Main Edition
US
FR
November 22, 2024 - 10:00am
A parade in Red Square has traditionally been the opportunity for Moscow to demonstrate its latest weaponry. In these tense times, however, a defence industry facility in Ukraine was instead chosen as the location for Russia to show off its newest missile to the world.
Yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow had that morning tested an experimental non-nuclear hypersonic ballistic missile, “Oreshnik”, by firing it at a Dnipro industrial complex. The strike came in response to Kyiv’s attacks on targets in the Bryansk and Kursk oblasts of Russia, using American ATACMS and Franco-British Storm Shadow missiles.
Moscow’s move was clearly more about posturing than projectile development. After the US permitted Ukraine to fire long range missiles into Russia, Putin had to reassure his domestic population, and project strength to the West through a bold, albeit empty, gesture. The US was privately informed in advance to prevent misunderstandings and miscalculation. More publicly, from Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s suspiciously well-timed and well-amplified telephone call about the strike, midway through a press briefing to Putin’s surprise televised address, the news was intended to travel at hypersonic speed.
There is also the lack of military value to consider. Such missiles are low in accuracy, high in cost. US officials commented that Russia likely only possesses a few, and the weapon itself would not constitute a “game changer”, not least as Kyiv has withstood attacks from missiles with larger warheads. The Oreshnik appeared to carry a payload exclusively associated with nuclear-capable missiles, yet had not been loaded with one. This suggests it was — along with Russia’s newly revised nuclear doctrine — merely the latest stage of Putin’s long-running strategy of making nuclear threats whenever one of his “red lines” has been crossed. Such sabre-rattling has invariably come to naught before.
However, for all the obvious bluff and bluster, this situation still holds considerable peril. Putin alleged that “there are no means of counteracting such a weapon” and, while the words of Russia’s President should always be taken with a mountain of salt, Ukraine’s air force managed to successfully stop other missiles within that salvo but not the new Oreshnik. He further threatened possible future hits on Ukrainian territory, accompanied by a none-too-subtle warning that it may next be used to target civilians and “citizens of friendly countries”, a reference to foreign military contractors assisting Ukraine with long-range missiles.
Moving beyond the Oreshnik, Putin warned that Russia will “determine the targets for further tests of our newest missile systems on the basis of threats to the security of the Russian Federation”. He promised to “respond just as decisively and symmetrically…in the event of an escalation of aggressive actions”. Between now and January, there is likely to be a great deal Putin finds objectionable. The current US administration is striving to do as much as it can now to put Ukraine in the best position for battling, on or heading to the negotiating table once President-elect Donald Trump takes power.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA message to UnHerd to be FAR more careful about the quality of your reporting here.
Bethany Elliot writes, for example: “recent drone barrages between Kyiv and Moscow have shown how tensions can quickly escalate in this especially febrile atmosphere: of a war potentially in its desperate last stretches.”
I follow the link to better understand what she means by this cryptic sentence.
It takes me to a BBC article that in no way supports this statement. It doesn’t even mention the word ‘drone’.
Elsewhere, the author claims that the missiles lack accuracy. The source link is behind a FT paywall, but sources I have read say that the missile struck its intended target, an industrial complex outside Dnipro.
She also writes, “However, for all the obvious bluff and bluster…”
How does this reporter know this is a bluff? We have a precision strike with a hypersonic missile that could easily carry a nuclear warhead. Maybe Putin is bluffing, but it would be the first time he has bluffed. In 2021 he said he would invade Ukraine, in 2022 he invaded Ukraine. So if it’s a bluff, it certainly isn’t an ‘obvious’ one.
As for bluster? What the hell does that even mean? Has Bethany listened to 5 minutes of him speaking? His speech is precise and spase, if anything understated. Look up the word ‘bluster’ in a dictionary.
It’s like Bethany doesn’t think very carefully about the words she writes. Maybe AI did it for her, I don’t know.
I don’t think the author has listened to Putins speech. It is pretty clear that he is not bluffing and he will strike NATO bases in Poland unless the West stops the use of long range missiles. Very little discussion on MSM – but some very good discussions on non MSM e.g. Redacted – The general view is that Putin has got lots of very accurate hypersonic missiles and is prepared to identify exact targets, prewarn NATO and then use them.
What a load of utter nonsense.
It Putin’s stupid enough to start a war with NATO, he’ll get flattened.
The “general view” was that Russia would walk over Ukraine in only a few days.
Why haven’t these super-accurate hypersonic missiles been used in Ukraine ?
We really do have nothing to fear except fear itself here.
Well done. It’s the bluff and bluster of western journalism that is our greatest risk at present, in this case in the form of the oft-repeated “Putin will do nothing, he’s toothless.”
We see this across the board, of course. To see it in UnHerd only underlines that this journal is about 80% Herd.
I subscribe for the 20%.
You’re being generous. I give it about 90%.
Is Ukraine going to win this war right up to the point where there isn’t a single Ukrainian man still alive?
“Between now and January, there is likely to be a great deal Putin finds objectionable.”
Including the Russian population.
Anti-war protests in Russia (2022–present)
“Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, anti-war demonstrations and protests broke out across Russia. As well as the demonstrations, a number of petitions and open letters have been penned in opposition to the war, and a number of public figures, both cultural and political, have released statements against the war.”
The protests have been met with widespread repression by the Russian authorities. According to OVD-Info, at least 14,906 people were detained from 24 February to 13 March.
The war just passed the 1000 day mark and will continue at least until Trump is in office, Trump may try to stop the war by making some kind of deal, I expect this to fail. So the war will continue
As Lavrov has pointed out several times “the war will be fought to its conclusion”
In that case we must keep going until the Russians see sense.
I’m fairly certain that Trump will (and indeed should) offer them a face saving deal. It’s entirely on them if they’re foolish enough not to accept it. Just as all the deaths, destruction and waste from 1000 days of war in Ukraine are entirely on the Russians and no one else.
I’m also fairly sure that Trump will have a Plan B in reserve.
I’m not sure on quite what authority you feel confident to predict that any Trump deal will fail. If I recall correctly, your statements and predictions about this conflict haven’t exactly been accurate so far ! I seem to remember the incessant chorus of “the Russians are winning” 2 years ago.
Yes, Peter. You have convinced me that ‘we’ must keep going.
I have to say, though, it’s getting a little cold in the trench here. I wish Sergeant Polovshkho would rotate us out so we could at least get some hot tea back in Pokrovsk. (Those bloody drone operators have all the luck, don’t they?)
I can’t feel my effin’ toes anymore. If the Russian artillery were to blow my feet off, I’m not even sure I’d notice.
But, yes, ‘we’ must keep going.
It will fail because the Russians don’t trust the US, and Trump is unlikely to offer much anyway
If that’s the case, there’s nothing to negotiate !
But you could equally state that the US don’t trust the Russians. But I notice you don’t mention that.