Right off the bat the headline is bullshit because it wouldn't be the first time. They fired tons of them at Russia already, in fact they tried to take out bridges in Crimea with these same missiles, managed to make a few potholes. This is nothing new and they will have just as little success in changing the battlefield dynamics as they did previously. The only thing that may be different is Russia's response which remains to be seen but will probably involve more systematic dismantling of Ukrainian dual use infrastructure. And that wouldn't really be a response because they would have done that anyway, but now they have a pretext. I don't buy the ICBM story either btw, idk why people still think that what the western/Kiev media put out should be taken at all seriously without Russian confirmation. Just like with the DPRK soldiers allegation for which we still haven't seen a shred of evidence.
I don't know, I don't think it's very good to be automatically dismissive of information purely on the basis of it coming from Western sources either, doing so is setting yourself up for a form of manipulation it's own. What you got to do regardless of the source is analyze the situation and decide for yourself what makes logical sense. Between going nuclear and capitulating to the West by doing nothing, conventionally armed ICBM strikes seem like a pretty a sensible retaliatory move on Russia's part if you ask me.
