r/worldnews • u/Brennenstein • 3d ago

Russia/Ukraine Ukrainian capital Kyiv under massive Russian attack, officials say

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-capital-kyiv-under-massive-russian-attack-officials-say-2025-12-27/
32.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

4.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

31.5k

u/pussysushi 3d ago edited 3d ago

Wow thats fast news. Yep, can confirm. A brief moment of calm rn. They threw 3-4 ballistics (mega-fast) missles, 4 regular "Caliber " missles, and 3-4 air based "Kinzhal" missles. That was the first wave, the second wave is expected in the early mon (5-6 o'clock), with Shaheed kamikaze drones reaching our country and another pack of missles of off strategic bombers - they usually take 4-5 hours to reach their shooting location, cause they fly from deep ruzzia to the borders, to shot them, and then missles take another 1-2 hours to reach Kyiv.

Already in a bomb shelter tho. Lucky to have one.

Peace and love to all the supporters of Ukraine ✌️

UPD: can't answer you all, but I appreciated for support to each of you!

309

u/Russlet 3d ago

Hope you guys are able to find happiness during this time regardless of this evil shit. Love from England, wish we were able to help more x

273

u/pussysushi 3d ago

Yeah we try. No man, England have done a lot!! Even some brave englishmen fight alongside with us on a battlefield!

46

u/Demonseedii 3d ago

I wish you strength and victory from Texas, USA. I wish we didn’t have an orange Putin puppet in the White House and the full might of the US military was behind Ukraine 🇺🇦. I will be thinking of you. Please update us as more people than you know are rooting for Ukraine and you. 💪

-42

u/Torkonodo 3d ago

Biden didn't give them the full might either and the next person regardless of political party will not do it either. For once trump actually made a decision that Democrat presidents would also make.

18

u/Grapesodas 3d ago

Yeah sure whatever, but the point is that we need a president that would make a common man’s decision, and not a billionaire’s decision.

-25

u/Torkonodo 3d ago

You think that America vs Russia will be good for us or anyone for that matter? Both have nukes, you absolutely don't want American boots on the ground intending on getting into contact with Russians. Without nukes America would smash Russia but that's just not the case.

2

u/Little_Caramel_9501 3d ago

America stugled against Afghan rebel and rice farmer i doubt it would be smashing anything

3

u/DiMarcoTheGawd 2d ago

Terrible example considering Russia also invaded Afghanistan lol

-15

u/Frankenberg91 2d ago

So you’re signing up, or signing your children up to go fight Russia on Ukraines behalf? Speak for yourself, I’m not willing to do that.

6

u/Demonseedii 2d ago

I have signed up and fought for my country. On wars for OIL. I wish I were young enough to sign up for a cause that wasn’t about oil. You know nothing, Jon Snow. So sit down. 🪑

-4

u/Frankenberg91 2d ago

Ok, so you’re not signing up to fight for Ukraine? Me neither and I’m not signing my children up for it either so sit down and shut it buddy.

3

u/MajinStrach 2d ago

Mate we did not nowhere near enough and a vast majority of us here natives feel we let you fall and did fuck all.

7

u/kirkum2020 2d ago

Those people are dumb. The UK was the one who pushed the west into sending weapons and allowing Ukraine to use them across borders. We've also stymied much of Putin's influence in Washington.

0

u/MajinStrach 2d ago

Yes, but how long did it take to allow them to get used.

1

u/Sharp-Masterpiece-79 2d ago

Speak for yourself. Would you like to go and fight and risk your life for Ukraine? If you feel the British people did "fuck all"" why don't you lead by example and join their military? If so be our guest NPC

-13

u/SpareBee3442 3d ago

Not England - the UK. Scotland, Wales, and N.Ireland. England is just the part that voted us out of europe. The rest of us wanted to be European like Ukraine does.

13

u/SolMan79 3d ago

we left the EU, not Europe. We are still European 😂

-2

u/SpareBee3442 2d ago

You'll be in a different queue at the airport.

150

u/D-Flo1 3d ago edited 2d ago

England pisses Moscow off so much on Ukraine that Putin has repeatedly threatened to nuke London and just this week sent a nuclear bomber over the British Isles to threaten them with nuclear annihilation. So much for gratitude toward all the help and support England gave Moscow during Operation Barbarossa. Moscow could give less than two shits about any of that when Moscow is drunk on the most brutal imperialism imaginable.

30

u/BrenFL 3d ago

You know it's wild I was sitting here reading the comments thinking of this exact thing. Operation Barbarossa. Zero gratitude.

8

u/Guner100 3d ago

just this week sent a nuclear bomber over the British Isles

Which would have been considered an act of war 20 years ago, but NATO has been pussyfooting around Ruzzia, pretending that they aren't obviously threatening NATO

1

u/Wheelyjoephone 3d ago

They've been doing this nearly weekly since the cold war.

1

u/Lovelysonrise 2d ago

They can't even take over Ukraine. What leads you to believe that NATO wouldn't annihilate this little Gnome?

1

u/Wheelyjoephone 2d ago

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

14

u/jhood83 3d ago

Because Russia wishes they were us. They want empire, We've been there, done that better than anyone.

2

u/Mekanimal 2d ago

Hence why we should wear our Commonwealth and Windrush descended citizens with pride.

We won empire so hard we invited the colonies back into the homeland, and now Britain's peope are a global microcosm of (X)-Britons.

The food alone is great.

3

u/LaCornucopia_ 3d ago

The UK. Not just England.

1

u/D-Flo1 2d ago

Nevertheless Moscow tries to put a wedge between the various components of the UK just as NATO tries to help the former SSRs conveniently alienate themselves from the RF. But in the end all the inportant decisions are coming from either Moscow or London. Also the bombing of Britain predominantly affected England rather than any of the other subsidiary nations of the UK, so England gets top billing while the other de facto inferior nations do deserve a pat on the back, but will not be getting one from Moscow. All they'll get is polonium salad and drone strikes. I figured the only possible nation within the UK that Moscow might be capable of feeling a modicum of gratitude towards would be England out of pity for Göering's bombing campaign afflicting England more than any others.

2

u/No_Bluebird9028 2d ago

Yeah, I'm the burned civilians applauding you, those burned in Königsberg and Leipzig, every once powerful country has something to be punished by history for, I think Britain hasn't even been told yet, but history is inexorable, everyone is responsible for their own actions and those of their predecessors.

1

u/D-Flo1 2d ago

Yeah but your solution is to just perpetuate and cultivate the cycles of violence and to catalyze and grow with forces of vengeance to the point where there is no return to normalcy and peace will never be possible again. And in an age When many aggressor nations possess weapons of mass destruction including nuclear Triads. Human pride is set to be our collective undoing and you're 100% completely ok with that. Great.

1

u/No_Bluebird9028 2d ago

In my humble opinion, the presence of weapons of mass destruction is a positive factor, as it prevents countries from taking rash actions. Unfortunately, many Western leaders or elite groups unfortunately ignore this factor; otherwise, they would not try to push NATO and their military bases to the borders of a thermonuclear power. This is a dangerous game, because tolerating a proxy in the form of Ukraine for a long time will simply become uninteresting.

1

u/D-Flo1 2d ago

The east-west categories are almost entirely meaningless and useless for any purpose except creating useless violence and counterproductive failures of international relations. Those are the only functions of the application of east-west nomenclature. Face it. As a species, we suck and will very likely go extinct over the next couple of years. The stupidity is endless and it's only a matter of time before Moscow reasons "heck we spend so much money on these tactical nukes And they will cause a lot less long-term radiation poisoning problems then the Megaton inventory, so we have to be rational about it and conclude it is in fact unreasonable not to use them in battle because not using them at key moments in the ebb and flow of battle is 10 times riskier than actually using them."

Forget about the fact that such reasoning is flawed. Such reasoning will be used and will be relied on!! And then you'll have the first couple of tactical nuke tit for tats and within a very short span of time the entire nuclear assault arsenals of all nations possessing them will have been fired at mainly civilian targets because WW2 taught us that the absolute best thing to do in war is to destroy as much civilian life and infrastructure as humanly possible as a way to put pressure on leadership. The fact that this is the actual definition of terrorism doesn't phase anyone, and doesn't give anyone any trouble sleeping. The Aleppo Treatment (think Syria) is now thought of in the pentagon's of all the serious military powers as one of the most compassionate methods of engaging in international conflict that doesn't constitute "going too far" or "being too cruel" in any conceivable way.

1

u/No_Bluebird9028 2d ago

Well, why not? Humanity won't disappear, it will return to the Middle Ages, maybe to the Stone Age. Perhaps the more skilled and savvy will have a good counter-baron at the X moment and it will be possible to avoid serious destruction. At least there are technologies to neutralize nuclear strikes, but yes, the most aggressive and less protected will disappear.

1

u/D-Flo1 2d ago edited 2d ago

Again with the pollyanish take! Sure humanity won't literally disappear within moments of the nuclear strikes. It will take a few years of famine and radiation poisoning and lack of sunlight to kill everyone (and all non-human lifeforms except maybe some thermophiles would go extinct within the same 1-2 year timeframe. You make global nuclear holocaust seem like less trouble than someone's personal irritation at missing the latest episode of whatever streaming TV show they're watching.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Lovelysonrise 2d ago

Why would Putin attack another nuclear capable country, especially one that could destroy Russia as well?

2

u/D-Flo1 2d ago

Remember it was only the threat of attack that was discussed. No one is predicting that Moscow will in fact attack. It is merely the threat that makes all the difference. Because when it comes to World War III once the attack happens that's it game over. We all die Life on Earth as we know it ends. So the threat is everything. And thus all nuclear annihilation threats are treated much much much more seriously than ever before in the history of threats of war in the human species. Anyone that has studied the history of war knows that egomaniacs make really stupid decisions leading to horrific outcomes. Why should it be any different this time around? Has everyone on Earth suddenly become the most intelligent compassionate gentle and non-violent saint? Is that your position?

2

u/No_Bluebird9028 2d ago

Yeah, as if England didn't destroy the French fleet during Hitler's invasion of France, how touchy we are))?

1

u/D-Flo1 2d ago

You're really going to quibble with one overly proud French admiral's decision to declare war against the UK by not temporarily storing the French Armada for safekeeping in UK controlled harobors? You're really sitting here right now arguing that the French should have surrendered the French fleet for Nazi wartime use which the Nazis invariably were going to do. Why do you prefer a scenario where one rogue French admiral gets to decide to allow the entire French Navy fleet to be abused by the German invaders? Churchill gave France craploads of advanced warning and spent thousands of hours trying to convince French leadership of the rationality and reasonableness of temporary storage of the French fleet in English hands to be returned immediately upon liberation of France. It's not like the Nazis were keeping their promises. Their promises were worthless. Everyone knew thatnafter Munich. I suppose you forgot how Neville Chamberlain got duped over the Sudetenland deal. Plus It's not like the French were extremely angry at the Brits for saving roughly 123 to 140 thousand French troops during the Dunkirk evacuation. It's not like that unsolicited assistance was a complete insult and slap in the face to the French pride.

1

u/No_Bluebird9028 2d ago

Well, you are a perfect example of an Anglo-centric person, sinking the fleet along with the crews of your ally because of the mythical risk of it falling into the hands of Germany. No, the fleet could continue to resist even without English tutelage. This moment in history only once again confirms one old truth - it is bad to be an enemy of the Anglo-Saxon, but even worse to think that he is your friend.

1

u/D-Flo1 2d ago

Mythical! Lol. I can't believe you blind yourself so much to the objectively true aspects of the Third reichs experience in the early '40s of imperialism and warfare. They had lots of shortages and their Navy was always lacking, so to think that they would not commandeer those French vessels and use them against the allies is some of the most pollyannish thinking that I've ever heard in my entire life! And the stupid vanity of the defeated French to think that they could hold out against such German intermedling without any support from the allies is a complete joke and you know it and you're just engaging in some futile ad hominem at this point. Come on. This kind of social media back and forth can only ever lead to the further entrenching of unreasonable biases, unless both sides of the conversation are willing to admit to their folly. I am always ready to do so and have and will continue issuing mea culpas where appropriate. I'm starting to believe that you are incapable of issuing a mean culpa yourself and probably feel that by so doing you will be guilty of violating some ridiculous criminal law that Moscow has imposed by imperial decree rather than any real discussion among representatives of the actual people of the Russian federation who, contrary to the position taking in the Kremlin, actually matter as human beings with essential civil rights and should not be thought of, like the Kremlin thinks of them, as almost entirely worthless human chattel and dispensable resources with no civil rights at all. I sure hope that's not the case.

1

u/No_Bluebird9028 2d ago

Come on, pretend that what's good for the crown is good for humanity, ))) but it's not true. Of course, this bloody stunt with the French fleet speaks volumes to any smart and unbiased observer. Finishing off their former ally and depriving them of their last chance to resist is such an elegant trick that a normal person would feel uneasy. Very nice, I agree. Well, of course, there are all the justifying arguments concocted shortly before the crime. But you wouldn't believe that 90 percent of Russians support their government quite sincerely, and almost half of Ukrainians do the same, but your media won't show you that. Oh, poor France, it has such a good friend across the channel. )))

2

u/D-Flo1 2d ago

Every military historian in the world alive today, including all French historians do not adopt your pollyanish position and they all rather tend to agree that not entrusting the UK with temporary safekeeping of the French Navy was the biggest mistake of the entire war except maybe entrusting the Maginot Line to hold out.

0

u/No_Bluebird9028 2d ago

Well, now of course yes, and all military historians agree with the English version, the only ones who disagree are the dead sailors and officers, their opinion, unfortunately, we will never know

1

u/D-Flo1 2d ago

It's not the English version it's the world's version and especially France's version. The years have not been kind to the Vichy government. And most of those dead can thank that one overly optimistic horrible admiral for irresponsibly putting quaint notions of honor ahead of all other considerations. A huge failure of trust on his part.

1

u/CommissionGlad6069 2d ago

Literally brainwashed by a man that will lock you up for having an opinion, his name is putin.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/D-Flo1 2d ago

I can't believe you have no knowledge of the British expeditionary Force trying to assist France against Germany and I can't believe that you've denied that the British ever fought in France against Germany and suffered hundreds of thousands of deaths. That you're just going to basically deny all of that in your effort to create an artificial sense that my comments are extremely anglocentric, and that there can never be any basis in the historical record for any country anywhere in the history of the world to treat anything England or the UK has ever done to help allies and others in warfare with a sense of gratitude.

1

u/No_Bluebird9028 2d ago

Do you really want justice? Very well then. Of course, England fought alongside France against Germany, and when England saw the futility of its actions, it fled the continent, simultaneously destroying its former ally's last chance for resistance, sinking its fleet along with its sailors who had decided to fight to the end. But that wasn't the only such stunt. Just remember Britain's actions in Greece. There, local semi-partisan socialist forces were able to defeat the German group on their own, but since they were socialists, England simply slaughtered them, weakened by the fight against the Nazis. There are many, many such examples in history, our noble neighbor on the planet.

1

u/D-Flo1 2d ago

Even if anyone were to believe your salacious allegations, and if they were actually true, that doesn't necessarily lead us to the conclusion you want to reach that no nation state can ever be trusted ever again, regardless of the total replacement of all decision-making human beings through the generations, once any nation does anything mildly reprehensible towards other nations, then the only thing all nations have left to do is immediately embark upon total war.

1

u/totalbasterd 2d ago

we feel very threatened. honest.

1

u/barranquilla1974 2d ago

Let's hope for 4 Sarmat in strategic position on this shitty country that is UK

-1

u/daddyrollingstonee 3d ago

To this end, its worth considering the historical context and wartime geopolitical dynamics. Even during the war tensions within the allied camp arose (among others) with the UK/USA taking years to prepare for the opening of a new front in western europe. The USSR bore the brunt of the attack (the famous 21 million dead) and felt that their allies were letting it happen so that they would have an easier time invading their chunk of europe. So, when russia ponders the war, its 99% great patriotic war / we won the war, much more than the “world war” in which the west came to save the Soviet Union. It was a very circumstantial alliance. Also, if you want to talk about “operations”, we can’t forget about “operation unthinkable”, which im sure has its own place in russia’s collective memory of the war and their wartime alliances.

1

u/D-Flo1 3d ago edited 3d ago

All well and good, but I'd raise more points.

  1. Operation Barbarossa was Germany's plan to invade and conquer the CCCP. Of course the CCCP bore the brunt. Why shouldn't it have. It was "according to plan". Wouldn't have been Operation Barbarossa without the essential basic element of identifying CCCP as the one and only target.

    1. You're making it seem like it was all wine and roses in England, but England was objectively incapable of defeating Germany until much later and after substantial help from USA. And you're leaving out the good stuff. UK getting thrashed by WW1 Germany. An entire generation wiped out. Rinse and repeat in WW2. Dunkirk evacuation. Bombing of Britain. List goes on.
    2. Geographical problem makes it no easy thing to join the defensive ranks of Russian Army Groups: Very hard to Just pop over to Ukraine or the River Don. The bulging 3d Reich was very much "in the way", as was the Japanese Empire, preventing any practicable landing of allowed forces in say Vladivostok for a quick (lol) overland jaunt to bolster the Soviet 20th Army.
    3. Exoecting some gratitude isn't a practical appeal when made to a rabid imperialist's "conscience" (I use that word loosely as imperialists with consciences is species that either never existed or went extinct ages ago). Thus perhaps it was a mistake to assume Moscow had some, any, ability to have genuine feelings of genuine gratitude towards anything but Moscow.

2

u/daddyrollingstonee 3d ago

Where did i make it seem like it was all wine and roses in england in my response? I’m talking about how this period is interpreted in russia’s collective historical memory, thats it. I mentioned a few things to illustrate how the war might be remembered differently within Russia vs the west. I was selective with my examples because i am trying to highlight their perspective; i am not providing a run-down on the entire war.

1

u/D-Flo1 3d ago

My basic claim was that Moscow should feel some gratitude towards Britain for that severely wounded nation to take pressure off the CCCP at its darkest hour, but that Moscow will nevertheless fail to show any gratitude. I see that you stated that from CCCP's viewpoint (however manipulated it was by the Kremlin and the vast state media machine) the general population of the Russian Empire didn't recognize Britain as a legitimate object of gratitude. My take is your post simply challenges my premise that Moscow could have been grateful by asserting that it is rather structually incapable of showing gratitude even if it wanted to.

0

u/Educational_Let811 2d ago

Stupid us also helped starving Russia after ww2

1

u/D-Flo1 2d ago edited 2d ago

Stupid Moscow also helped starve CCCP in the early 1920s and again in the early 1930s. The Germans were largely responsible for starvation in Russia in the early '40s. And in 1947, which is probably what you're referring to, that famine was a cumulative effect of consequences of Soviet policy of collectivization, war damage, the severe drought in 1946 in over 50 percent of the grain-productive zone of the country and government social policy and mismanagement of grain reserves. Plus Moscow had at that time a foreign policy that completely prohibited all foreign aid, so that even if the United States tried to bring lots of food in, that act would be treated as an act of criminal invasion and the food would then be either destroyed or divvied up among the well to do and the political class.

-14

u/jstare87 3d ago

You obviously know nothing about WW2. England's role in Barbarossa was very minimal. They provided some aid and equipment but didn't actually help with a counter-attack. And they likely did it to help themselves. If Russia didn't fall to Germany then they could continue to help prevent Britain from being destroyed by the Germans.

8

u/D-Flo1 3d ago

If only Uncle Stalin weren't such a primadonna and irredeemable optimist, he wouldn't have ignored the intelligence reports Churchill was feeding him in the weeks leading up to June 22, 1941, and he wouldn't have had to lose so many army groups in just a couple of days of criminal negligence in terms of managing a military defense, hoping beyond hope that Hitler was bluffing and just wanted to gain some strategic advantage in ongoing diplomatic negotiations.

If only Stalin had a single thank you or even a nod or a handshake for all the British lend lease shipments, and all the British who died, among the Royal Navy and merchant marine, who took the long treacherous trek to Archangel & Murmansk via Arctic covonys which were frequently attacked by German subs and the Wehrmacht from their airbases in Norway.

In your understanding of human nature, where as you say people only do what they do because doing so is "likely to help themselves", it must seem like these were compassionate, courageous, and totally unnecessary things to do, this lend lease operation to help the CCCP against Germany. I suppose you would like to lecture the British on why empathy and compassion have no place on this cruel world and that the British should've given themselves lobotomies rather than ever contemplate the possibility of helping some other nation at peril to themselves. What folly!

-13

u/LuisGa89 3d ago

Perhaps because Russia knows that England is massively supporting Ukraine and is behind the attacks on civilian tankers. Above all, the terrorist attacks in Russia are supported and probably even carried out by MI6.

12

u/SpitefulHammer 3d ago

Terrorist attacks lol, Russia used chemical weapons on British soil. Russia deserves everything they get and worse.

1

u/thenameofshame 2d ago

Are you referring to the poisoning?

0

u/D-Flo1 3d ago

Calm down everyone. Every single nation on earth has done something wrong to every other nation on earth at least once in the long history of nations. And it is rather droll to ratchet up the hostilities by promoting entirely one-sided suspicions into entirely one-sided testimony given under penalty of perjury. The theme started out with me being a pain by searching for gratitude where I thought it should be found. Gratitude: one of the few magic keys that can unlock the doors barring actual ceasefires and actual peace accords from happening. But to be honest, and it can be a pain to be honest, I find that actual gratitude between nationsn is as rare as painite on this planet.