By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst an intense aerial assault on Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reported the use of Russia’s hypersonic Oreshnik ballistic missile, marking its third deployment in the war. This powerful weapon, capable of carrying nuclear or conventional warheads, struck the Bila Tserkva area, causing widespread damage to buildings, including residential structures and schools, and resulting in at least two fatalities. Russia’s Defense Ministry confirmed the Oreshnik’s use, alongside other missile types, in strikes targeting Ukrainian military command and control facilities, air bases, and military industrial enterprises. The ministry asserted these actions were in retaliation for Ukrainian strikes on civilian sites within Russia, a claim Ukraine has refuted, calling them propaganda.
Read the original article here
The recent mass attack on Kyiv, featuring Russia’s use of the Oreshnik hypersonic missile, has sparked considerable discussion and raised serious concerns. It’s being interpreted by many as a desperate move, a sign of significant unease from the Russian leadership. The argument is that deploying such an expensive and technologically advanced weapon against civilian areas, rather than solely focusing on military targets, suggests a profound lack of effective options. This approach seems to achieve little in terms of tangible military gains, further fueling the perception of desperation.
The use of a weapon like the Oreshnik in this manner is being characterized as terror for terror’s sake. There’s a strong sense that Putin is deeply afraid, and understandably so, given the trajectory of events. The notion that this war, involving a nuclear superpower against its neighbor, isn’t receiving more prominent and sustained coverage in Western media, particularly American media, is something that many find astonishing. The attack itself is seen as a demonstration, a chilling reminder that these are missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, even if they weren’t deployed as such.
For Ukrainians, this attack doesn’t fundamentally change their reality. They are already in a fight for their very existence, facing torture, death, and the threat of assimilation into a “slave nation.” The Oreshnik’s deployment is viewed as another in a long line of reckless provocations from Russia, a blatant disregard for international nuclear treaties that Russia itself is bound to respect.
The habit of launching nuclear-capable missiles for seemingly random reasons is deemed incredibly foolish and dangerous. The inherent ambiguity of whether such missiles are armed with nuclear payloads, especially given their design for nuclear strikes, creates a pervasive and dangerous uncertainty. This raises unsettling hypotheticals about what might occur if a nation facing such aggression had the capability to retaliate in kind.
This action is seen as supremely irresponsible and arrogant on the part of the Russian government, not only towards the international community but also towards its own people. The Oreshnik, often described as a “wonder weapon,” is considered most effective with a nuclear warhead. Without it, its accuracy is questioned, and its cost is seen as disproportionate compared to other missile systems like the Iskander. The core question remains: what does it actually accomplish? It’s highly unlikely to compel Ukraine to surrender, especially given that many ballistic missiles are already hypersonic. The designation of the Oreshnik as uniquely special is therefore disputed.
The narrative surrounding this attack is also viewed by some as a propaganda victory for Russia, a way for them to boast about their “hypersonic” capabilities. The sentiment against Putin and Russia is palpable, with some resorting to sarcastic comparisons about what primitive weapons Russia might resort to next. The earlier pronouncements of former President Trump regarding his ability to resolve the conflict are dismissed as empty rhetoric. If peace were genuinely sought, the reasoning goes, Russia would simply withdraw.
Reports indicate the Oreshnik missed Kyiv by a significant margin, landing in Bila Tserkva, impacting garages. Analysis of available footage suggests that while the missile itself might be hypersonic, its submunitions appear to fall in a less advanced manner. This suggests a sense of panic within the Russian military, resorting to whatever systems they have left that can still be launched. The effectiveness of bombing campaigns, without nuclear weapons, is also questioned, with historical examples suggesting it can strengthen the resolve of the targeted population rather than break it.
While the speed of hypersonic missiles makes them difficult to intercept with standard defense systems, capable of leveling city blocks, the human cost for Kyiv is deeply felt. However, there’s also a counter-argument that adversaries often hide among civilians, drawing parallels to tactics seen in Gaza. This, it’s argued, is more likely to breed vengeance than fear, undermining the intended psychological impact of the attack. The immense financial cost of such a strike for seemingly zero military benefit is also a point of considerable frustration.
Historically, bombing campaigns, even between major powers like Britain and Germany in WWII, rarely achieved decisive victories through indiscriminate attacks. The inability to sustain effective targeting, as seen with the bombing of German factories, highlights the limitations of such strategies. The attack on Kyiv is seen by some as retaliation for a previous attack on Moscow, and a critique of Ukraine’s approach is offered, suggesting a more direct response to Russian war crimes might be warranted.
The use of such weapons when Russia’s military is performing poorly is likened to a child’s tantrum. There’s also a theory that this action is tied to Russia profiting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The ongoing desperation, spanning years, is a recurring theme.
Despite past military setbacks, there’s a caution against underestimating a desperate Russia, as they are not on the brink of collapse. However, it’s precisely this desperation that fuels concern about escalation, including the potential for nuclear conflict, and the horrifying possibility of genocide. The argument that all targeted locations were purely civilian is also challenged, with the assertion that military personnel or equipment were likely present in many areas.
The classification of Russia as a “superpower” is increasingly being questioned, with many now labeling it a “regional power.” Before the invasion, claims of superpower status were already being made, but the reality of the war has starkly contradicted them, leading to a humiliating global perception. While a regional power can indeed inflict significant damage, its inability to quickly conquer Ukraine is seen as evidence it never truly was a superpower.
Russia’s current predicament is viewed as dire, with concerns it could devolve into a North Korean-style state. The depletion of Soviet-era stockpiles, the devastation of its economy, and the loss of a generation of its youth, all while China rises, paint a bleak picture. The world, it’s argued, doesn’t need another dictatorial regime mired in poverty and misery, and Russia’s potential descent into such a state is a worrying prospect. Ultimately, the responsibility for Russia’s internal issues lies with Russia itself, a reality that cannot be easily fixed by external actors.
Contrary to some perceptions, Dutch media, for example, is reported to be closely monitoring and reporting on the conflict daily. The fact that missiles like the Iskander can also carry nuclear warheads, along with other systems, means that unless one is facing an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), the exact payload of a launched missile, especially a nuclear-capable one, is often unknown. This serves as a stark show of force.
For Putin, renouncing the conflict now would likely result in his assassination, as he is perceived as needing to maintain his strongman image. Retreating from a conflict with a “lesser country” would be seen as weakness by his own population, potentially leading to his violent overthrow. Putin is characterized as a sociopath, willing to inflict extreme suffering to cling to power. While Russia as a nation may need to withdraw, Putin himself is seen as incapable of allowing such a withdrawal.
The possibility that an airfield near Bila Tserkva was the actual target is raised, considering the proximity and the known inaccuracies of some long-range ballistic missiles, even with their advanced warheads. Some question the assumption that Bila Tserkva was not the intended target, given the missile’s potential margin of error.
The assertion that NATO bombing of Serbia led to submission is brought up, questioning the repeated narrative of civilian suffering. The V2 rocket is cited as an example of a hypersonic weapon from the past, suggesting the term is being overused. While hypersonic missiles are expensive and difficult to intercept, they are not invincible, and can be shot down. The Oreshnik’s flaw is seen as its adaptation from a weapon of mass destruction, where pinpoint accuracy was less critical, to one with conventional explosives, making it less precise for non-war crime missions.
There’s a debate about the true meaning of “hypersonic” in this context, with some arguing that it refers to maneuverability at high speeds rather than simply traveling at those speeds during a ballistic trajectory. The distinction between short-range tactical missiles and mid-range or intercontinental ones, which are more likely to be hypersonic and harder to intercept, is also highlighted. The core issue for many is the deployment of ballistic missiles with questionable accuracy for the stated purpose of targeting suspected terrorists within civilian areas, which appears counterproductive and illogical.