Comments by "Gabor Rajnai" (@gaborrajnai6213) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1.  @dnguyen3941  To be honest Ukrainians even count Crimeans as their potential reserve pool which is rather a humorous assumption. 20 million is a realistic assumption regarding of the people who left to the EU and regions occupied, there was a demographically based study about that by US colonel Alex Verhikof. But 20 million would give Ukraine a 3 million active male pool, which is more than enough to continue.
    1
  2.  @zix_zix_zix  Lol, you have the right to do what you have the force to accomplish. International law is a nonexistent thing.
    1
  3. ​ @rowaystarco  If you want to glow in the darkness, yes you can try.
    1
  4. Lol since noone cares that much about the Middle East anymore, their influence on the global stage will naturally fade with time and on the local stage they are outnumber by 100 to 1. Thats about political realism.
    1
  5. As Ho Chi Minh put it, Vietnam won because they have seen the basic fact that Americans cant always remain in Vietnam, but Vietnam will always remain in Vietnam. If Israel put its bets on American and European support instead of finding a local buddy, who is invested in middle eastern affairs forever, sooner or later they will indeed lose. Thats a matter of fact, not some moralisation.  @OldManRocketLeague 
    1
  6. Yeah Americans generally win wars with good planning, not because their hardware is that much better. Thatswhy there is scepticism how the Ukrainians can utilize the same hardware.
    1
  7.  @oze1999  Ok, but you build warplanes to wage wars with them... It wasnt nice, that the US didnt dare to risk F-22's in real combat situations, because its too expensive to loose.
    1
  8.  @Bern_il_Cinq  Lol literally noone ever cared about your Monroe doctrine. Commies are operating 100 miles off of Miami since 1960 just to prove the point...
    1
  9. Because thistime around you wouldnt face the Serbs with some Dvinas from the 60's but S-300's which would blew up half of your planes from the skies even before moving into radar range.
    1
  10. ​ @smokeypuppy417  Binkov has a video about what would happen if NATO would attack those SAM sites in the Baltics. He actually finished with the conclusion, that NATO would be able to breach them, but it would lose 50-75% of their airforce in the process.
    1
  11. Erhm we already have that check Thunderf00t...
    1
  12. I guess thatswhy the US bombed Bagdad for a month before they moved in with infantry. It is pretty conventional tactics since WWI that infantry and artillery are working together, in more modern warfare they use airplanes instead of arti because it is more mobile and have greater range, but the idea behind it is the same, clear out everything before infantry moves in.
    1
  13. They already got it, but they didn't force it down for that.
    1
  14. lol quantity always wins son. Thatswhy Hitler lost WWII although Matildas Shermans and Grants were the most shtty tanks ever invented, and Tigers were the kings of the battlefield, and the ME262 was ages ahead any pathetic piston aircraft the allies put against it. But allies produced their sht in such numbers, that it didnt matter.
    1
  15.  @SylviusTheMad  They were the second biggest weapons exporters before the war, which if they increased their output means at least a few hundred T90s annually. And noone should try if their nukes are working or not. We can assume most of them would work and they have a horde of those.
    1
  16. ​ @alex1418dney  Possibly, but if they let Russians to destroy their electric grid, that means their primary radars are off, internet connections are off they have to light up the batterries and forget their drones. There are no good choices only bad and terrible choices in this case
    1
  17. Why did Americans gave the Franz Joseph land to Russia then? That was European land by far the closest to Russia. Russians are there unlawfully actually, its still European land by law.
    1
  18.  @hollyd8989  The statement was, that the Ukraine alliance is underfunded compared to Russia. Well its the other way around.
    1
  19. Lol its so naive of you to think that Hamas would exist without the exquisite support of the Israeli and US government. @shaftofwisdom 
    1
  20.  @warlock64c  Well, we all know, that the Soviets won with T-34's, not Sherman or Grant tanks, so while American aid was a nice addition, it wasnt crucial. Also Germans used their force on vacation to protect the western front. The only time, when Anglo saxons met the real german military was the battle of the Bulge.
    1
  21.  @warlock64c  Well, T-34 was indeed copied by the Germans to their Panther tank, while they called the Shermans lighers, because it was so easy for them to kill. And there is a reason why the allies waited for 1.5 years in Britain before even have a try to make D-day, because before that Germans could repel them easily. Yeah in Italy no suprise, that Italy was a second rank theater, and the bulk of the invasion happened in France, Where they had to face, mainly hitlerjugend guys, russian POW's rerecruited from concentration camps, and above aged pop with the fighting quality of a poorly trained militia, meanwhile the elite panzer troops were fighting in Russia. If Brits would be good against the real thing, they wouldnt have to swim across the channel when the germans beated the crap out of them at Dunkerque.
    1
  22.  @Mrstrangert392  Didnt they have a military prior to 2017, that you have to teach them how to fight a war?
    1
  23. ​ @Mrstrangert392  And what does training change on the fact that you dont have tanks and jets? Thats the No1 problem with western doctrine, they always think, that their allies are senseless monkeys and instead of giving them what they need to fight, they need to teach them how to do a proper pushup. They should actually consider, that while western trainers are dewillng bunkers and talking about theory, ukrainian trainers are coming from the frontline reality, so their knowledge is infinitely more relevant.
    1
  24. You just invented the cruise missile.
    1
  25. I thought US warplanes are not that crappy to not give a radar lock signal...
    1
  26. Lol NASAMS use AMRAAM, which is not an air defense missile, and even Iris T is designed from the heatseeker missiels of the Mig 29. these are not really for ground to air missiles.
    1
  27. Lets maek the raw math shall we. At the first months of war near Kiiev Russians used tank based tactical groups for high mobility, which gave Ukraine a golden opportunity to decimate these tanks because they lacked infantry support. Lets say Oryx is right, and Russians lost 1000 tanks mainly T72s, and lets say that all of the crew are dead or wounded, that would give with a standard crew a casualty around about 3000 Russians.
    1
  28.  @seijirou302  It would be more lucky if NATO would moved in in day 1 then, this whole adventure was pointless then.
    1
  29. ​ @seijirou302  Problem is, if NATO does this, they can forget Taiwan. By no way they would have enogh resources to stop the Russians in Ukraine and stop the Chinese in taiwan.
    1
  30. Well, yes, Abramses get their modernisation packages as well. But the core concept is 1980's and I dont think if they would build it today they would build it like it is. Abrams armor wins, however its engine is a real pain in the as. In the Desert storm the tank crew had to stop in every 3 hours to get the air filters out and clean it with brushes, otherwise the gasturbine would choke. @ADobbin1 
    1
  31. All religions are man made religions my friend.
    1
  32. Lol, as long as you cant rotate your laser turret with mach 6 to follow a hypersonic glider it worth sht.
    1
  33. Well, no, in Tehran, and Yalta in 1943 the whole fate of eastern europe was papered down. @louisianaman2025 
    1
  34.  @WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq  What did the Taliban wait for? US soldiers escaped Baghram base in the middle of the night without even giving a memo to the Afghan government troops. Then it took 2 weeks to evacuate the cramped Kabul airfield which was in direct artillery range of the 100 Taliban 155 mm howitzers. If they wished so, not a single westerner would have survived.
    1
  35.  @WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq  As I said 100 howitzers were stuffed in the hills near Kabul. Remanning tanks? Sending in jets? If those open fire for a 2 km long airfield. 15 min, and everyone there is tomato sauced.
    1
  36.  @swirvinbirds1971  So why dont they send in their own equipment then? Because they dont have them in numbers?
    1
  37.  @swirvinbirds1971  That still means, that Russia has surplusses which it can use in Ukraine and meanwhile defend itself, while NATO dont have it.
    1
  38.  @WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq  Because you never were there in reality. You payed for Afghan warlords for their fighters, and called them the US military and sent in a fractional force.
    1
  39.  @WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq  Yeah man, thats your propaganda. The reality is that you constantly had to ask permission from Pakistan to even reach the Taliban, the country who armed them. You did, what you did in the airport, payed them to leave you alone. And before you start the bragging about invading Pakistan, its a nuclear country, so you cant invade it without retaliation.
    1
  40.  @rayzas4885  Maybe they can buy some from Russia.
    1
  41.  @tbyte007  They have to shoot them down otherwise the drones will take them out, thhatshow it works.
    1
  42. Stealth aircrafts are not that stealthy, they have to play evasion not to be detected, but most likely either China or Russia will know that they are incoming pretty early.
    1
  43. When the current German government collapse, and anti American forces take over, we can talk about who lost the geopolitical game. That will happen in a few weeks time, their budget is totally empty, and their highcourt just dropped back their loan requests, while the nazi party takes over the regional parliaments. And we all know if Germans are turning, Europe is turning.
    1
  44. Fight for what?
    1
  45. They used them to bombard Snake Island. Don't ask why, it was a useless PR move.
    1
  46. Lol they want to steal your money and resources for free, not to build protection, are you in that too?
    1
  47. They are in a better position to defend it than when they were, when they occupied it. You know back then, they didn't have the landbridge and the canal.
    1
  48. ​ @Last555555555  Problem is Russia is controlling the sea, and Ukrainians can't do anything about it. They don't even have to use the Kerch strait to ship cargo, they can ship it up to Sevastopol.
    1
  49.  @Last555555555  They couldn't have freshwater to Crimea, because Ukrainians closed the canal, part of the causes of this war is the canal. But supplying water for 9 million residents, and supplying water to a what did Binkov say 250.000 troops is an entirely different game, they won't have problems with that. Besides their control of the sea actually means, that they are the ones, who blow up ships there not the ukrainians.
    1
  50. ​ @Last555555555  They have total control over the seas my friend, but Ukrainians could show off that they send out any vessel to the sea and it isn't blown up by the Russians. So they had a lucky shot for the Moskva, that doesn't mean, that they grew a navy. Remember the Germans did sank the Hood, and the Ark Royale, does that mean, that they won the war, or that it werent the British, who ruled the seas? They were, because they were the ones, who could use surface boats whenever they wanted, while the Germans had to hide from them.
    1