Comments by "Sergey Bebenin" (@sergeybebenin) on "Can Ukraine take back Crimea?" video.

@scottwatson4584 HIMARS. This isn't much different than Kherson.
20
@shanejean5821 How? Both can only be supplied (realistically) via one bridge.
4
I'll be handled similar to Kherson
2
@alexwestconsulting wait.. Kherson is part of ruSSia per their constitution. Are you telling us ruSSia is so sloppy they give up their land just because of "geographical reasons"? Sounds like Kaliningrad is soon to become Koningsberg again 🤣
2
Population will largely be evacuated by the time of UA forces arrival so I don't think it'll be an issue.
2
@restlessnative781 It's already happening lol. 1 year full scale war and look what ruSSians got.
1
@strength4147 it was made clear to Putler that he can't use nukes. China, India and "west" made it clear. That "if" has been thrown around for over a year now and clearly is just a bluff. Do you remember Putler's speech just before February 24? "If anyone even attempts to help Ukraine, they will experience a response unlike anything the world has ever seen". Something along these lines 🤣
1
@alexwestconsulting 1. Your premise that it's populated by a hostile population is nonsense. In any case people most people will evacuated just as they did in Kherson. 2. It's 3 bridges right next to each other. No one except you even considers them as separate. Even the last attempt to take one down actually damaged two. Not even sure what you mean by "bridge is on ruSSo controlled land". 3. I'm very patiently waiting for you to provide me with a reference to a war crime description about Crimea water channel. Clowns like you love to throw stuff at the wall hoping it sticks... Well, I'm not just gonna let it stick.
1
@alexwestconsulting 1. I'm an ethnic russian Ukrainian and loath ruSSia with all my heart so I just skipped your essay to what I was interested in - point me to a war crime description in legal documents. You failed to do so because it doesn't exist so you are a clown for insisting on your baseless claims. Ukraine simply stopped supplying occupied terrories. Per Geneva convention, occupied terrories are full responsibility of occupants. The Crimean water channel is an artificial structure so it was closed as were all other "connections". So easy to shut you up "The occupying power has the duty to ensure that the adequate provision of food and medical supplies is provided, as well as clothing, bedding, means of shelter, other supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population of the occupied territory, and objects necessary for religious worship (GCIV Arts. 55, 58; API Art. 69)."
1
@alexwestconsulting lmao 🤣 There was enough water for civilians well being. LMAO 🤣. Or maybe you have a video of a children dying from thirst? 🤣. Clearly you have never been to Crimea because you'd know that water for regular people is everywhere.. it's not a desert 😂 But to operate ruSSo occupant military machine and economy surely not enough. And my quote from Geneva convention explicitly calls out that anything that happens on occupied territories is the responsibility of the occupant. So again, you are a clown. Not a single world government (except ruSSia of course) calls the cut off water channel a war crime.... Because it's not
1
@nathangale7702 it was cut off land wise but the bridge was built specifically because they could barely sustain occupation via boats. That was in times when Ukraine wasn't fighting back. Now it's a full scale war and Ukraine has the right and means (at least it's getting there) to do whatever it needs to do. So, if Ukraine cuts off the land bridge again and takes the bridge under "strike control", ruSSians will be in a similar situation as Kherson. Because those boats they used in 2014-15 will also be under strikes like they were in Kherson. So Ukrainians can in theory keep striking and making occupants lives so difficult that they simply will leave like they did from the "Russian city of Kherson". I don't understand why some people suggest this has to be done similar to WW2... Weapons have changed
1
@alexwestconsulting It's an indisputable fact that Crimea always had enough water even for domestic use. I'm not even talking about drinking. Yes, there was a time when it was rationed, as in - stopped for a few hours. But we are talking water in the FAUCET 🤣🤣. You know, to wash hands and flush the 🚽. So again you are clueless and no proof. Water supply in the channel was for agriculture (that was being shipped all over Ukraine and the world) as well as manufacturing. In case you didn't know, this channel was built in the middle of last century and believe it or not, people LIVED there BEFORE it was built LMAO 😂. Wow. Maybe they were special kind of people that didn't need water to survive? So again, you are a clown in a corner trying to weasel yourself out on lying but it ain't working.
1
@mezjean5966 what's so strategic about it? Black Sea is a NATO controlled bathtub
1
@mezjean5966 They already have one in Novorossiysk. And they can't exist Black Sea anyway without NATO consent. I have to repeat my question
1
@mezjean5966 OK.... Wouldn't it be cheaper and strategically better for ruSSia to simply expand the existing one instead of: - killing 100+k of own citizens (I know they don't care about Ukraine so I'm not even talking about it) - destroying all economical ties and channels they've inherited from decades in USSR and building on top of it - being under the most severe sanctions in human history - uniting NATO as never before - literally expanding NATO via Sweden and Finland (2 signatures away from the total of 30) ...all this instead of just expanding an existing naval base? Really? Your explanation about Crimean base doesn't make any sense.
1
@mezjean5966 huh? Please look at where Novorossiysk is located. You are extremely confused
1
@joshbell5387 is that why ruSSia is buying from Iran and North Korea? Because they are "manufacturing"? Facts of life - ruSSo world GDP is 1.5% - UA allies world GDP is about 60%
1
@joshbell5387 really? That's your excuse. I'm going to play the same game with you then 1. Ukraine is getting help from allies for the long run. 2. Ukraine is now shelling about the same as ruSSians. 3. How do people ignore the fact that Putler is forced to beg for weapons N Korea and Iran. I can go on and on. See how easy it is? I posted facts backed up by numbers. You posted blabber.
1
@MmmM-uo6ti did I hurt your feelings? Ukraine isn't NATO and is fighting on own land against occupants. 🤡
1