By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Intelligence shared with Ukraine from US and European partners suggests Russia may be preparing a strike utilizing the Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile, potentially targeting Kyiv and other Ukrainian territories. President Zelenskyy has urged the public to heed air-raid warnings and utilize shelters. The use of such weapons is presented as a dangerous global precedent, with Ukraine appealing to international partners for preventive pressure on Moscow to avoid further escalation and the prolongation of the conflict. Ukraine states it is bolstering its air defenses and will respond to any Russian strikes.
Read the original article here
There are growing concerns that Russia may be preparing a significant missile strike, potentially involving the Oreshnik missile, with a particular focus on Kyiv. This apprehension stems from a pattern of previous Russian actions and warnings, including alerts issued by the US embassy regarding air attacks in the Ukrainian capital.
The timing of such potential escalations often becomes a point of discussion, particularly in the aftermath of significant dates like Victory Day, a major Russian holiday. This suggests a strategic consideration of when to exert pressure or launch retaliatory actions. While some may advocate for continued drone strikes on Russian oil refineries until peace is achieved, the conversation has increasingly turned towards the more direct threat of ballistic missile use against civilian populations, a tactic some liken to desperate, late-war measures.
The Oreshnik missile itself is a subject of debate regarding its efficacy and purpose. It’s understood to be a weapon designed primarily for delivering nuclear payloads, where pinpoint accuracy is less critical due to the destructive nature of a nuclear detonation. Its high cost and limited production numbers suggest that using it with conventional warheads might be more about psychological impact and propaganda rather than a strategic military advantage.
The core idea behind deploying an Oreshnik, especially without a nuclear charge, appears to be one of intimidation and deterrence. The aim would be to instill fear in those supporting Ukraine, hoping to pressure them into halting their aid. This would allow Russia to potentially negotiate a more favorable end to the conflict, without necessarily achieving a full military conquest, and provide them with time to rearm and plan for future actions. The financial outlay for a single Oreshnik missile, estimated at $30 million, is substantial, capable of funding the production of hundreds of more cost-effective advanced drones.
Previous instances of missile launches, such as the one on Dnipro which unfortunately resulted in no fatalities, highlight the unpredictable nature of these attacks. While the Oreshnik might be terrifying in concept, its practical value as a conventional weapon for tactical or strategic gains is questioned, leading some to suggest that encouraging Russia to produce more might be a counterintuitive but potentially effective strategy. The desperation of some leaders is palpable, fueling anxieties about further escalations.
The movement of other advanced weaponry, like Onyx hypersonic missiles, from occupied Crimea to regions like Kursk, also points towards a sustained intention to target Kyiv. This raises questions about why some international players hesitate to become more directly involved, with the belief that a stronger, unified stance could potentially curb Russian aggression. The idea of bringing the conflict directly to the Kremlin has been voiced by some as a last resort.
There’s a prevailing sense that Russia is increasingly running out of options, and the specter of nuclear weapon use is a chilling prospect that many hope will be avoided. The current situation evokes a sense of urgency and a need for decisive action, with some contemplating drastic measures. This is juxtaposed with a pragmatic view that the situation for Ukraine might indeed worsen significantly.
Some analyses suggest that the narrative around escalating the conflict to involve Europe more directly might be a calculated move, with Russia seemingly prepared to meet such escalations. The idea that Russia might issue warnings to nuclear-armed nations like the United States before a launch is a complex geopolitical consideration. Such warnings, if they occur, would be intended to prevent misinterpretations that could lead to accidental nuclear exchanges. The constant surveillance by US intelligence means such actions are unlikely to go unnoticed, but the decision to share this information with Ukraine is a political one.
The existence of back channels for communication between Russia and Western powers, even amidst conflict, is a plausible scenario. The current period is sometimes described as a “wunderwaffe period,” signaling a reliance on advanced and experimental weapons, which can create a sense of impending doom and a need for extreme defensive measures. For Russian leadership, particularly Putin, maintaining the morale of their own citizens is a primary concern, and the visual impact of sensationalized missile strikes on Kyiv serves as a powerful propaganda tool, regardless of the actual military outcome or strategic purpose. The focus, in this view, is less on winning the war through conventional means and more on placating internal factions and projecting strength.
The primary message conveyed by an Oreshnik strike appears to be one of intimidation and a demonstration of capability, suggesting the potential for a nuclear attack. This is seen as a bluff and an attempt at mass intimidation rather than a purely tactical maneuver. The destructive potential of such a weapon in a densely populated urban area like Kyiv could be immense, with significant loss of life.
However, some argue that the Oreshnik, with its kinetic warhead, is not ideally suited for targeting residential areas, making its deployment for such purposes questionable. The attack on Dnipro, for instance, has been characterized by some as a public relations stunt, potentially using dummy warheads to create a spectacle. While effective with a nuclear payload, its conventional use is seen as less efficient. The preference for ballistic missiles over drones is also noted, perhaps due to their perceived power and dramatic visual impact, even if drones are more cost-effective and can achieve similar disruption.
The effectiveness of Russian missile and drone attacks on Kyiv is often debated, with many strikes being intercepted or targeting less defended, low-value objectives. One theory suggests that Russia might be resorting to these weapons because their targets are now heavily fortified, requiring more powerful, penetrative munitions that conventional drones or cruise missiles cannot overcome, especially considering Kyiv’s efforts to harden its infrastructure.
The discussion about direct NATO involvement often raises the question of Poland’s potential gains, while the Baltic states are seen as too small to make a significant difference. The political instability in other Western European countries is cited as a reason for their reluctance to commit troops to a conflict perceived as distant. The central concern with direct NATO involvement remains the potential for a world war, especially given that Russia is currently the sole nuclear power in the conflict.
The extent of existing involvement is acknowledged, with many nations providing weapons and financial support, and a form of hybrid warfare involving sabotage and attacks on infrastructure occurring across the EU. This is seen as buying time for European nations to rearm while the US is occupied with other geopolitical challenges.
The reasons for NATO’s reluctance to directly confront Russia are multifaceted. The primary concern is the fate of Russia’s nuclear arsenal in the event of a regime collapse and the potential for a desperate Putin to escalate to nuclear use if cornered. While many countries are already providing crucial munitions, direct battlefield engagement is a different and far more dangerous proposition.
The notion of Russia “folding easily” is challenged, with the risk of escalating the conflict to a nuclear level being a significant deterrent to direct military intervention. The idea of a “doomer” perspective suggesting a nuclear exchange is contrasted with a “realist” view that advocates for de-escalation. For Ukraine, having endured thousands of ballistic strikes, such threats have become a grim reality, and the resilience of the Ukrainian people is evident.
The cycle of alleged Russian “retaliation” is a recurring theme, with claims that Ukrainian strikes on military targets are often followed by Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure, sometimes days later and seemingly fabricated as a response to unrelated events. Conversely, significant Ukrainian successes, like the destruction of Russian strategic bombers, are often met with no reciprocal action. This selective application of “retaliation” is viewed with skepticism and frustration by many.
The overall sentiment from the Ukrainian perspective is one of enduring hardship and a sense of surreal familiarity with such threats, while acknowledging the devastating impact of the conflict on their nation. The ongoing war, described as a “pathetic excuse for a war” against Ukraine, has resulted in a disproportionately small number of civilian casualties in Russia compared to the immense suffering inflicted upon Ukrainians.