The "HIMARS is ineffective" soundbite seems to rest on a single quote from an unnamed Ukrainian official. Which we have no reason to doubt, but it doesn't spec

The "HIMARS is ineffective" soundbite seems to rest on a single quote from an unnamed Ukrainian official. Which we have no reason to doubt, but it doesn't specify what they meant it to be ineffective at (for example, what kinds of targets and with which type of munitions). Meanwhile, in the very same WaPo article whence that quote derives, just an inch or two down, we have the statement "Kyiv still considers HIMARS to be effective". And in Wikipedia we have attestations of its continued use and effect, post-dating the popular "HIMARS is ineffective" quote: HIMARS has also been used to strike Russian troop concentrations in hard cover, with a HIMARS strike on a Russian base in Makiivka killing 89 Russian soldiers on the admission of the Russian government, although BBC News Russian could confirm at least 139 dead Russian soldiers [July 2024] On 9 August 2024, HIMARS destroyed a convoy of Russian troops in the Kursk Oblast of Russia in what Russian milbloggers described as one of the bloodiest attacks of the entire war. So it would seem "HIMARS has become less effective" would be a more suitable description of the current situation.