What's key to understanding this attack in particular is that Ukraine isn't really hobbling a key Russian asset. They're damaging extremely expensive, entirely irreplaceable strategic systems that are typically used to saber-rattle the last stages of a war. If push comes to shove, Russia has fewer assets to threaten their adversaries with.
If you understand the difference between tactical integrity and strategic integrity, it's pretty easy to gauge the relative impact of this attack.
Not even the ability to pepper Ukraine with Kalibrs was hobbled.
You raise a good point, though. Why is the West, via its proxy, attacking (not for the first time, it must be said) a part of what it recognizes as Russia’s nuclear strategic assets? Sounds highly reckless and dangerous! What happened to winning?
And already—for the n-th time—escalation has made things worse for Ukrainians. More bombs and missiles are flying, restrictions were lifted.
Because good PR prolongs this war but doesn’t win it. Because ultimately, the interests of the nation, the regime, and its Western supporters are not aligned.
Being usable both strategically (with nukes) and operationally (with conventional weapons), they were essentially a sort of "dual-use". Fair game for Ukraine eh.
These kind of meta conversation taglines always make me skeptical of an article.
Not as damaged as what? vs someone somewhere on the internet who overstated things? I'm sure someone on the internet overstates just about anything.
So I go on and read the article and yup, nothing that really indicates more or less damage than I've already seen.