On 22 November, the White House revealed that US intelligence had prior knowledge of Russia’s plans to launch a new ballistic missile towards Ukraine, days before the event. This information was confirmed by Karine Jean-Pierre, White House Press Secretary, who stated, “In recent days, we briefed Ukraine and our allies to help them prepare for this strike.”
The preemptive intelligence gathering and subsequent briefing demonstrates the limitations of Russia’s ability to achieve strategic surprise against NATO or its allies. In a real conflict scenario, any missile launch targeting NATO member states would likely trigger an immediate and decisive response, including potential preemptive measures by the West.
Russia’s Notification and Its Implications
Remarkably, Russia informed the United States about the missile launch 30 minutes prior to its execution. While this move might appear redundant given the intelligence already in US hands, it signals Moscow’s apprehension of possible nuclear retaliation. This highlights the critical role of nuclear deterrence in constraining Russian aggression, as any unannounced ballistic missile launch could be misconstrued as a threat to the US or its allies, triggering a swift retaliatory strike.
Despite Moscow’s notification, President Vladimir Putin’s subsequent remarks revealed a defensive tone. He claimed that such advance warnings were standard procedure and not an admission of Western superiority in intelligence. However, analysts argue that this is part of a Kremlin strategy to mask Russia’s strategic vulnerabilities under the guise of transparency.
Aimed at Disruption and Panic
The missile launch appears to serve multiple objectives. Firstly, it aimed to disrupt and intimidate Ukraine by showcasing a new weapon, which Russian propagandists dubbed “Oreshnik” (hazel tree). Secondly, it sought to generate panic among the Ukrainian populace. Lastly, it provided a veneer of compliance with international norms, potentially shielding Moscow from accusations of war crimes.
The missile itself, an experimental model with a warhead divided into 36 smaller submunitions, is designed to complicate interception by air defence systems. However, reports from the aftermath of the strike suggest that its accuracy is severely limited. For instance, a recent strike on Dnipro failed to significantly damage industrial targets such as the Yuzhmash facility.
A Financial and Tactical Burden
The high cost of developing and deploying such missiles raises questions about their practical utility. Estimates suggest that each missile could cost up to $80 million, a significant expenditure for a weapon of questionable effectiveness. Comparatively, Russia’s older missile systems, including Iskander and Kh-101, have not decisively altered the war in Moscow’s favour. The limited stockpile of these experimental missiles further reduces their strategic value.
Western Preparedness and Ukraine’s Defence
The United States’ readiness to detect and respond to such missile launches reflects the significant advancements in its intelligence and missile defence capabilities. Systems like the SM-3 and THAAD, designed to intercept warheads at high altitudes before fragmentation, remain key to neutralising such threats. However, Ukraine lacks comparable systems, relying instead on Patriot batteries that have yet to be tested against missiles like the “Oreshnik.”
For Ukraine, the psychological impact of such strikes may be more significant than their physical damage. Despite the Kremlin’s efforts, Ukrainian resilience has withstood years of missile and drone attacks, with its allies continuing to provide advanced weaponry and support.
A Desperate Strategy?
Military experts interpret this missile launch as a sign of Russia’s growing desperation. Some analysts suggest that such displays of force are more about influencing public opinion and creating a façade of strength than achieving battlefield success. This view is echoed in Western capitals, where officials emphasise that such provocations are unlikely to alter the course of the war.
The Kremlin’s tactics also underline its reluctance to escalate to a nuclear confrontation. Despite propagandist claims, experts widely agree that Russia is unlikely to employ nuclear weapons due to the existential risk such actions would pose to the Russian regime.
Image source: social media E2W news
