What do we know about Russia's alleged ICBM strike on Ukraine?

We have reached the stage where Ukraine/NATO and Russia are engaged in tit-for-tat exchanges with medium/long-range nuclear-capable missiles

On Thursday, an incident that could mark a significant escalation in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict unfolded when Ukraine’s military claimed Russia had launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at the city of Dnipro in Ukraine. This claim, if true, would represent the first use of an ICBM in a conventional conflict since the advent of such weapons, traditionally reserved for nuclear deterrence during the Cold War. ICBMs — very long-range missile with a range greater than 5,500 kilometres — are primarily designed for nuclear weapons delivery, even though the one allegedly fired by Russia had a conventional warhead. 

The Ukrainian Air Force announced Thursday morning it had tracked the launch of the ICBM, along with six additional missiles, all of which were targeting the Dnipro region. The ICBM appeared to have been launched from the Astrahan region, in Russia’s southwest, Ukrainian military officials said. Footage subsequently emerged of the alleged ICBM strike. The missile targeted critical infrastructure, although the damage was reportedly minimal, with only two people injured.

However, the type of missile used has sparked considerable debate. While Ukraine’s initial assertion was that an ICBM was deployed, a Western official later contradicted this, stating that the weapon was a ballistic missile but not an intercontinental one. This discrepancy has led to discussions on whether Russia employed a new or experimental missile system, possibly the RS-26 Rubezh, designed to have capabilities similar to an ICBM but classified as an IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missile) due to its shorter range. Deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh confirmed that this was the case, and also that the US was notified “briefly” before the launch.

President Vladimir Putin, in a televised address, confirmed a test strike with a new type of intermediate-range ballistic missile, codenamed Oreshnik, aimed at a Ukrainian military facility. This action comes in the wake of Russia’s recent adjustments to its nuclear doctrine, which now includes conditions under which Moscow might use nuclear weapons, notably if attacked by a non-nuclear state supported by a nuclear power. The alleged use of such advanced weaponry could be interpreted as a signal of Russia’s readiness to escalate in response to provocations.

Though the EU quickly labeled the potential ICBM/IRBM strike as a “clear escalation” by Putin, the reality is that this is clearly a Russian reaction to escalatory moves by Western nations. Earlier in the week, Ukraine utilised US-made ATACMS and British-French Storm Shadow missiles to strike targets within Russia, a significant departure from previous restrictions on the use of these weapons. This shift in policy by the Biden administration, allowing Ukraine to strike into Russia with American-supplied weapons, was seen by Moscow as a direct challenge. Russia’s Foreign Ministry had previously warned that such actions would be considered a major escalation, setting the stage for retaliatory measures like the one seen in Dnipro.

Two months ago Putin made it very clear that allowing Ukraine to strike Russia with long-range missiles supplied by NATO would be tantamount to the Alliance directly entering the war:

It is about deciding whether NATO countries [want to be] directly involved in a military conflict [with Russia] or not. This would mean their direction participation. And this changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict. This would mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if that is the case, we will take appropriate decisions, based on the threat that will be posed to us.

It is clear that Russia is desperately trying to reestablish some semblance of deterrence in the minds of US and NATO leaders in light of Biden’s attempt to escalate the conflict beyond the point of no return before Trump comes into office. The fact that we have reached the stage where Ukraine/NATO and Russia are engaged in tit-for-tat exchanges with medium/long-range nuclear-capable missiles (ATACMS can also theoretically be modified to carry a nuclear warhead), all while Russia has signalled that it now views NATO as a direct participant in the conflict, should be a wake-up call for everyone — especially us Europeans.

Thanks for reading. Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net

Twitter: @battleforeurope 

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)