The article has credibility problems:
... long-range missiles provided by NATO started raining down on targets deep inside Russia ...
1.
In real life, Ukraine has been using Storm Shadow and ATACMS against targets in Crimea, which is Russian occupied Ukrainian territory, and against important targets in Russia that are close to Ukraine (i.e. imminent threats or logistical support for imminent threats).
2.
In real life, what Ukraine
has been using to strike deeper into Russia are Ukrainian-designed and -built drones.
Was this false claim from the article sloppiness or an anti-Ukraine lie?
... Russian forces stormed even deeper into eastern Ukraine. ...
In real life, Russia has advanced, but not very far (10s or a couple hundreds of kilometers, on fairly narrow fronts). "Stormed" and "deeper" suggests much more than reality.
Omitted from that sentence is that the cost to Russia has been hundreds or even over a thousand tanks and other armored vehicles, similar numbers of trucks (transporting supplies and personnel), and tens of thousands dead and even more tens of thousands maimed. Russia has even brought in several thousand North Korean army troops (that trade deal must be interesting!), who haven't been doing very well.
Did the article mention that Ukraine had captured a fair amount of Russian territory in Kursk during 2024? Or was that also tendentiously or dishonestly omitted?
