By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Bild journalist Julian Röpcke posits that the November 21st Dnipro missile strike utilized a modified, non-explosive RS-26 Rubezh missile, citing video evidence of submunitions lacking explosions. Röpcke suggests the minimal damage supports the claim of a propaganda act rather than a military one. This contradicts some Western and Ukrainian assessments identifying the missile as a nuclear-capable ICBM, although the Kremlin confirmed the use of a different missile type. The conflicting reports highlight the difficulty in definitively identifying the weapon used.
Read the original article here
The claim that a new Russian ballistic missile strike on Dnipro on November 21st involved a test version of the RS-26 missile, lacking explosives and causing minimal destruction, is certainly intriguing. A journalist’s analysis of available videos suggests that the strike, targeting the Pivdenmash plant, utilized a modified RS-26 Rubezh missile.
This analysis points to the missile’s re-entry into the atmosphere, showing what appeared to be sub-munitions – effectively decoys designed to mimic a nuclear warhead. The absence of explosions in the footage strongly suggests a lack of conventional explosives. The damage, therefore, would primarily result from the kinetic energy of the falling objects. This interpretation paints the event as a high-profile demonstration rather than a genuine military attack.
Such an action could be viewed as a political message, a costly but calculated attempt to demonstrate Russia’s technological capabilities. The lack of significant destruction lends credence to this interpretation, implying that the primary aim wasn’t destruction but rather a show of strength, a visual representation of their missile’s potential. This raises the question of why Russia would engage in such a costly display.
This narrative aligns with reports of Russia informing the US in advance, suggesting a degree of pre-planned communication and possibly even tacit consent for the demonstration. The action could be interpreted as a way for Russia to save face, a bold display intended to maintain a powerful image amidst the ongoing war. This idea of saving face is further supported by the fact that Russia would not wish to escalate the war beyond its already considerable scope.
Yet, the interpretation that the strike was purely a show of force and caused absolutely no damage has its detractors. Some eyewitness accounts and interviews contradict the journalist’s account. Some accounts highlight the sound of explosions and structural damage to buildings. These conflicting accounts highlight the limitations of relying solely on video evidence. There’s also the matter of the sheer kinetic energy released by the objects impacting the earth at high speed; even without explosives, the impact force could still have caused significant destruction, especially given the speed and mass involved.
Despite the conflicting accounts, this incident serves as a fascinating case study in information warfare. Whether intentional or not, the apparent lack of substantial damage to the target reinforces the perception of the event as an expensive political demonstration. This raises the question of Russia’s true capabilities and intentions in a war characterized by a high degree of posturing and symbolic actions.
In light of this, one can examine the potential reasons behind the action. Perhaps the goal was to signal to the United States and other NATO allies the capability of their long-range missiles to strike strategic targets. This could be a way to bolster their image and exert pressure without escalating the situation to an all-out war.
Alternatively, perhaps the incident represents an attempt to test the missile’s capabilities in a real-world scenario without triggering a direct military escalation. After all, the potential consequences of a full-scale conflict are too significant for Russia, Ukraine, and the rest of the world to risk. This explanation, however, doesn’t fully align with accounts of collateral damage or the scale of the displayed force.
The inherent uncertainties around the precise events of November 21st leave plenty of room for interpretation. This event should also serve as a reminder of the complexities of modern warfare, where information operations and psychological manipulation play increasingly crucial roles. Whether viewed as a high-stakes political stunt or a genuine but miscalculated military action, this event highlights the tension and uncertainty characteristic of the ongoing conflict. Ultimately, the true nature of the strike may remain ambiguous, prompting continued speculation and analysis.