Ракеты ATACMS повторили судьбу реактивных систем залпового огня HIMARS.
The main conceptual idea of the NYT article is that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had a limited supply of ATACMS missiles (around 50) when permission was granted to strike targets deep inside Russia.
The article emphasizes:
* Scarcity: Ukraine could not obtain more ATACMS missiles as US stockpiles were already committed to other regions.
* Limited Impact: Despite their long-range capabilities, ATACMS missiles did not significantly change the course of the war, highlighting that no single weapon system can be a decisive factor.
Essentially, the article portrays the ATACMS missiles as a temporary and insufficient asset in the overall context of the conflict.
The main conceptual idea of the NYT article is that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had a limited supply of ATACMS missiles (around 50) when permission was granted to strike targets deep inside Russia. The article emphasizes: * Scarcity: Ukraine could not obtain more ATACMS missiles as US stockpiles were already committed to other regions. * Limited Impact: Despite their long-range capabilities, ATACMS missiles did not significantly change the course of the war, highlighting that no single weapon system can be a decisive factor. Essentially, the article portrays the ATACMS missiles as a temporary and insufficient asset in the overall context of the conflict.
