Comments by "" (@SnakePliskin762) on "Военное телевидение" channel.

  1. ​ @roychain4877  Yes it was only playing,losing all those men,armoured vehicles and aircraft for something 4 years later still nowhere near accomplished.
    2
  2. ​@patriarshiewhat a load of absolute tosh,what NATO military,I'll be intrigued to hear?
    2
  3. The initial invasion was most shocking,you'd think they'd of learned something from 2 goes at Chechnya.
    2
  4. @uraveragefriend2 kept in very good condition
    2
  5. Wrongly speaking
    2
  6. @jcistw3639  no it isnt what is known. Just because volunteers have gone to fight,most of them with little to no experience,does not mean those countries are at war with them. Volunteers are fighting on both sides from countries all round the Globe. There's undoubtedly Romanian volunteers fighting Russia, doesn't mean Romania is fighting Ukraine. Supplying does not mean fighting,otherwise we'd be saying Russia & China fought the US in the Vietnam war etc.
    2
  7.  @funnycatvideos7596  That we don't know,it's like saying Vietnam wouldn't of won the war without Russian help. It's the tech part i was getting at,some of those vehicles i was driving round in 30+ years ago.
    2
  8. @Valhura77  NATO supplies didn't start until well into the war. Remember the state of the initial imvasion forces. No better than what went into Chechnya and they gave Russia a bloody nose with no help.
    2
  9. @Magnus-c6v  i obviously did read it depth and questioned quite a lot of it especially the source.
    2
  10. ​ @ZincFold and Russia's up front with the truth?😂
    2
  11.  @alexgo1034  you're not making any sense in your relevance to the context of the subject.
    2
  12.  @viktorsvinin5591  completely wrong despite what your government made you believe. The Russian army had to make a deal with the mudge not to let it's convoys get massacred on the way on the way out like they had been for 9 years. And even then the Russians still broke the deal as a commander lost his nerve. Do you want to sources for this information,authors etc
    2
  13. @tamdang8346  he never stated any facts hence why i challenged him on it but give him his due least he tried making the bs look convincing. Any words on holes in Odessa hotels roofs yet or maybe missing Danish pilots? Anything?
    2
  14. @Hans-zq4ig do you like meeting men? Is that how you met your husband?
    2
  15. The amount of patriot's has nothing to do with the wars outcome.
    2
  16. Pac-3 can
    2
  17. ah the old oreshnilk bs,a missile so inaccurate it hasn't been used again.
    2
  18.  @fabricosta9488  so basically it's an ICBM,a concept that's been around since the 60s.
    2
  19. @chillian321  except the warheads aren't accurate and produce little damage. The cost of it to be produced means it'll be produced in tens per year. Basically it's better just being resigned to be a nuke like originally planned. It's an expensive way of doing very little conventionally the experts &;Russia have found out.
    2
  20. They're still in quite good nick though,not many Russian tanks looking like that or looking like the crew survived.
    2
  21.  @Pythoner  no it's called independent. Some of us rely on more than YT & RT for our information.
    2
  22. ​ @Volkodav-1  what a load of nonsense
    2
  23.  @Glenoidio  you mastered 14 year old boys? I'd keep that to yourself mate.
    2
  24. @oofoof1206  those tanks aren't worth anything now,you seen the stores in the US,full of m1a1s
    2
  25. Those countries aren't at war to deploy those,Russia is
    2
  26. According to those reliable telegram sources ....😂
    2
  27. Very true. UK sonar tech is decades ahead of any including the US
    2
  28.  @BigDankDickDad  Ukraine used them
    2
  29. ​ @mog404 utter nonsense. Russia has lost far more than the few outdated NATO armour. NATO can replace them with better models,whereas Russia digs out T-72s and T-62s.
    2
  30.  @elwahabiabdsalal6632  that's an opinion not fact. There's plenty of more advanced Abrams plus other tanks to replace them that don't have the T-90s survivability drawbacks. As for Ka-52,again it's your opinion as AH-64 wins time and time again in sales trials against it.
    2
  31. That wasn't the reason
    2
  32. @shadowreaver1851  industrial juggernaught 😂 who has Russia fought? Chechnya was a disaster and 3 years later with this debacle they need NK to help kick Ukraine out of their own country.
    2
  33. No that was in a US/NATO all arms battleground. Neither side fighting here has that ability.
    2
  34. 😂 same bollocks as the Danish pilot nonsense?
    2
  35. Russia can't even take out Ukraine's rear area logistics so hows it going to manage against NATO & the US?
    2
  36. Nato didn't invade Ukraine. Russia did,that's the source of evil.
    2
  37. Invasion
    2
  38. There isn't. It's bs
    2
  39. what a load of nonsense,even western forces are saying Ukraine is the lead in this type of tech. You got pummeled,accept it.
    2
  40. The most accurate
    2
  41. Most of the aid has gone to making more munitions and arms factories in Western countries for Ukraine.
    2
  42. According to you.Yet the ukraine crews in action say the opposite. It's not hard to see who's talking tripe.
    2
  43. Yeah after 3 years we're really in awe 😂
    2
  44. NATO isn't there
    2
  45.  @Mr_Burke  well it's more plausible than what's been said from Indian YT news channels 😂
    2
  46. Russia has had the same support as Ujraine from Iran & NK. As for those advisors,they only exist in NATO countries training ukes.
    2
  47. Those air defenses need upgrading after last weekend then 😂
    2
  48.  @Станислав-с6п8я  they where launched dead on the front line hitting an airbase,hence why the Russians had to pull their aircraft out of range,further back.
    2
  49. Even with the warheads its only delivering a ton of explosive power and that's if it was accurate,which it isn't
    2
  50. ​ @VeteransVillage-r3d  no they weren't
    2