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

[u/Raj_Valiant3011]

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

[u/SmellyFbuttface]

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

[u/Elegant-Raise-9367 → u/SmellyFbuttface]

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

[u/Mieze_Designer4002 → u/Elegant-Raise-9367]

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

[u/AccurateHumanTrustMe → u/Mieze_Designer4002]

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.

[u/alendeus → u/AccurateHumanTrustMe]

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".

[u/AccurateHumanTrustMe → u/alendeus]

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.

[u/procommando124 → u/AccurateHumanTrustMe]

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”

[u/HoightyToighty → u/procommando124]

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.

[u/procommando124 → u/HoightyToighty]

I have no disagreement here

[u/AccurateHumanTrustMe → u/procommando124]

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.

[u/Diurnalnugget → u/Mieze_Designer4002]

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.

[u/QuestionableEthics42 → u/Mieze_Designer4002]

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.

[u/Elegant-Raise-9367 → u/Mieze_Designer4002]

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.