Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "CRUX" channel.

  1. Already seen.
    1
  2.  @paulstone9667  BTW, how many Ukrainian refugees UK welcomed? Yeah, when the war is over the west wants to see who who is a worthwhile ally and who just wanted to finance its own industry.
    1
  3.  @danielwhyatt3278  For example by welcoming Ukrainian refugees, a thing France, Italy and Germany are doing and UK is not? The idea is "we give you the weapons we manufacture (so we finance our own industry) but your families suck, so they have to stay there, dying with you"? That's not a shame to you? I know allowing civilians to survive war is not as spectacular as blowing up tanks, but...
    1
  4.  @jamesorsby7553  To buy weapons? Do you think that the Bayraktars are for free? To pay for intelligence? Do you think that spies, double agents and informants work for free?
    1
  5.  @jamesorsby7553  I never heard them complaining about money. I heard them sincerely thanking infact. And now who sent money is being demonized? On what basis? Do you know a substitute for money? Have you some source about Ukrainians not wanting them?
    1
  6.  @jamesorsby7553  You said that money was good for nothing. Again. When a country send weapons it manufactures, IT'S FINANCING ITS OWN INDUSTRY. Obviously the Ukraininas need them. But let's not exagerate the effort. To give Raytheon & Lockheed Martin 10 million $ for the Javelins is no different than giving the same money as subsidies to GM or the coal sector.
    1
  7.  @jamesorsby7553  Again, those are money transfered from the pockets of American taxpayers to those of American companies. It's obvious that Ukrainians need those weapons but, financially, they are no more than one of many subsidies the US government gives to US industries.
    1
  8. Not a single Leo2 crew member had been killed yet. Ukrainian army has only lost five out of 71 Leo 2 delivered.
    1
  9.  @davidweir8312  I didn't say that a crew can carry 25 missiles, but that the ratio missiles provided for launcher provided is 25/1. The two man crew is supposed to take the launcher back and reload. Many weapons work like that. They are not supposed to be left on the field when out of ammos.
    1
  10. Several dozen launchers. The ratio is usually 25 missiles for launcher, and the given number was for the beginning of March, so when the war just started.
    1
  11. Several dozen launchers. The ratio is usually 25 missiles for launcher, and the given number was for the beginning of March, so when the war just started. Apart for the single use Javelins, and the domestically made Stugna-P and the residual Skif they don't have many medium range portable AT system actually. NLAW, Panzerfaust-3, AT4... are short range only, not well suited for Donbass.
    1
  12.  @NorthonBruce  So, by your own logic, there was no way to know BEFORE shooting at them.
    1
  13. Avanced weapons? 😂 Have you noticed how the Russian wundervaffen in Ukraine proved to be junk? How the Kinzel "hypersonic" missiles are regularly shot down, while the Stormshadow and Himars fly wit absolute impunity? How the T90 are easily blown up by cheap drones?
    1
  14. It could have been even worse. Mind that the Cremlin doesn't care that much about foreign reactions. Evidently they think they, internally, could make the "one tank parade" pass for " we WANTED to stage a lighter parade, as a form of respect for those that are fighting", while just some tank would have been "we tried, but we don't have more than those left".
    1
  15.  @Nateoiler  It's pretty simple. 1) Ukraine is a democracy with regular elections. Russia is a dictatorship where oppositors are imprisoned and/or killed. 2) A dictatorship (Russia) invaded a sovereign and democratic country (Ukraine). Not the other way round. 3) Russians are systematic and UN certified war criminals. 4) NATO NEVER moved into Russia's "homeland". What organization other sovereign countries decide to join IS NONE OF RUSSIA'S BUSINESS. They are not "Russia's homeland". 5) Ukraine was not going to join NATO anyway. If Russia have problems with NATO, they can deal with NATO.
    1
  16.  @acknodbikes5051  You are new to these clips, aren't you?
    1
  17. Yeah. Bow like slaves. They have other ideas. Thanks.
    1
  18. T62 doesn't have the autoloader, so they don't store ammos directly under the turret.
    1
  19. So the Russians thought they were paying to have free hand to invade, kill and torture Ukrainians? Sorry to burst your buble.
    1
  20. So northern Europe is so deindustrialised to not be able to assemble a tank?🤣
    1
  21.  @aacvieira  A hint. The manufacturing output of Germany alone is 3.8 times that of Russia.
    1
  22.  @aacvieira  Awww... you are so cute when you try to change topic... First the problem was the European capacity to build a tank (not like the Russians that since 2014 manufactured, how many T14? A couple of dozens?) now is the ammos the Russians are begging the N. Koreans to supply them.🤣 It only needs to convert a single car factory to manufacture a pair of dozens million artillery rounds/year.
    1
  23.  @aacvieira  "the job I said I could"? Are you dreaming? And you should know what Stoltenberg said? In your dreams he said N. Europe is deindustrialised and can't build tanks? 🤣
    1
  24.  @DdiafwlL  Raping, robbing, torturing, executing civilians, deporting. The normal day of work of a Russian "soldier".
    1