Comments by "Sergey Bebenin" (@sergeybebenin) on "Hear what Russians think about Western tanks for Ukraine" video.

  1. What happened? They don't like their own "child" putin anymore?
    8
  2.  @louissosa1535  Not good. So your USA example in Afghanistan only reinforces the point that occupants always lose.
    4
  3.  @aniliebe  thank you for bringing up Vietnam. It only reinforces the point that occupants can't win. Same fate awaits ruSSo occupants in Ukraine
    4
  4.  @aniliebe  🤣🤣. Someone is living in a parallel universe. I would love to see videos or at least pictures of Zelenskiy on a honeymoon in Paris. Patiently waiting for a reference. So this is all you got on my points I listed? 😂🤡
    3
  5.  @russellm2555  huh? What trade routes? What are you smoking?
    3
  6.  @redstarchrille  Not just that. They already had a military port there before invading Crimea
    2
  7. Why can't they just say "I don't feel like talking"? Maybe you should stop excusing ruSSism?
    1
  8.  @ransertu7630  🤦‍♂️ I have newsflash for you - Ukraine welcome to NATO before February 24.... And now NATO is expanding to Finland and Sweden. So your NATO excuse is fraud. You have been exposed by ruSSo silence on Finland and Sweden joining NATO. There's no country/person in this world that.has done MORE for NATO than putler. NATO was on the deathbed before 2022.
    1
  9.  @aniliebe  🤦‍♂️ you are so clueless I don't even think you are being serious. 1. The environment has nothing to do with this. It's about motivated motherland defenders vs. occupants that don't even know what they are doing there. It's impossible to indefinitely occupy wast territory when the entire nation is against you. 2. ruSSo GDP is 1.5% vs. Ukraine allies close to 60% combined. 3. Germany was defeated precisely because there was a very powerful coalition against them. AND because there was Lend Lease from the USA/UK. Does it ring any bells for you? 😂 4. USSR (not ruSSia) was fighting Germans. You know... Ukrainians were there too (among other Soviet republics).
    1
  10.  @aniliebe  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤦‍♂️ Do you even know what you just posted? You posted a link to a video talking about ruSSian defence official's wife spending money in Paris. Hahahaha! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ You aren't a human, you are a copy/paste bot
    1
  11.  @ransertu7630  😂 Georgia wasn't welcomed to NATO. Merkel specifically said that Germany wouldn't allow Ukraine in NATO. ruSSia of course knew it. Finland and Sweden are defacto in NATO now. They were officially given USA/UK umbrella. Dejure is right around the corner as soon as Turkey elections pass and they get some of their demands met. This is basic negotiations. So yep, NATO in Finland is pretty much a done deal and certainly a done deal when compared to Ukraine in 2022. And yet not a peep from ruSSia lol. I don't care to read the rest of your garbage
    1
  12.  @ransertu7630  🤦‍♂️ Ukraine and Georgia didn't even get the official "path to membership". In 2014 Ukraine didn't even have military,.you clown. Since 2014 Ukraine was bluntly told that they aren't ready for NATO but as Merkel said, they were actually told that they'll never become NATO member. Meanwhile, Finland and Sweden ARE GOING through the SIGNATURE process lol. They skipped over all these "path to membership" steps! And in the process got dejure USA/UK umbrella, which makes them defacto NATO since attacking Finland and Sweden will trigger a war with USA/UK --> NATO. So you can keep blabbering about some sentences from 15 years ago but this particular aggression started in 2022. And in the meantime NATO is pretty much in Finlandz whether you like it or not. Attacking Finland dejure means attacking the USA/UK, which means attacking NATO lol
    1
  13.  @ransertu7630  I'm clawing at straws? 🤣 Let's look at the most recent facts on the ground. 1. Ukraine does NOT and DID NOT have dejure USA/UK umbrella (hence NATO). 2. Ukraine DIDN'T even get a lengthy path to membership. 3. Sweden and Finland are as close to becoming dejure NATO as anyone can possibly be. And they weren't even required to go through "path to membership"! So who's clawing at straws? It's a frigging fact of life that Finland and Sweden are on a totally different level from Ukraine when it comes up NATO alliance. You keep quoting some statement from 15 years ago. I prefer looking at facts of recent history.. and it's not on your side lol
    1
  14.  @louissosa1535  huh? Do you even know what you are copy pasting?
    1
  15.  @ransertu7630  yeah 🤡, Ukraine is more "NATOed" than Sweden and Finland and that's why Sweden and Finland are joining NATO without any prerequisits and "path to membership". LMAO. What a genius you are. Yes, they aren't dejure NATO members but they are now protected by NATO via USA/UK dejure umbrella. Facts are facts. No one gave such guarantees to Ukraine and Ukraine isn't 2 signatures away from being in NATO. Not even close.
    1
  16.  @ransertu7630  🤦‍♂️🤡 go read what I said. I stated facts that cannot be disputed. They are facts. Finland and Sweden also get same weapons LMAO. Where do you think some of Ukrainian weapons come from? From the West, including Finland and Sweden. NATO, as organization, DOES NOT supply Ukraine. It's also an indisputable fact. Individual nations, that happen to be part of NATO (not all) supply Ukraine. Get your facts straight. It's at least 50 nations that supply Ukraine... Including Morocco
    1
  17.  @ransertu7630  you are the clown, not me. You still can't comprehend the difference between NATO as an organization (and obligations it comes with) and NATO "standards". LoL. NATO standards are used outside of NATO too. Basically all over the so-called "western world". For example, is Korea in NATO? No. But they use NATO standards. Is Australia part of NATO? No. But they use NATO standards. At the same time, many Eastern European NATO members still have Soviet standard leftovers in use. See how easy it is to expose you as a clown? I simply list facts. Ukraine isn't part of NATO in any shape or form and isn't even close to joining NATO. NATO has no obligation to defend Ukraine. Finland and Sweden on the other hand... Well, I already explained in previous posts but you just keep blabbering
    1
  18.  @ransertu7630  I stopped reading after your Australia nonsense. By your logic, using western made weapons makes you NATO... just because the same weapons are IN PART used by NATO. 🤪🤦‍♂️ It's like talking to a stump. Carry on I guess... I lost interest because it turned into a psychiatric experiment.
    1
  19.  @sdlkfjhasiodf1477  🤪 up to 2 million killed and millions of refugees from USSR occupation. Are you crazy or trolling? Pick one, because there aren't any other options
    1
  20.  @ransertu7630  Sweden and Finland and dejure protected by USA/UK while they are waiting for Turkey ratification. Attack Finland/Sweden and you are at war with the USA and UK, who are the main drivers behind NATO. Ukraine has no such agreements with USA/UK. If u still don't get it, no one can help you
    1
  21.  @ransertu7630  What assistance? LoL. They were given protection, period. Go blabber to your mama, you are boring
    1
  22.  @ransertu7630  🤦‍♂️ what other quotes are you going to find to support my point? Great job by the way 👍.
    1
  23.  @ransertu7630  going to laugh at моrоns like you when both become NATO. Only 2 sigs away and Hungary has zero leverage as opposed to Turkey.
    1
  24.  @ransertu7630  28 out of 30 already ratitified Finland and Sweden. It only took a few months from the initial application. Ukraine isn't even in the same ballpark and yet ruSSo occupants are attacking Ukraine "because of NATO" 🤦‍♂️🤣
    1
  25.  @ransertu7630  you have no clue what you are talking about. Fact is, Sweden and Finland have been ratified by 28 out of 30 within just a few months of initial application. Both are as close as anyone can get to have a dejure NATO status. Ukraine has zero ratifications and this process isn't even active. And yet ruSSo clows claim NATO is the problem. Ok 👌🤪 LMAO It sure will be when Baltic sea will become a NATO lake and the longest NATO border will be with Finland right next to the second biggest ruSSo city. And yet Ukraine is a " NATO threat". LMAO
    1
  26.  @ransertu7630  моrоn, the entire thesis of this conversation is the premise that ruSSia attacked Ukraine because of NATO threat. But in the meantime Sweden and Finland (already explained the border length and proximity) are literally just 2 out of 30 signatures away from becoming NATO and ruSSia does nothing and doesn't even say anything 🤣 So shove that NATO blaming and excuse up deep you know what.
    1
  27.  @hassinarib4607  Stupid decision to defend itself? 🤦‍♂️ Yeah, just roll over and give ruSSia what they want, right? Because almost 60% GDP isn't capable of defending itself against 1.5% GDP.... Now under the most severe sanctions in history. WW1 stopped, WW2 stopped... Anyone can complete the sentence for WW3
    1
  28.  @RainerMichelle  Stopped reading after the first sentence. Novorossiysk is something you need to read about. Because you are so clueless, it's not even much fun to prove you wrong.... Like a disabled child.
    1
  29.  @RainerMichelle  sure 🤡... Because it makes a difference for ruSSia where in the NATO water tub (called Black Sea) they are located. LMAO 🤣 Do you even know that they relocated most of their ships to Novorossiysk? And I guess you missed their sunken flagship. Point is - Sevastopol is useless and it's been proven for a fact
    1
  30.  @RainerMichelle  huh?
    1