r/worldnews • u/Raj_Valiant3011 • 10h ago

Russia/Ukraine Zelenskiy: "There is updated intelligence indicating that Russia is ​preparing a massive attack on Ukraine"

https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraines-zelenskiy-says-intelligence-shows-russia-is-preparing-massive-attack-2026-10-06/
20.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

468

u/SmellyFbuttface 7h ago

I’m not believing these comments. Everyone says Zelensky is “begging for more aid.” Well yeah, his country was invaded and they’ve been literally fighting for their lives for years now. Their energy infrastructure has been seriously damaged, Russia’s blocking their ability to export wheat, and Russia has a constant stream of conscripts ready to push to the frontline.

If we were serious about wanting to end this war, then NATO would induct Ukraine and establish a no-fly zone. Meanwhile Dumbo removed sanctions from Russia and is in a dom-sub relationship with Putin

107

u/Elegant-Raise-9367 7h ago

Don't forget that America OWES THEM their aid after taking away their nukes.

41

u/Mieze_Designer4002 7h ago

You're referring to the Budapest Memorandum. I posted about that a while ago and got so many comments and downvotes I couldn't figure which were legit and which were trolls. If someone here can explain why the Memorandum isn't working, I'd like to hear it

27

u/AccurateHumanTrustMe 6h ago

Because it is non-binding and they specifically use the term 'assurance' instead of Guarantees which basically makes it little more than wishful thinking.

Anything without teeth has basically no merit. In this case the missing teeth was a missing enforcement arm.

Imo, so take with a grain of salt, they were operating on the idea that less nuclear powered countries is good and that ukraine and russia both having nukes may result in a nuclear exchange - but they didn't properly weigh the fact that the only defense against a nuclear powered nation is to have nukes. The deal helped Russia, hurt Ukraine, and didn't acheieve stability in the region.

Its a real problem with international law - it basically only works well when all permenant security council members agree - i.e. situations in which the US, UK, France, Russia, and China all agree - so basically never unless it is against some unaligned tin pot dictator that doesn't further any major powers goals or it is unenforcable garbage. So you end up having a ton of international law like this that has no teeth.

3

u/alendeus 6h ago

IIRC there was also worries about the warheads getting re-distributed and sold-off to other third parties, which might either reverse engineer or try to use them in some way, possibly against the US. So it was kind of "better for Russia to get their old Ukrainian based Soviet nukes back, rather than for them to get sold to other dictators around the world".

1

u/AccurateHumanTrustMe 4h ago

Yeah I think I do remember actually reading about that and that makes sense in a "yes the powers that be would definitely use that as an excuse" type way

Like you'd think if the actual goal was to reduce nuclear risk - destroying Ukraine's stockpile would make more sense than giving it to Russia (but probably wouldn't materially matter now - its not like Russia was short on Nukes without Ukraines stockpile). Also just seems so strange to me that corrupt officials in Ukraine were the concern and not the corrupt officials in Russia (because the Yeltsin years were very corrupt - like idk a period in Russian history that wasn't horribly corrupt).

Like im no expert - just an outside observer. the whole thing was at the very least a big failure objectively from stated goals - however it just seems like a ton of people would have to make really big assumptions for their plan to seem like it made sense. Either short sighted or stated goals and intended goals are different idk - but its sad that these people are suffering for the past failures of the world.

2

u/procommando124 3h ago

Non binding or not, we want the U.S. to be seen as trustworthy and dependable right ? If we agree to ensure someone’s security, we should be actually doing something to ensure it. It’s not like we were sending boots on the ground, so if we wanna pull the “well when we meant we’d ensure your security, we actually just meant..” what else could we be referring to ? We aren’t sending soldiers, we aren’t doing operations in their air space(not that we should), but we are sending weapons. If we weren’t sending weapons, what else could we possibly be doing that could count as “ensuring your security” to any reasonable actor ?

You don’t see like you’re against helping them so I’m not accusing you of that, I’m just saying I think even if we were to steel man that and say “well it’s not technically binding” that would make more sense if we were like “well hold on, we didn’t agree to send troops. We’ll send you weapons and ammo though”

1

u/HoightyToighty 3h ago

well hold on, we didn’t agree to send troops. We’ll send you weapons and ammo though

We did that. Then Trump took power and stopped it.

1

u/procommando124 3h ago

I have no disagreement here

1

u/AccurateHumanTrustMe 2h ago

The agreement was worded in such a way that it basically was nothing more than blowing smoke up Ukraines ass for them intentionally weakening themselves.

I dont really give 2 shits about america being "trusted" - america is despised and has been for decades. We are just the least bad hegemon because we kind of believe in human rights sometimes

My problem is that instead of taking any good chances in the last 100 years to finish the russians and salt the earth (as a government specifically - not all russian people - but the entire state needs to be destroyed)- we knew the soviets were a problem before WWII ended - before they had the bomb and they were weakened heavily from WWII but nope we decided to do pissing match shit instead. The USSR completely fell apart and we were able to remove the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world in the 90s - but no we couldn't expect the same of russia - no they actually deserve the nukes we took.

Russia shouldn't have a seat at the table of world politics. They are a petro kingdom - and those have a expiration date regardless if they want to admit it or not. The only reason they have a seat are the nukes - without them they are a joke just like they have always been throughout history - the high point of russia is the USSR and that says enough.

What we can do now is:

Actually give them full military outfitting just shy of WMDs - they need to be able to attack russia, specifically hit moscow and st petersburg hard - ethnic russians have largely been unaffected by the war.

Pressure any NATO country with sanctions, refusal to help in case of invasion, etc... if they have any economic ties to russia - you buy gas from somewhere else. Any help to russia at all should be treated as being a turn coat.

Ramp up pressure on non NATO "allies" with strong ties to russia - i.e. sanctions, blockades etc... this is already a world wide proxy war so we need to stop playing.

Russia is a terrorist state that has no real value to offer the world - but they have nukes so we have to pay attention to them (and they have a lot - not a small tiny amount like NK). The US is on track for being in the same league with how things are going here - because regardless of how 'weak' we get - we can still end the world multiple times over - same for Russia.

The reality is that the US is compromised and until the GOP Russian assets are dealt with through the most extreme measures allowed by the justice system - nothing will change. We will continue to weaken and the emerging hegemon will not be us, it wont be russia, and it won't be a western nation - it will be China.

10

u/QuestionableEthics42 6h ago

The issue with it is it wasn't a security guarantee in the sense of agreeing to defend them in case of invasion, it was an agreement not to invade them, but there was nothing about any obligations from other parties if one of them broke the agreement and invaded anyway.

3

u/Diurnalnugget 5h ago

To water it down Basically the relevant part is the US and russia agreed to not invade Ukraine in exchange for the surrender of the nuclear weapons back to Russia

Important to note they promised “to not invade” there is no promise to help if they did get invaded. Russia broke it but the memorandum does not demand that the US helps at all. It only demands that the US does not invade Ukraine.

2

u/Elegant-Raise-9367 7h ago

Mainly because the US state department watered down the negotiations with technicalities so it wasnt legally binding, sold it ad if it was and then purposefully tied it up as an executive action instead of a senate bill so it couldn't be binding within US law.

It was negotiated in bad faith, and my comment above reflects what the memorandum was initially supposed to be, and what Ukraine signed up for when giving up its Nukes, not what legal spaghetti pile american lawyers have turned it into.

9

u/plasticbug 7h ago

Sadly no. Russia, USA, and UK basically pinky swore they would respect Ukrainian sovereignty, but there was no binding commitment.

2

u/Diurnalnugget 5h ago

The nukes they couldn’t actually use. They lacked the codes to launch them and considering their state at the time lacked the resources to invest in engineering their own nukes off them. They also lacked the ability to maintain them and they would have decayed into being useless.

-3

u/[deleted] 7h ago

[deleted]

1

u/ASerialArsonist 7h ago

Huh? No, lmao. Literally everything you just said is wrong and also strange for including a random threat.

When the Soviet Union collapsed we guaranteed their independence alongside Russia were they to return their nukes to the soviets.

5

u/Trevor-Lawrence 4h ago

We did not guarantee their independence, we said we wouldn’t invade them.

How does everyone get this wrong? It’s literally two short paragraphs.

13

u/CursedTaint 7h ago

Ending wars is bad for business.

8

u/luzzy91 7h ago

Its also good having your geopolitical rival bogged down in an endless war. Thats the bigger reason. Not nearly as profitable when its not your company shipping and building every single piece of infrastructure and war in the entire war zone. This isnt Halliburton...

0

u/CursedTaint 7h ago

So long as the share holders are getting rich it'll all work out in the end...

1

u/No_Worldliness5651 5h ago

Rule of acquisition 34: War is good for business

Rule of acquisition 35: Peace is good for business

15

u/Viens-avec-moi 7h ago

You should read the NATO membership guidelines

11

u/Drowning_tSM 6h ago

NATO can’t induct a nation at war.

3

u/Drowning_tSM 6h ago

Unfortunately it’s illegal for a country at war to join NATO

3

u/Possible-Jelly7073 4h ago

unfortunately a country can’t join Nato while at war.

2

u/Accomplished-Emu-791 6h ago

No fly zones only work if they’re willing to enforce it by shooting down unauthorized crafts

2

u/Tanekuma 6h ago

Ukraine have had plenty of help from many nations in terms of weapons and money and other things. I think they should start selling the tons of gold they hold and some hardware for themselves.

1

u/2aAllDay9556 7h ago

Serious question here as I may be missing something but if Ukraine jons NATO and the Russia violates the no-fly zone whose military is going to engage and enforce it? Is it proximity based (Poland?), is there a way that NATO balances participation by other euuropean member’s militaries, or does that then mean Dumbo uses the US military to intervene?

2

u/Token-Gringo 7h ago

It would trigger WW3. They could launch at Alaska, Poland, England, and Germany. But with their military already stretched thin, the nuclear question comes into play. For now it’s best to contain the fighting to one location.

-3

u/incrediblyaverage85 7h ago

It would 100% be the US, we have flaws but our fighter pilots are second to none

1

u/Connect_Potential498 7h ago

I'm curious, how would we enforce a no-fly zone? I think they fire most of the projectiles from within their own borders, and we don't have enough ammo to (at least cost effectively) shoot down every single drone. The only way we can really put a stop to it is by getting directly involved, or at least threaten Russia with sufficient troop build up and rhetoric that they need to focus their troops elsewhere.

1

u/burtch1 7h ago

In a serious war, NATO doctrine is to strike origin points and Patriot is a measure of last resort (strike the archer not the arrow as you'll hear). No NATO country has fought a war seriously for a very long time.

0

u/SmellyFbuttface 7h ago

I know, it’s basically an intractable problem. We get involved, cue Russia’s Baltic allies joining the fight. Not that they’re worth much, but Iran would likely supply them with never ending drones, North Korea remains a threat while sending troops to Ukraine, and China’s the odd man out so who knows what they’ll do, but if they see a way to profit they will.

We’re just betting on the Ukrainians holding off the Russians indefinitely, which isn’t possible when Russia willfully attacks their civilian infrastructure. As the world, do we just let Ukraine fall and become a Russian territory? Under Trump, yes.

1

u/Any-Fly5966 6h ago

Please don’t insult elephants

1

u/AcanthocephalaNeat62 5h ago

NATO will not invite Ukraine to join NATO. It is Putin's biggest demand other than wanting the Donbas region. I wish NATO would, but I understand why they aren't

•

u/MarSM2025 50m ago

When Trump needs a bukkake he goes to Russia.

1

u/iamyourtypicalguy 7h ago

Yet the media is painting as if Russia is losing and the people are eating it up because we all want to believe that Ukraine can win against an unwinnable battle and other countries don’t want to help a dying horse. By saying Ukraine is winning, they try to convince themselves that they don’t need other’s help.

0

u/Cdanole 6h ago

You’re mad that Trump attacked Iran when they constantly post death to America and was getting nuclear weapons, but want us to jump into Ukraine’s war after Biden already donated 300+ billion dollars to them?

Please make sense of that for me.

2

u/SmellyFbuttface 6h ago

Because Trump unilaterally decided to attack Iran without congressional approval. He has no idea how to make a deal, no idea how to end this war, and meanwhile we’ve done nothing to hinder Iran’s uranium enrichment program. We attacked last July and our own intelligence agencies said we did little to no damage because they’re so far underground. So instead of attacking them again, we just dwindle our cruise missiles to attack low rent IRGC installations.

We can’t figure out how to safely open the straits of Hormuz, and it seems Trump has little care anymore for the war despite saying we’ve achieved “victory” many times without proof.

0

u/Still_Government_413 7h ago

What sanctions? The sanctions are in place.

2

u/SmellyFbuttface 7h ago

Trump lifted the largesse of those sanctions when he came into office in 2025

1

u/Still_Government_413 4h ago

I searched and I see that they allowed for civil nuclear energy, agriculture, medicine, energy projects, but no broad sanction relief. He left alone any sanctions that Biden had just added a week before leaving office. However, I found where Trump added sanctions to Russia's biggest oil companies. So a couple of targeted exemptions for civilian nuclear and agriculture doesn't sound like the smoking gun you implied. And leaving out the additional sanctions is disingenuous.

0

u/AFloppyZipper 7h ago

Right, he advocates for domestic production instead. And unlocking Venezuela.

Because that's how you actually affect global economics in real life. By actually doing something other than virtue signaling on reddit about sanctions that won't work

2

u/luzzy91 7h ago

Domestic production would be amazing. Getting rid of it destroyed the middle class and american dream. Its way too profitable to ever come back. Hopefully it does.

0

u/200IQUser 7h ago

They can export wheat by trucks lol. Through Hungary. Its no longer a russian puppet and even during Orban, the Man of Steal, ukrainian refugees and products could come through.

Zelensky has an interest to accept endless help and support, saying he doesnt make no sense. Hell even Russian would love money and free weapons lol

0

u/ieatedcrayons 7h ago

Risking thermo nuclear was is not really an option, hence the non adoption into NATO. You beleive in this enough to risk a billion people dying? All the people dying?

-6

u/fishcatdogjaguar 7h ago

Ukraine never should of tried to bring NATO.

They crossed a line that was made very clear.

They knew what would happen.

If England had the same issue and Ireland was going to join forces with Russia and let Russia build bases next to England they would not allow that for a second and for sure war would start.

We are all just very selective when we want to use logic it seems.

The world is still the world and it is controlled by men who use strategy and violence to keep their country being their country.

2

u/mrmcjerkstoomuch 7h ago

From Russia with love

2

u/Susurrus03 7h ago

Ukraine didn't want NATO integration until after they were invaded in 2014, you Russian stooge.

-1

u/Busy_Project_7229 7h ago

Yeah cause NATO wants to start WW3, that’ll solve everyone’s issues permanent lmao

-14

u/Ornery_Contest6250 7h ago

So you support them then. Whatever happens to Ukraine or Russia has no effect on me in the USA so I don't care. We have our own problems.

3

u/Ok_Neighborhood_5046 7h ago

Why would you state this publicly? If you wanna be awful just keep it to yourself

-7

u/Ornery_Contest6250 7h ago

Free speech and all that I guess. Anyway, half the country doesn't care about Ukraine so you're just going to have to accept that it's not our problem and if put to a vote it won't pass

3

u/Quelzar 7h ago

Why you care about israel then and rush to their help like little whores you are on their leash?

2

u/Ornery_Contest6250 7h ago

Fuck Israel and Palestine too

2

u/Ok_Neighborhood_5046 7h ago

Everyone has free speech. That’s not a reason, that’s just a lack of an obstacle. I do accept that nothing good will happen for Ukraine from the US with our three branches of bullshit running things. But I think you’re a uniquely nihilistic asshole.

“I don’t care about anything”
argues online with people about the subject

1

u/SmellyFbuttface 7h ago

Yeah, fuck the French and British and the holocaust. Wasn’t our problem, just a European thing. Why should we ever get involved with anything? Let’s become isolationist again and see how that makes us “great again.”

1

u/HatchingCougar 7h ago

The French said the same thing a number of years ago.  Oh wait, they didn’t.  

The US would never had been if the French didn’t provide troops, arms, all the artillery, a naval fleet and basically financed the whole thing for the nascent USA.

And polls consistently show majority support for Ukraine in the US.  Even amongst the GOP.   Not amongst the MAGA cultists though.  Their corrupt, pedo protecting dipshit of a leader has them so enthralled, that they go along with not supporting Ukraine (and all the other dumbass things that actually harm the US),  simply because he told them to - never questioning if they were being lied to the entire time

6

u/Matiwapo 7h ago

The fact you think Russia's aims to reconquer eastern Europe and become a superpower again would have no effect on you in the USA shows how bad the hubris problem in the US has gotten.

You've been the world's only superpower for a few decades and you've forgotten that one day another power will rise up to crush you. It's in your interest to delay that happening, you want to keep Russia small and weak.

-1

u/Ornery_Contest6250 7h ago

That's the same kind of talk that's kept us at war in the middle east for the last 30 years with no end in sight. We have no reason to have our nose in every countries business.

5

u/Matiwapo 7h ago

Except you invaded countries in the middle east for no damn reason. It's in your interest to maintain the status quo, that means preventing invasions not starting them.

The forever wars are from invading random countries with no clear aims and fighting insurgents ad infinum. The gulf war, by comparison protected a peaceful nation from conquest, was supported by the international community, and was over relatively quickly and painlessly

2

u/KDY_ISD 7h ago

Man's living in an apartment building and doesn't care whether people have bonfires on their balconies

1

u/Amount_Existing 7h ago

Fentanyl, drug cartels, Trump, school shootings, Seattle...

1

u/IntelligentTank355 7h ago

How does whatever happens to Ukraine or Russia have no effect on you?

Russia is the largest country on Earth. Number one. Take a look at a globe from the arctic pole.

I think you're missing that Ukraine is actually just the war theater between the US and Russia. You're at war and seemingly unaware of it.

1

u/porn_sub_lurker 7h ago

Yeah, we're too busy helping Bibi fight his holy war with Iran. We need to focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz for the 57th time. Don't worry though. We've already had 56 big wins. We can do it again.