Comments by "Sergey Bebenin" (@sergeybebenin) on "Ukraine carries out largest drone strike of war on Moscow, unveils 'Dragon Drone' | DW News" video.

  1. 6:00 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ is this a serious question? Wow. I'm surprised he didn't keep on going about "global warming"
    43
  2. That guy is clueless. Needs to take a trip to Ukraine frontline
    8
  3. No. Thermite isn't illegal
    6
  4.  @Samayil_2024  how cute! You literally just proved my point by making it easier for people to search this up, LMAO While the protocol doesn't outright ban all incendiary weapons, it does place significant restrictions on their use, particularly against civilian targets. Key restrictions include - Prohibition against targeting civilians, Restrictions on military targets in civilian areas, Limitations on use against vegetation: The use of incendiary weapons against forests or other plant cover is restricted unless such vegetation is being used for military purposes. Oopsie Daisy
    3
  5. Rusophobia will remain until they leave Ukraine and pay for the damages
    3
  6. You are mistaken
    2
  7. Yeah, so sad 😂😂
    2
  8. 3:00 🤣 she/he can't be serious
    2
  9.  @Samayil_2024  it's not
    2
  10. Of course there are targets. There are critical infrastructure structures and lots of military targets. It's like saying Washington DC is irrelevant when it comes to an all-out war.
    2
  11. Again?
    2
  12. 😳 where did you see chemicals?
    1
  13.  @evertonmclean10  oh, I was there too and I didn't see you. Where else have you been?
    1
  14. I'm so glad we have "experts" in the comment section
    1
  15.  @americiumamericium4442  no. What you see here are illegal russo positions in Ukraine forests, not an embassy with civilians
    1
  16. Ukraine isn't responsible for russian EW jamming, as russians confirmed themselves
    1
  17. 😂 it's not
    1
  18. What exactly is banned?
    1
  19.  @Samayil_2024  😳 I copy pasted international rules (slightly shortened) LoL You can't certainly attempt to counter them but it's like arguing that water is dry
    1
  20.  @Samayil_2024  😳😳😳 it's plain and simple English... So even your kind can understand but I guess even this is too difficult for you. Read again, bud. It's allowed for military targets as long as civilians aren't near. Does this register at least?
    1
  21.  @Samayil_2024  how's this for you? Unmodified text straight from the "rules book". Rule 85. The anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons is prohibited, unless it is not feasible to use a less harmful weapon to render a person hors de combat. Phosphorus munition is no different. It's legal and anyone can look it up too
    1
  22. Because russians officially declare after every Ukrainian drone attack that "all drones have been shut down or redirected by EW". Well, if that's the case then where's the war crime?
    1
  23. Not Ukraine fault that russians are using EW to redirect drones. Not my words... It's their official statement
    1
  24. Dresden during WW2 was a war crime too? In any case, russians shouldn't redirect Ukraine drones with EW
    1
  25.  @sthelensson  Geneva Convention goes back many decades before WW2. And civilian protection was always a main article. Like I said, in any case, russia should allow drones to peacefully pass to their final destination. Instead they are intercepting them or redirecting them with EW.
    1