By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to Ukraine using Western-supplied long-range weapons to strike inside Russia, President Putin announced a test launch of a new intermediate-range ballistic missile. This missile, based on the RS-26 Rubezh ICBM design, is capable of carrying conventional or nuclear warheads and was used to strike Ukrainian targets. Putin explicitly warned countries supplying Ukraine with weapons that they could become targets, highlighting the escalation of the conflict. Although the U.S. downplayed the impact of this new weapon, the incident represents a significant escalation and a direct warning to Western nations involved in supporting Ukraine. The Biden administration affirmed continued military aid to Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Russia used an experimental intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) in its recent strike on Ukraine, not an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), according to U.S. military officials. This clarification counters Ukraine’s initial assertion that an ICBM was employed, an event that would have marked a significant escalation in the conflict. The use of an IRBM, while still capable of delivering a substantial payload, carries different implications than the deployment of an ICBM.
The key difference lies in the range. ICBMs are designed to travel over 3,400 miles, capable of striking targets across continents. Intermediate-range ballistic missiles, on the other hand, have a maximum range of less than 3,500 miles. This distinction is crucial because the target in this instance was within the range of an IRBM, rendering the use of an ICBM unnecessary and arguably less tactically sound.
The fact that Russia employed an experimental IRBM adds another layer to the analysis. This suggests the missile may not be part of their standard arsenal, and its limited supply further underscores its experimental nature. It also introduces uncertainty about the missile’s capabilities and reliability. The reported speed of 2 kilometers per second, while fast, is within the typical range for ICBMs, raising questions about the specific model and its characteristics. The missile has been identified as the “Oreshnik” system.
The discrepancy in reporting and the ensuing debate about the missile’s classification have sparked considerable discussion. Some see this as a deliberate attempt by Russia to downplay the seriousness of the attack, perhaps to avoid further international condemnation or escalation by NATO. The claim that it was not an ICBM could be interpreted as an attempt to minimize the perceived threat level. Others contend the focus on the missile’s type is a distraction, arguing that the actual impact—a military strike with potential for significant damage—should be the focus rather than a technical classification.
The debate surrounding the missile’s capabilities further complicates matters. The potential for nuclear or non-nuclear payloads brings another layer of concern. While the specific type of payload deployed in this instance remains undisclosed, the potential to deliver nuclear warheads remains a significant issue. Even if a non-nuclear payload was used, the inherent capability of the missile to carry nuclear arms raises important questions about Russia’s intent and their willingness to push boundaries.
Furthermore, the incident highlights the challenges in verifying information amidst ongoing conflict. The conflicting statements from different sources necessitate a careful consideration of all available evidence, including imagery and other intelligence data, to form a comprehensive understanding of the event. The ambiguity surrounding the missile’s capabilities and the conflicting narratives surrounding its purpose add to the difficulty of assessing the true implications of the strike.
There’s also the matter of the INF Treaty’s role in the situation. The design of the RS-26 missile, the potential candidate for the weapon used, has drawn criticism for potentially circumventing the now-defunct Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. This adds another layer of complexity to the event, highlighting the ongoing tensions and the breakdown of arms control agreements in the current geopolitical landscape. The missile’s capacity to potentially reach Alaska even with a heavy payload complicates the range classification further.
Ultimately, the debate over whether a particular missile is classified as an IRBM or an ICBM, while seemingly a technical quibble, is a symptom of the larger complexities of the ongoing conflict. It underscores the critical need for clear communication, transparency, and international cooperation to de-escalate tensions and prevent further military escalation. The potential for miscalculation or misinterpretation of such events is substantial, hence the critical need for robust verification mechanisms and open channels of communication between conflicting parties. The use of any ballistic missile with a potential for substantial harm should be taken seriously, and the focus should always remain on preventing such events from occurring in the future.