As of lately. First, Time magazine throws in such a headline:
The immediate question which arises is this: what are those "key weapons"? The answer seems to be in the Time's piece:
Ukrainian forces will, for the first time, receive two vehicle-mounted Harpoon anti-ship missiles, which Kyiv hopes will help push away an estimated 20 Russian warships currently blockading their Black Sea ports. The land-based weapon could enable Ukraine, one of the largest grain providers in the world, to resume its supply of food to parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Despite Ukraine’s urgent need, however, the Harpoons won’t reach the battlefield for several months, U.S. officials told reporters at the Pentagon Wednesday. In order for Ukrainian forces to use the weapon, the Pentagon will first have to procure Harpoon launchers, while European allies will prepare to send missiles and other equipment. After that, Ukrainian troops will go through a weeks-long training course outside of Ukraine at other European military bases on how to operate the systems—just as they do with other high-end, American-made arms.
Evidently, they have issues with naval combat and modern technology in Pentagon if they declare a rather morally obsolete Harpoon a "key weapon". Especially if we are talking about two launchers (4 missiles each) and especially which 404 "won't reach the battlefield for several months". Will Ukraine exist then? Not to speak, of course, of NATO's manufacturing, pardon my French, capacity which needs "several months" to procure two trucks and eight missiles. I think the trick here is two fold:
1. Western weapons performed dismally in 404 and the United States doesn't need more embarrassment for its weapon systems, which, BTW, also get blown up by Russian high-precision stand-off weapons routinely.
2. While Harpoon is by no means a trivial threat, this weapon NEVER encountered modern air-defense and serious ECM. But even if to assume that some of Harpoons hits any Russian ship, consequences for providers of such weapons could be deadly, up to retaliation on NATO naval assets.
But then, of course, there are admissions today by both Mark Milley and Kiev regime about the "math" of this SMO.
Cretins from BI should really keep themselves updated on the situation in Severodonietsk, but then again, I begin to doubt now even the adequacy in the US of those who at least nominally are considered professionals. Even when one considers a totally PR circus-oriented political discourse in the US.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley at a press conference in Brussels on Wednesday said "the numbers clearly favor the Russians" in Ukraine as the two countries remain embroiled in war. "I would say the numbers clearly favor the Russians, in terms of artillery," Milley said, adding that the Russians "outnumber, outgun, and outrange" Ukrainian forces. "The Ukrainians are fighting them street by street, house by house," Milley said, stating that the fighting in the Donbas was "almost World War I-like." But he also emphasized that the battle is "not a done deal" and said a Russian victory isn't an "inevitability." "There are no inevitabilities in war," Milley said. "War takes many, many turns."
I, actually, feel for Milley. I think he is competent enough man but is forced to repeat this trope about "inevitabilities in war", because we all know well how well it works out for those who fight Russia in Europe, but the American public (and DNC) will feel really bad when observing how America's greatest proxy has its ass handed to it and no "key weapons" can change anything in the outcome. Now, speaking to Marshal Foundation today, David Arakhmia (a big honcho from Ze's party) uplifted Washington's mood with the news that now VSU loses KIAs only between 200 and 500 daily (in Russian). Now Bernhard worries that Ukraine issue is being put by US media on the back-burner. I totally get it where he is coming from and I share to a degree his desire to see utter geopolitical humiliation of the United States in Europe being very public. But, as Russian say, it is not evening yet.
Now per "mobilization" BS being spread by all kinds of fanboys, even if "pro-Russian" resources on the UTube and elsewhere.
1. Being "pro-Russian" absolutely does not equate to being militarily competent, let alone being mobilization specialist--it is the level of decisions made at the highest military-political level, which brings us to the next point...
2. And why exactly should Russia mobilize, when forces involved in SMO achieve their objectives, especially against the background of favorite Ukie (and UK) "tactics" of using civilians as human shield? The "argument" about alleged China landing in Taiwan is altogether risible.
Those "analytical" resources which grow like mushrooms after the rain on all kinds of platforms in 99 cases out of 100 are fanboys and military porn masturbators trying to promote their "operational" fantasies as facts. Including by spreading outlandish rumors and "concepts".
Here is real professional talking. And I mean REAL.