According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the strike was carried out in response to the use of American and British long-range weapons.
Photo: Roman Hrytsyna/AP
By Asim Mustafayev
On November 21, Russia launched another strike on Ukraine, this time using what it claims to be a new medium-range ballistic missile called "Oreshnik." This development has raised questions about why Russia has chosen such a radical approach, The Caspian Post reports.
What Prompted Russia’s Drastic Action?
According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the strike was carried out in response to the use of American and British long-range weapons. Specifically, he referred to missile attacks on November 19, using ATACMS systems, and on November 21, employing Storm Shadow and HIMARS systems. These attacks caused different degrees of damage on Russian territory. In the Bryansk region, they resulted in a fire at an ammunition depot, though no severe structural damage was reported. In the Kursk region, one of the command centers of the "Sever" grouping was targeted, leading to casualties among security personnel and the facility’s staff.
Indeed, on November 19, the day of the first strike, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Brian Nichols gave an interview to the Brazilian newspaper O Globo. In it, he revealed that President Biden had authorized long-range strikes on Russian territory, claiming this would provide Ukraine with "greater defensive capabilities" and "push Russia toward negotiations."
"Oreshnik" Missile: A New Weapon or an Updated Design?
On November 22, during a meeting with representatives of the Ministry of Defense, the defense industry, and missile developers, President Putin announced the start of serial production of the "Oreshnik" missile. He stated that although this missile is neither a strategic weapon nor an intercontinental ballistic missile, its mass deployment against enemy targets would make it comparable to strategic weaponry. Moreover, Putin emphasized that "Oreshnik" is not a modernization of older Soviet-era designs but rather a product of expertise developed in "new Russia." He also highlighted that the missile’s testing had been successful.
However, Ukrainian experts have contested these claims. They noted that some components recovered from the attack in Dnipro were manufactured as far back as the 1990s. Based on this, they argue that the "Oreshnik" may be a modification of the intercontinental RS-26 "Rubezh" missile, adapted to function as a medium-range missile. Military and defense expert Pavel Luzin supported this view, explaining, "There’s nothing new in this missile. It’s essentially a lightweight version of the RS-26 'Rubezh,' which itself is a derivative of the 'Yars' missile. This program was shelved in 2018 and now appears to have been revived. The only plausible reason for a lightweight version of an already functioning ICBM is that it requires far less of the complex fuel that Russia struggles to produce at scale."
A Political Demonstration or a Military Necessity?
Ukrainian and Western military analysts suggest that the missile strike was likely a political demonstration rather than a military necessity. According to Ukrainian experts, the missile used in the Dnipro strike might not have carried an actual warhead but a simulated payload. They see this as a psychological ploy aimed at demoralizing Ukraine’s population during a transitional period in U.S. leadership and exerting moral pressure on Ukrainian citizens.
Furthermore, CNN, citing two U.S. officials and one Western European official, reported that the missile launched at Dnipro was "designed to deliver nuclear warheads." According to the network, the missile likely carried multiple warheads, making it "the first instance of such a weapon being used in combat." Known as a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV), this type of weapon can strike several targets with a single missile, delivering a more devastating impact. Nevertheless, analysts believe the strike did not significantly alter the balance of power or escalate the risk of nuclear warfare. Instead, it is seen as an extension of Russia’s "nuclear blackmail" strategy.
Implications for Russia’s Defense Industry
Western and Ukrainian analysts have also questioned the state of Russia’s defense capabilities. They argue that Russia’s defense industry is not prepared for a prolonged war. Much of the equipment lost during combat is being replaced from storage depots rather than new production. This reliance on aging stockpiles, coupled with increased dependence on arms supplies from North Korea and Iranian drones, underscores the challenges facing Russia’s military.
Pavel Luzin further elaborated, "Throughout 2022 and especially in 2023, Medvedev, Shoigu, and others repeatedly claimed that ammunition and missile production had increased several-fold. Yet, by the end of 2023, we began to see shipments of ammunition and missiles from North Korea. As for Iranian drones, those have been supplied to Russia since 2022. Russia simply cannot sustain a war of attrition in the long term. This is why it is resorting to extraordinary measures to shift the balance slightly in its favor. A war of attrition is far more devastating for Russia than for Ukraine, let alone the West."
Strategic and Political Takeaways
European analysts believe that the "Oreshnik" strike does not mark a significant shift in Russia’s military strategy. Instead, it is seen as an attempt to exert political pressure on the West, particularly in light of increased arms deliveries to Ukraine. By showcasing its ability to deploy long-range weapons capable of hitting targets in Europe and the UK, Moscow aims to send a message of strength.
At the same time, some experts argue that Russia’s rhetoric about nuclear weapons remains largely demonstrative and intended to deter the West from providing further military support to Ukraine. This event aligns with Russia’s broader strategy of psychological pressure and attempts to maintain leverage in an increasingly difficult conflict.
The deployment of the "Oreshnik" missile appears to be a calculated move combining political and military objectives. While it demonstrates Russia’s willingness to escalate the conflict, it also highlights the limitations of its defense industry and reliance on unconventional measures. Ultimately, such actions are unlikely to alter the course of the war but serve to heighten tensions and reinforce international solidarity with Ukraine.
