By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukraine’s Air Force has issued a warning of a potential medium-range ballistic missile launch from Russia’s Kapustin Yar test range, urging civilians to follow air raid alerts. This alert follows reports of Russian drills involving Oreshnik missile launches, raising concerns after a recent large-scale aerial assault that included two Oreshnik missiles. Despite Russian claims of the Oreshnik’s potency, independent assessments question its true capabilities and effectiveness, while its use may provide valuable intelligence to Ukraine and its allies.
Read the original article here
The prospect of Russia deploying its Oreshnik missile in Ukraine on Friday, as warned by the Air Force, brings to light a weapon that is both intriguing and, by many accounts, deeply perplexing. The Oreshnik, which translates to “Hazel” in Russian, is described as an intermediate-range ballistic missile with a formidable reported hypersonic speed, capable of exceeding Mach 10 – that’s roughly 12,300 kilometers per hour. This isn’t just any missile; it’s a nuclear-capable system designed to carry multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, meaning each could be directed at a separate target.
The combat history of the Oreshnik is surprisingly brief, having been deployed only three times prior to this potential new launch. Reports indicate that a previously used Oreshnik was actually nine years old, suggesting a limited operational deployment and perhaps a complex maintenance or readiness cycle for such advanced weaponry. Its stated range extends to an impressive 5,000 kilometers, placing a significant portion of Europe within its reach.
Despite international efforts to restrict the flow of electronics to Russia, including components vital for missile production, the reality on the ground is complex. Western chips, often supplied through illicit channels, continue to be detected in Russian missiles and drones. Furthermore, Ukrainian investigators have observed a noticeable shift, with a greater substitution of Western missile components for Chinese ones. This indicates a persistent, albeit evolving, effort by Russia to circumvent sanctions and maintain its missile capabilities.
The strategic utility of the Oreshnik, particularly when employed with conventional payloads, is a subject of considerable debate. Some analyses suggest its accuracy with non-nuclear warheads is questionable, leading to its characterization as an “expensive hole digger” that primarily creates craters in farmland or damages less significant structures like garage blocks. The immense cost associated with such a missile, especially when its conventional impact appears limited, raises questions about Russia’s motivations and resource allocation.
The idea of deploying a weapon like the Oreshnik, especially one that requires notifying other nuclear powers of its non-nuclear intent, appears counterintuitive to some. It offers Ukraine a heads-up notice, which could be interpreted as a sign of Russian desperation or a calculated move to signal something other than an imminent nuclear strike. This, in turn, has led to a sentiment that Ukraine is achieving positive outcomes, with a touch of sarcasm suggesting that another Oreshnik launch will surely be the tipping point for Ukrainian surrender.
The notion that these missiles might be launched without conventional explosives, simply to create an impact, further deepens the sense of confusion and perceived futility. If the primary impact is merely a hole in the ground, and the missile itself is prohibitively expensive, the strategic benefit becomes elusive. Some observers question the sanity of Russia’s approach, drawing parallels to historical instances where advanced weaponry failed to alter the course of major conflicts, such as Hitler’s reliance on the V1 and V2 rockets in World War II.
The high cost of the Oreshnik is particularly striking. Reports suggest that the funds used to launch a single missile could have been better allocated to, for example, repairing and sustaining surrounding communities for an entire year, as evidenced by the cost to destroy a garage complex. This economic inefficiency fuels speculation about Russia’s dwindling resources and its increasingly desperate measures.
The effectiveness of such weapons as instruments of terror is also questioned. Rather than inducing fear that forces concessions, it’s argued that these actions only harden the resolve of the Ukrainian population and provide valuable intelligence for Western allies to develop countermeasures, especially concerning the Oreshnik’s primary intended use as a nuclear delivery system. The comparison to the V1 and V2 rockets of World War II is recurrent, highlighting a perceived pattern of deploying expensive, relatively inaccurate weapons that cause widespread, albeit not strategically decisive, destruction.
There’s a distinct impression of Russia doubling down on a weapon that is known to be more of a “weapon of fear” than a truly decisive military asset. The irony of a nation with supposed financial abundance firing multi-million dollar missiles at Ukraine, while its economy faces significant challenges, is not lost on observers. The missile’s name itself, with a humorous translation suggesting “Beautiful Lada Missile,” adds another layer to the perceived absurdity.
The fundamental question of what benefit Russia gains from firing such a missile at conventional targets, like buildings, remains unanswered if it’s not equipped with nuclear warheads. While the Oreshnik itself might be less effective conventionally, it is often accompanied by a barrage of drones, cruise missiles, and other ballistic missiles, which collectively pose a significant threat. This coordinated approach, even if some individual components are of limited conventional utility, is what generates genuine fear and concern.
The strategy of bombing civilians, a tactic employed by dictators throughout history, is seen as fundamentally flawed. Instead of breaking the will to fight, it serves to unify and strengthen resistance, fostering a deeper hatred. The international community, particularly Europe, is questioned for its perceived lack of decisive action, with specific calls for countries like France to engage more actively now that Russia appears to be on the defensive.
The very notion of the possibility of a missile attack being newsworthy in the fourth year of the war highlights the persistent and ongoing nature of the conflict. The Oreshnik, and similar advanced missiles like Iranian MIRVs, are acknowledged as terrifying weapons, and the experience of being in a bunker during an Oreshnik strike on Kyiv paints a stark picture of the human cost of such warfare.
The resilience and “sassiness” of Ukrainians in the face of such attacks are often noted. While Russia may find ways to bypass sanctions through black market channels or by purchasing components from neutral countries, the long-term sustainability of such a strategy is questionable. The sanctions, while perhaps not entirely preventing Russia from acquiring necessary materials, serve as a significant impediment and delay, unlike the more absolute resource denial experienced by Imperial Japan before World War II.
The misrepresentation of ballistic missiles as “hypersonics” is a point of contention, as all ballistic missiles achieve high speeds during their trajectory. The primary strategy appears to be terrorizing civilians to force a ceasefire favorable to Russia, a tactic believed to be ineffective against the brave Ukrainian defenders. The Oreshnik is viewed as a strategically foolish weapon due to its exorbitant cost and the availability of cheaper alternatives that can achieve similar conventional results.
While the Oreshnik might be accurate for nuclear strikes, its conventional accuracy is deemed insufficient for precision attacks. It is seen as a weapon of fear, designed to cause destruction and terrorize the population, even if the immediate conventional damage is limited. The comparison to the V2 rockets and the image of leaders hiding in bunkers, relying on “wunderwaffe,” resonates with the perceived desperation behind such deployments.
The potential for Russia to learn from and improve the accuracy of the Oreshnik is a valid concern, highlighting the need for Ukraine and the West to enhance defensive capabilities. Russia’s approach is often characterized as resorting to a “bigger hammer” when other strategies fail. The missile’s design for nuclear warheads remains its most concerning aspect, and Ukraine’s security relies on its adversaries never having to discover its true, devastating potential.
Despite the destructive capabilities, it’s noted that Russia’s actions, even with advanced missiles, have caused fewer civilian casualties than the bombing campaigns in Gaza. The Oreshnik is seen as Russia’s equivalent of the V1/V2 – an expensive, inaccurate “wunderwaffe” that fails to alter the course of the war and primarily serves to terrorize a population already hardened against concessions. It also provides valuable intelligence to NATO regarding nuclear delivery systems.
The argument for the US to supply Ukraine with more advanced interceptors, like Patriots, to counter Russian ballistic missiles is strong, enabling both defense and intelligence gathering. The current situation is sometimes perceived as a reflection of strategic missteps. The historical impact of V2 rockets, while not changing the war’s outcome, was a significant problem for London, suggesting that even strategically flawed weapons can cause considerable localized distress.
The comparison to other massive, ultimately underutilized historical military projects, like the V3, the Bismarck, and the Maus, further emphasizes the perceived pattern of costly, ambitious, but strategically questionable weapons development. These endeavors often reflect dictators’ tendencies toward wasteful superweapons, mirroring Hitler’s obsession with larger cannons and tanks.
The current situation for Russia is characterized by logistical challenges, including damaged infrastructure to Crimea and burning refineries, alongside significant troop losses. Putin appears to be under pressure to demonstrate tangible successes, potentially leading to desperate actions like deploying the Oreshnik. The fear remains that such “military targets” could include civilian infrastructure, reflecting a disturbing historical precedent.