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

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