a US ploy. All of it. Has nothing to do with China's aggressive expansion, claims, and militarization of their extremely vital trade lanes. Nope, nothing to do with that at all. This is why nationalism is dangerous; it poisons you to think that nothing is your fault and everything is the fault of the "other". Taiwan doesn't want to "belong" to China, and that's its right. You want Taiwan? Convince the Taiwanese. Until then, I hope US soldiers hang around to make sure Chinese imperialism doesn't force the issue. This is the 21st century, the days of 15th century imperialism should stay dead.
29
@antimatter4733 Ah yes, everyone that aligns with the US is a puppet. I guess anybody that doesn't align with the US is a puppet of Russia or China, then? Grow up. These nations hardly do whatever the US asks of them.
20
@johnrock7255 This is mostly a lie. China isn't "willing" to produce and sell products; you're implying that its a service for the good of the world. China does it for its own betterment, for money, it isn't a service. US doesn't "control the world" via information either. US isn't angry at Huawei for cheapness, but due to it being very involved with the CCP and thus being able to spy on other countries in the highest echelons of their governments and companies. Everything else is alright, but this absurd Chinese nationalism will win you no friends. Only enemies.
16
@Airdrifting You missed my point. I'm talking about optics. China losing hundreds of thousands of troops to the Americans? That's a worthy nation to die against; even if it was demobilized prior to the war. (Something CCP propaganda neglects to mention). But dying to equal number to the lowly Vietnamese? That's a national embarrassment waiting to happen. For reference, the US lost about 2,000 troops in Afghanistan within 20 years. US lost 58,000+ in Vietnam in the whole war of about 10 years and it was through entirely vicious guerilla warfare. China's literal objective was to prevent the destruction of its ally in the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, dude. "The reason cited for the attack was to support China's ally, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, in addition to the mistreatment of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority and the Vietnamese occupation of the Spratly Islands which were claimed by China" Bruh, even using your own metric, China lost the war. It was not able to destroy Vietnam's capability to make war and continued to destroy Cambodia until the Khmer Rouge was ousted. Neither Chinese or Vietnamese sources can be trusted since they are both dictators that have every reason to fudge the numbers. Western estimates place the death toll of Chinese forces to be about 26k men, and Vietnamese to be about 30k men. Chinese also claim that "the gate to Hanoi was open"...except the place where they stopped, Lang Son, was closer to the Chinse border than it was to Hanoi. So CCP propaganda really is kinda obvious here. Not to mention that 300k reserves were near Hanoi prepared for a counter-attack when China withdrew. So let's be real here; China withdrew to save face, but lost literally ALL of its objectives. All while suffering a ratio similar to Vietnam's war dead.
15
This "disgusting point" in which we live in the most prosperous and peaceful era in human history? Maybe every dictator should be swinging from a tree so we can have world peace?
12
@antimatter4733 "yep all of it is because of the US" This is exactly why nobody can trust China. You'll inhale any CCP propaganda and use it to justify any imperialist action, regardless. So even if the US withdrew, talked only positively about China, and gave China everything it wants -we have zero guarantee that it won't just want more. Because nationalism is a disease. Yes, "rebels" can take a part of your country...if they are literally just civilians who don't want to be a part of it. Self-determination. This isn't a paramilitary group that invaded Taiwan and forced the people there at gunpoint to leave China, these are regular people that just don't want to be a part of China. You can't make your house a country, but if people in your province want to be independent from China, yes, they can demand that. That being said, there is something called "being reasonable", and unless you had a decent grievance, I doubt I'd care for your province's proclamation. Taiwan? It already has its own system of government, has been effectively independent for at least half a century, and more importantly; has every reason to believe China will NOT respect their democratic practices. So yes, Taiwan has legitimate grievances to NOT want China. You're American? You're a shit one if you are -your country left the British Empire via a revolt, and here you are, demanding that Taiwan stay? Americans are "rebels", genius; not bootlickers for people that would never respect their rights.
11
@4411825 US is pretty much one of the only countries on Earth where minority groups have a say. Places like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, or elsewhere? Pretty much doesn't exist. American imperialism is its own conversation, but if you're American then you benefit from it anyway from your standpoint. You had a minority President, that literally doesn't exist in almost every other nation. No question its got issues, but acting like America is the worst is privileged on your part. Edit: YouTube doesn't like my comment, apparently.
9
@joenelson4235 It wasn't the 1 million men that Germany feared. It was the 10's of millions of men that Germany feared which would come in greater number over time. The faster Germany knocked out the other Entente powers, the less Americans they would have to cut through. The German enemy was time. Don't deny history because of your hate boner, Euro.
9
@Airdrifting I'm black, dude. And no, we don't believe its very likely we'll be shot in the US. The issue is that it reflects general inequality in the US, not that its very often. For reference, what blacks like us DO believe is that the US isn't living up to its potential in race equality. But places like China? It's a shitshow in race equality. Seriously, check Weibo any day for their opinion on Africans. It's very...ugly.
8
@Feffdc An abysmally slow advance which is enabled only by the sheer lack of actual Ukrainian armor and air force units. Russia has almost every advantage possible outside of numbers; nobody can see this as anything but a pathetic Russian showing of military power. It has no right taking as many casualties and taking this long to secure territory right at the borders.
7
@johnrock7255 In 2018, a Chinese Foreign Minister used a Global Times report on Chinese opinion on the US as conclusive proof of how they actually feel. It had Chinese opinion at 90%+ unfavourability. Others I found had the Chinese opinion be about 70% unfavourability. So yeah. Bruh, you can dislike a country due to perceived nationalist hysteria; but that doesn't mean you'll believe that the US is gonna start attacking random Chinese students, or that that suddenly means US universities are bad. Idk why you're mentioning this like it matters in this topic. Those Chinese students often congregate around other Chinese students. They don't often know the "real" America; and the crap I see in Chinse media like in Weibo has constant anti-US talking points like obsessing over US drugs and saying that its in the midst of a similar situation like the Opium Crisis. It's always the same; smug belief that the US is falling apart while desperately attacking China. China doesn't understand the real US at all, and where does the Iraq and Afghanistan thing come from? Those are foreign policy issues, to be sure; but the US can't win at everything. Meanwhile, the US is highly supported against Russia in East Europe as we speak, and anti-China feelings has risen sharply across East Asia. This has nothing to do with "understanding", but using your logic; I can surely claim that China doesn't understand the world at all either, right?
7
@Feffdc US took a month to real Bagdad without facing any actual difficulties in its war; the casualties it sustained were basically nonexistent. The "flattening of cities" were no more brutal than the Russian flattening of cities right this moment. And Baghdad happens to be right in the center of Iraq, meaning the defeat of the country occurred after that occupation. We're talking about Russia which has yet to take cities right at the BORDER. We're not talking about cities deep in the interior. Also, those decades you're talking about are in occupation aiding the new government. The US actively warring with government armies was done within a month in both wars. The trillions were spent in propping up and nation-building, not the actual war itself. For the case of Iraq, it's army was many times superior to the Ukrainian one today, with advanced tanks and aircraft along combined arms warfare. The comparison is night and day with Iraq considered a top 10 military power of the time. Ukraine was more like Afghanistan, with the latter having infinitely more difficult terrain. So your idea is beyond braindead. It's laughable, really. Russia looks like a joke compared to the US.
6
@davenobody407 My family in Peru says otherwise. But tbf, that's just my personal experience.
6
@yaraelpoof7242 We are talking about conventional forces clashing. VietCong were trained veterans that defeated the French in open combat but wouldn't dare do the same against the US. Thus they used guerilla warfare; and Russia is so weak that it hasn't even reached the stage of guerilla warfare yet. You need to actually occupy the nation and have neutralized the conventional military for that. THAT is how weak Russia has proven to be. Unable to even copy the US military's easiest job; the conventional battles.
5
@Airdrifting We're going off track anyway. Fact is this; China did not accomplish any of its stated objectives in the Sino-Vietnamese War. It lost. Plain and simple. Cope however you want; but that's the fact of the matter. Edit: US caused more damage to North Vietnam than China did, with your logic the US didn't lose in Vietnam either. The Yanks lost too, but I doubt you're consistent with your beliefs as I am.
5
@VisibilityFoggy I wouldn't call the Sino-Vietnamese War as anyone "kicking ass". Both suffered tens of thousands of casualties, but yes, China failed in its political objectives and thus lost the war.
5
@johnrock7255 Nothing I said was fake, it's all fact. And you being Chinese doesn't change anything; if anything it makes my point more cognizant. You have a national bias, and the rest of the world disagrees with your "truth" for the most part. You don't find it strange that your government's excuse for anti-Chinse feelings is purely based on "the Muricans are good at propaganda1!!"? Like, really? The Muricans are so good that they turned the whole world against China? You know what a common issue of Fascism is? When you unironically believe the entire world is out to get you because of the "other". Replace Chinese conspiracies about the Muricans with the Jews, and it looks pretty bad. Reflect on that. Understand that these other nations have genuine reason to be afraid of China.
5
@some0ne931 That's overall casualties, that seems pretty accurate. Around 18k death, and the usual rule of thumb is to double the dead count for injured/captured.
5
@karlyo6937 "Access to sea" Which doesn't matter since Russian navy is a joke nor does it play a large role in this conflict; Ukraine doesn't exactly get a lot of trade via waterways "Access to mineral rich places" So does Ukraine; and Russian mineral rich places are not exactly extracted well enough since their economy is as weak as Italy's "All while outnumbered 3 to 1" That's not a credit to Russia. Russia invaded with too few men, and has manpower issues while also having logistic issues. Russia is not the US.
5
@Feffdc Is Russia really advancing? The maps we have are based on Russian troop movements, but many of those movements have been deflected and forced back. The only real advance has been in the south, but there has hardly been any true advancing since the end of week 1. Most of the major cities near the border still has yet to fall, this despite the initial surprise invasion.
4
@Airdrifting There is no evidence to back up anything if you're a crazy nationalist anyway. But the rest of the world knows though. The West was, if anything, pro-China by the time of the Sino-Vietnamese War, so had more reason to act like less Chinese died than they did. And yet they found a similar number of dead to the Vietnamese. No, I'm saying that China already suffered heavy casualties only facing a few regular Vietnamese troops and would have gone on to fact the main Vietnamese reserve forces near Hanoi, and wisely decided to withdraw before it humiliated itself in losing massive numbers. It lost about half the number in a month what the US lost in 10 years as it is. Nothing about guesswork; China already lost a lot of troops and would only then be facing the main reserve when approaching Hanoi. That's just clear deductive reasoning. I ain't even white, but that's the cope you'll use this time, huh? 😂 Yes, that's exactly my point. China should NOT have been suffering such casualties, and yet they did. That's why it was prudent for them to declare victory and leave while their propaganda worked overtime proclaiming it as a victory...despite not accomplishing any objectives. Huh??? Tiny Vietnam did NOT have such objectives. Vietnam's objective was literally only based on Cambodia at the time. Vietnam barely had the means to invade Cambodia, let alone invade the rest of Asia, nor did it ever express such ideas. Where are you getting this from? Vietnam's objective at the time was ONLY Cambodia. Besides, we were talking about the Sino-Vietnamese War, and China's objective was to stop Vietnam's invasion, which it failed. That's it. Within the realm of that war, China lost. Why do you think the local government or the CCP would ever allow information of lost Chinese soldiers to be spread across China? Dude. It's a country which represses media. It's absurd to think that Chinese people can know things that their government doesn't want them to know. Especially without the internet. Considering I'm arguing that Vietnamese killed more Chinese, thus Asians killed more Asians, your claims of racism are not only funny, but braindead. That being said, I am not saying that Chinese are doing this specifically for Vietnam...they did it with every conflict ever. Vietnam does it too. In the case of this war, neither Vietnam or China "officially" released any true statistics of the losses of the war. Vietnam claimed China killed 100,000 civilians, though. That's also likely an exaggeration.
4
@thantzweaung9080 PRC failed, though. Vietnam went ahead and ousted the Khmer Rouge, which was Vietnam's objective. And PRC's objective was to maintain the regime in power. Just like how the US failed to stop the fall of the South Vietnamese regime, even if they stalled its fall.
3
@dontoverthink4766 No, Vietnam was kinda an aggressor in the war with Cambodia. Khmer Rouge may have killed Vietnamese, but it was in response to Vietnamese interfering and helping the Khmer Rouge into power in the first place. Also, Vietnam has a history of trying to take control of the region. That too.
3
@Airdrifting Yeah, the leaked number; but that hardly means accurate. After all; it can be the "official" numbers that was never published. That's the problem with dictatorships; you can never tell because there is no free media to fact-check. Everyone does this, like the US for example, but their free media can call them out and publish more likely numbers. Ditto goes with this. Vietnam claims 48,000+ Chinese deaths actually, West claims 26,000+ Chinese deaths. China claims 42,000+ Vietnamese deaths, West claims 30,000+ Vietnamese deaths. By your logic, China has an accurate number of US deaths in the Korean War, while literally all studies on it call their numbers complete lies. That includes studies that were against the US government. Why are you automatically taking a government, ANY government at their word? They're both liable to lie for the sake of appearances, and both are VERY obviously bias. Thus, the only trusted source to find is the Western one which was PRO-CHINA at the time. Nationalism just doesn't let you just let this go, huh? "It's quite obvious who lied about the numbers" Yeah. Both of them. They have every reason to lie and every ability to do so. Governments lie, and China has no free media to call them out on it. That's kinda the point.
3
@Fusion_4000 Compared to Iraq in military? HAHAHAHA. No. Iraq actually had a large army with an air force and armored units. In terms of "civilization" Iraq wasn't comparable; that is to say that their military tactics were archaic in comparison. But in terms of military tech? Iraq would have blown apart Ukraine. Issue is of course that defensive wars are MUCH easier. And that the US is absurdly powerful to the point that that fact barely matters.
3
That's like asking why the US asked for help in Iraq, or why the USSR asked for a D DAY despite pushing the Germans back, etc, etc. Seeking more aid to help alleviate the pain of the war is a common tactic. Try and think next time before making such a braindead point.
3
@bogdanbogdanoff5164 You literally don't know that. A lot of people became aware of Ukraine in 2008. Or in 2014. Plenty of time to get acquainted lol
3
@Conan-ny1um Indeed. For the so-called #2 power, that's beyond pathetic.
3
@Dudemon-1 Yes. Gains. Marginal ones, but gains still. Both can be factual.
2
@yaraelpoof7242 US-backed Kurds were the ones that dealt far more damage to ISIS than the Russians did. Chechnya is tiny and surrounded by Russian territory; and was bombed to hell and back. A more comparable comparison is Afghanistan...where Russia suffered horrendous casualties compared to the US did in a much shorter time period. And what are you talking about? Some guerilla warfare is occurring, but the national Ukrainian army is still pushing back Russian forces on multiple fronts; conventional units fighting is not the all out guerilla warfare I was speaking of. "100% of their jets" I literally saw Ukrainians flying Mig-29's like 2 days ago on video.
2
@Airdrifting Bruh. How can you say that Vietnam was a warmonger? Cambodia war? Fine, can hold that against Vietnam. US-Vietnam War? Can maaaaaybe claim that North Vietnam didn't have the right to attack the south. Sino and France wars? While China MIGHT have had a decent reason to invade, Vietnam still didn't force them to. And France was for independence. That makes 1 just war, 1 war caused by another power interfering, and MAYBE 2 unjust wars. That's not warmongering.
2
@kurousagi8155 I looked it up. Had no idea Vietnam stayed after Khmer Rouge was ousted, thnx. Vietnam was definitely being imperialist after the Khmer Rouge was removed due to the occupation and the manner it occurred in.
2
@Airdrifting Hey man, for someone acting like I'm brainwashed, you're the one constantly dancing around the fact that China outright DECLARED that its ambition in the invasion of Vietnam was to STOP Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. Also, you have literally ZERO sources behind the idea that Vietnam wanted its own East Asian empire. Let alone a Japanese-styled Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere". So for someone decrying "Western propaganda" and claiming to "read multiple sources", you seem to only listen to CCP sources instead. So yes. China lost the war. Get over it. But hey, that's your right. Too bad if you unlike the Yanks, the CCP will never accept you thinking outside their little box, eh? So feel free to go to China, I doubt the Yanks want people like you to begin with. Lord knows I wouldn't; we have enough bootlickers around as it is. Just remember; the nationalism you are showing here is exactly why China has become so hated across the region. Not Murican prOpAgAnDa, or whatever you use to cope.
2
@thantzweaung9080 This logic pretty much goes against everything we consider winning/losing a war. Allies won WW2, but Allies like British lost their empire due to the strain. It's still considered a British victory. US lost Vietnam despite Vietnam currently bekng very friendly with them, it's still a US loss. Idk why you feel the need to involve everything beyons and around the confines of the war to convince yourself that China didn't lose. Wars are politics, but it's a specific use of it that has limited objectives to achieve. Within the confines of the Sino-Vietnam War, China did not accomplish its objectives. In the confines of the Cambodia-Vietnam War, Vietnam ousted the Khmer Rouge which was their main objective, thus a victory. Occupation loss decade later had no bearing on the war.
2
@Raksasaification You're a very minority opinion. It isn't US flags being burned or Yanks being attacked across SEA nations out of hate. And "stir shit" is a funny way to say "not letting China steal SEA nation territory". Most SEA nations already verbally and diplomatically welcomed the US in the region, so you're obviously not really a good spokesperson here. Besides, Yanks already tried to bsckoff. Pinoys blame them for not doing enough as it is, I think. So either they abandon allies or are pushing others to war. Funny how either way, it ignores China.
2
@brandonstrife9738 What a vague response that means literally nothing. Don't be scared; what part did I get wrong and where is a better source? Turned out I was wrong about Vietnam occupation of Cambodia as it is.
2
NATO proved that conventional armies are still very viable. Issue is that Russia just sucks. And Russia will never go nuclear until Putin feels that his life is truly in danger; he knows that nukes will lead to retaliation. Hell, its why Russia has never attacked a NATO country.
2
Yeah, non-Germans oppressed and others genocided. What a beautiful Europe where graves mark its ultimate death lol
2
Do you live in an alternate reality or something?
2
@bogdanbogdanoff5164 Ukraine and Georgia was openly allowed to join NATO is what happened, the first time a lot of Westerners heard of Ukraine at all. What are you even talking about? The Georgia war is its own thing. Stop projecting your own bigotry' Ukraine wants NATO, that's their right and you have no say imperialist. Russia will be kicked out and be made into another North Korea at this state. Enjoy.
2
@user-gp5yz5yz4x >Guy says ME want US gone >I reply with "but some don't" >You reply with "But those don't count" Cope.
2
@Fauzanarief-n7i Bruh, nobody is gonna investigate and give you an exact number. Fact is that we hear about US and Russian crashed; but they are at nowhere near the amount we hear of Chinese crashed. That's just a blunt observation.
2
@dinte215 Why does this not make sense to you? Russian corruption has seriously mucked up their military capability; how do you know that the fuel given to the military actually made it there without being sold elsewhere? It should be noted that this has been a civilizational issue for Russia even as the USSR too, people just thought that Russia fixed that.
2
@Soullessknight1999 You can't overestimate a joke like Russia, as it seems.
1
An absurd notion when it was China that was the colonial and oppressing power in East Asia for almost all of its history.
1
@baadaaboriginalcorporation819 China was never backwards, but it was the pre-eminent pillager of East Asia, yes. China is just mad now because someone else beat them at that game and consider that a "Humiliation".
1
@baadaaboriginalcorporation819 "Century of Humiliation" obsession China has begs to differ. China is still mad that someone treated them as they treated everyone else. Mad that someone else has influence in East Asia over their objections. This isn't history written by "colonials", its history encouraged by the CCP as an excuse for their own imperialism. Nativist nationalism.
1
@yaraelpoof7242 In regards to Ukraine, no they can't do air strikes as anti-air technology is in force in Ukraine. In regards to Syria they could; but that's not how you destroy an insurgency -unless you turn entire cities to rubble which they did in Aleppo. The real damage is done by destroying ISIS bases, which according to Syriahr, was mostly done by the Kurds. Russia took the credit though.
1
@yaraelpoof7242 I'm more talking about man-held weapons, not anti air systems. Russia did well to destroy most of Ukraine's equipment in the first day, but taking to the air is still a risky venture. Many Russian aircraft was shot down by MANPADS and other equipment. Face it, Russia is losing. Idk why you're shilling so hard for them; they deserve everything that's coming to them and more.
1
@yaraelpoof7242 I don't, actually; but their military record speaks for itself. Might wanna check on casualties in their wars and those they inflicted onto others. They're always hilariously lopsided. And in terms of taking territory, they always win; it's holding territory that the US has issues with. Also, idk what you're talking about. The US won in Korea, the Gulf War, in Yugoslavia, and in the 2003 Iraq War. Nobody doubts the US' absurd military prowess. And until recently, we all thought Russia was near equal. We were very wrong. Turned out Russia was a joke.
1
@yaraelpoof7242 Korean War was specifically stated for the cause of liberating South Korea, not to destroy the North. The US went for that as a bonus. And yes, Russia does typically not care for its troops, but this in tandem with being unable to swiftly occupy Ukraine as it obviously intended proves its weakness. It's akin to the US being unable to occupy Iraq in 2003. The copism is unreal lol, Russia did well in the first few days, but then stalled, and now all of their work is being undone. By UKRAINE of all nations. Yes, they have help, but they hardly have an air force or tank units to fight on equal terms if Russia's army on paper was comparable to the US.
1
 @yaraelpoof7242 "if Russia had the same budget we would all be speaking Russian" LOL I'm done. Have fun with your delusions and shifting goalposts.
1
@thantzweaung9080 Yes, it did. The Khmer Rouge is not in power, even if some remnants remain. Just as the US still lost the Vietnam War even if the current Vietnam is aligned, kinda, with the US. We can't predict how future geopolitical shifts occur, but the point of a war is to reach a political objective -and it was not achieved at the time. What happens after that is beyond the scope of a victory/defeat of a war. Not that this is a big deal in this case.
1
@bong9476 US objective in Korea was to secure South Korea as a nation. China's objective was to kick the US out of their border. Both accomplished their initial objectives but failed their extended one. China won in the same way the US won. Ignoring their larger hopes and goals (kicking the US out of Korea and South Korea getting the North respectively) And no, China didn't just send "volunteers". A lot of the army was made up of soldiers that were a part of the Nationalists, and Mao didn't care how many were butchered by American guns by the thousands. It really isn't something to celebrate unless you hate Nationalists that much.
1
@thantzweaung9080 I read that; but the war is over, so its outside that extended context. I already told you; within the context of the Sino-Vietnam War, China lost and Vietnam won. Cambodia, while being the topic of the war, was not a participant in it. Bringing up what happens decades afterwards makes literally no difference to that. Making stupid decisions doesn't make you lose a war. Failing your political objective does. And Vietnam was not forced to concede its invasion in Cambodia, so it won. "Britain and France lost WW2" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah, okay. I guess all world historians are wrong and you are right. Jesus Christo, nationalism is a disease.
1
@bong9476 I don't really see any facts or history here. China was not officially involved in Vietnam, but did provide aid to Vietnam in its war with the US, true. Nobody in their right mind considers China a combatant, however; which is the metric most use. The China Civil War had the opposite issue; US wasn't involved combatively, but was involved with financial aid of the Nationalists. The only war which the US and China were both involved in combatively is in the Korean War, and China failed to kick the US out of Korea much as the US failed to take all of Korea for South Korea. You can consider it a "Chinese victory" insofar that the US was kicked out of North Korea, but so can the US for making sure South Korea exists at all -which was its original objective. So in total, at max, you can claim that China defeated the US once. Though with that same logic so has the US in Korea. As well as the many wars the trade wars waged in the 19th century which the US got dragged into after the Opium Wars. Though that's quite a long while ago. Uh, the US fought the Chinese while demilitarized. So congrats, I guess?
1
@bong9476 "Vietcongs Guerillas were mostly made up of Chinese Volunteers" Oh boy. Yeah, sure, whatever you say in lala land. Also, you're flat-out lying about China's involvement in Korea. The second the US crossed the 38th parallel the CCP began discussing whether to intervene, and decided to do so before the US reached the Yalu River. "In a series of emergency meetings that lasted from 2 to 5 October, Chinese leaders debated whether to send Chinese troops into Korea. There was considerable resistance among many leaders, including senior military leaders, to confronting the US in Korea.[216] Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. After Lin Biao politely refused Mao's offer to command Chinese forces in Korea (citing his upcoming medical treatment),[217] Mao decided that Peng Dehuai would be the commander of the Chinese forces in Korea after Peng agreed to support Mao's position.[217] Mao then asked Peng to speak in favor of intervention to the rest of the Chinese leaders. After Peng made the case that if US troops conquered Korea and reached the Yalu they might cross it and invade China, the Politburo agreed to intervene in Korea.[218] On 4 August 1950, with a planned invasion of Taiwan aborted due to the heavy US naval presence, Mao reported to the Politburo that he would intervene in Korea when the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) Taiwan invasion force was reorganized into the PLA North East Frontier Force.[219] On 8 October 1950, Mao redesignated the PLA North East Frontier Force as the People's Volunteer Army (PVA).[220]" "After secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. This military decision made solely by China changed the attitude of the Soviet Union. Twelve days after PVA troops entered the war, Stalin allowed the Soviet Air Force to provide air cover and supported more aid to China.[230] After inflicting heavy losses on the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950. Deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment with three-prong assaults—from the north, northwest, and west—and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan.[231] The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the PVA unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory. It is unclear why the Chinese did not press the attack and follow up their victory." In short, the Chinese surprised attacked the US/UN forces, they didn't reach the Yalu River yet or bomb Chinese territory, at least I don't believe so. But don't act like China was acting defensively; it ended to attack no matter what as stated above. China intended to kick the US out of the Korean peninsula entirely after managing to kick them out of North Korea, and failed in this goal spectacularly: "the CPV party committee issued orders regarding tasks during rest and reorganization on 8 January 1951, outlining Chinese war goals. The orders read: "the central issue is for the whole party and army to overcome difficulties … to improve tactics and skills. When the next campaign starts … we will annihilate all enemies and liberate all Korea." In his telegram to Peng on 14 January, Mao stressed the importance of preparing for "the last battle" in the spring in order to "fundamentally resolve the [Korean] issue"." Just like the US, China added another war goal on top of kicking the US out of their borders pre-emptively; and failed after being overrun with a US counter-attack. So China won...the same way the US won. Period. I won't explain this to you a second time.
1
@bong9476 Yes, like George Floyd who died unnecessarily because the US has issues with police brutality conjoined with racial inequality. Though it should be noted that US race inequality is small potatoes to...like 90% of the planet. I think only places like Canada or Columbia has better race relations and minority rights. Maybe. Have to check that.
1
@bong9476 ...Why would I read that old man's books? He's a geopolitical guy, but also caused lots of deaths. Kinda like Churchill.
1
@bong9476 Dude. You unironically claimed that Chinese made up the majority in the VietCong. Your "history" is literally toilet paper.
1
@bong9476 Also, I gave you a rundown of what happened with sources in the Korean War; you have zero excuse in claiming I have distorted history. This is well-documented. Claim a Chinese victory if you want, but the Yanks can claim a US victory in return too. Idk if the 1962 skirmish counts as a war at all, tbh. Maybe?
1
@lyhthegreat I never claimed the US won in Vietnam. Just that China lost, and lost much worse than the US would ever tolerate themselves.
1
@小郑中午 By this logic the US won the Vietnam War since South Vietnam survived the conflict with the treaty and would survive a litte longer. Seriously, just take the L.
1
@danielch6662 True, but they were culturally Russian and encouraged Russianization which was very much screwing over minorities in a big way; so my metric doesn't work there. Idk about India enough to say otherwise, but as far as I'm aware India is very culturally diverse to the point that not having minority groups in power is an absurdity itself. Sikhs are well-respected in India anyway and while are minorities are more akin to how Asians are treated in the US -I was more referencing minorities that can be seen as troubled within the country. In the US' case it can be African Americans. In India, I guess it would be Muslims.
1
@NotLRK Prolly because like in all wars, flashy toys are no match for actual competent logistical support to maintain a war effort? As we see with Russia today.
1
@SquirrelKnight50 Putinbots are getting desperate and making up fake crap now. If Ukraine's military capability was broken, then you'd think Russia would just steamroll what's left of Ukraine by now as was originally planned in denying Ukraine's right to independence.
1
Which the British desperately needed since most of theit navy was filled with obsolete ships anyway. Don't act like the UK was incompetent; they wouldn't havr traded bases unless the situation was dire enough.
1
Unlikely without US aid since it really was critical.
1
@johncee853 They did not have the means to evem defeat Germany without US aid, let alone push into Western Europe without US supplies aiding their nearly non-existent supply line. The best they could hope for was a stalemate.
1
The US would never ally Germany in WW2.
1
@lenney872 They claim that now when at the beginning they claimed that Ukraine didn't have a right to exist and tried very hard to take Kyiv. Backpedaling and pretending "we were totally kidding guys!" is proof of Russian weakness. Don't try and deny it when so many Putinbots were convinced that Ukraine would fall.
1
@karlyo6937 Kherson was lost early in the war. They have had Kherson, but Russian conquests have been turned back and are slowly being turned back in the south. Kherson is surrounded by Ukrainian troops and Mariupol has yet to fall.
1
Why are people upvoting this when OP is making crap up? There is nothing behind this 250+ number. Fact is this; Russia was forced to abandon the north and the Ukrainian capital, and were forced to scale back their ambitions to the breakaway territories. Even if the war ends today, Russia has lost the war by every metric possible.
1
@hyhhy By your logic, 99% of the human race have been "self-destructive" when they resist conquest from a far stronger power. If you and your buddy from the Kremlin couldn't have seen this coming, then you don't know humans very well at all.
1
@Anairofdeath You're a Russian shill if you try and deflect Russian mass murdering of Ukrainians and starting this war to begin with by always mentioning Azov. It's kinda like justifying the German invasion of the USSR by mentioning Holodomor. It's a dishonest tactic.
1
@rinzler9775 Maybe, but its hardly just left-wing groups that say crap like that. Even some right-wing groups unironically peddle anti-US propaganda from Russia or China; this recent Russian invasion of Ukraine proves that much. So its hardly just "leftists".
1
@ducetown1 Congrats. You mentioned the few that don't want the US around. Though you neglected to mention that some Iraqis want the US around against Iran, and some Syrians loathe Russia for bombing them to the last century.
1
@markobucevic8991 It's prolly quite high too. Not that it matters; US inflicted terrible casualties in Vietnam, it still lost. What matters is the will. I get the feeling that 1/10 of Ukrainians can die and they'd still keep fighting.
1
@grayghost7216 The fighting was left cold since 2015 or so. Similar to the Korean w@r fought by the US-led coalition. If South Korea was inva ded tomorrow and fell in a few hours; that would be a conflict in a few hours. Its kinda simple.
1
@grayghost7216 No, there were not. At least not within the main conflict. It was, what one would call, a "low intensity conflict". Not peace, but certainly not w a r.
1
@НиколайНижегородец Really? When was the last time the Pentagon tried to genocide ethnic minorities? What about the last time it ordered the bombing and killing of only ethnic minorities? These things seem kinda dissimilar.
1
He writes for RT, genius. Anyone complicit in writing OP EDS for government funded news media are even bigger clowns than CNN can ever hope to be.
1
A nuke's fallout would be an attack on NATO members no matter what. NATO literally has no choice but to respond, genius.
1
@johnmoser1162 The US will call it out if Russia plans on doing it, and the second they do, the US will nuke Russia in retaliation. It has no choice in the matter.
1
@johnmoser1162 The idea that Russia can nuke without any retaliation is peak copism. US is well aware it will get nuked in return. You apparently do not.
1
I love how Kremlin propaganda is automatically upvoted without people bothering to fact check.
1
I'm sorry, are you unironically acting like China doesn't have a massive treasure chest just for bribing officials already?
1
@easonhuang7117 This is true, and likely to remain true due to their geographic location. Though it should be noted that small arms is very different from very complicated machinery weapons of war like tanks or jets. Usually nations go to "trusted" sources for those due to their very nature. Small arms? Anyone can grab those from anyone.
1
@easonhuang7117 Interesting, will have to check up on that. Though I wonder if that's more to do with Thailand's alliance with China than actual military technological achievements? Greece is definitely buying a lot of French aircraft, for example; but that has more to do with getting French support with Turkey than anything else.
1
@easonhuang7117 "Thailand adopted a policy of improving relations with China since the 2014 Thai coup d'état, when relations with the West worsened.[13] In the Thai House of Representatives, concerns had been raised regarding increasing Chinese influence over the country, and some dubbed Thailand as a Chinese province, with the Chinese acquisition of land and real estate allowing China to build dams in the Mekong, and a Chinese private company to invest in the Thai high-speed rail megaproject"
1
@milosmilictrob2046 Yep, a lot of such missiles strikes come from the sea. But whether from the sea or the land, it doesn't matter when Ukraine barely has anti missile capabilities. Oh please, the world is filled with resources, US is just as resource rich as Russia is. Vietnamese defeated the US despite the gap in wealth and resources too; this is a moot point. Russians are losing with 1/3 of manpower Ukraine has. Regardless of the "why", the fact is that Russia is losing. It lost most of its gains at the beginning of the war in the north and has stalled everywhere else. That's not "winning".
1