Russian Missile Claims: A Charade or a Deadly Threat?

On November 21, 2024, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a controversial claim that his country had fired a missile at a Ukrainian military site in Dnipro. This event has been heavily scrutinized, with many deeming it a political move aimed at garnering public support and complicating international sanctions.

The Nature of the Missile Claim

Putin's missile strike at Dnipro has been categorized by many experts as a public relations (PR) stunt, primarily designed to amplify Russian propaganda efforts and distract from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The ultimate goal appears to be to pressure the West into reconsidering its strategic options, including permission for deep strikes targeting military installations within Russia.

Uncertainty Surrounding the Missile Type

The missile's type and specifications have been a subject of debate. In his video, Putin referred to the weapon as "Oreshnik," which translates to "hazelnut" in Russian. This choice of name has raised eyebrows, as it does not align with the naming convention of Russian missiles, which typically bear names such as Iskander, Kinzhal, and Zircon. Russian online shills have dubbed the missile "Hazel," which sounds more coherent in English, but this term is not widely recognized in the military or political communities.

Technical Analysis and Verification

Some analysts hypothesize that the missile in question might actually be the Pioneer missile, which was deployed by the Soviet Union in the late 1970s. It is unclear whether this is a new weapon or a retrofitted model. The Pentagon has provided preliminary information suggesting that the missile launched by Russia at Ukraine was based on the RS-26 Rubezh ICBM model. Although Russia notified the US about the launch through nuclear risk reduction channels, the true nature of the weapon remains uncertain and requires further analysis from debris.

Political Context and Grandstanding

Simultaneously with launching the missile, Putin made grandiose claims about the missile's capabilities, asserting it could not be intercepted. However, he fired it at a target that lacks the Patriot air defense system, a strategically poor move. This has led some to speculate that Putin's claims are more political than strategic, given that Ukrainian "Patriots" have successfully intercepted similar weapons such as the Kinzhal and Zircon. These intercepts resulted in the imprisonment of the scientists who developed these missiles.

Self-Contradiction and Strategic Weakness

Further analysis reveals that Putin appeared visibly uncertain and pitiful while attempting to portray himself as assertive and confident. His video appeal to Russians, recorded on June 24, 2023, showed him appearing visibly uncomfortable and defensive, suggesting that the missile claim may be a hastily constructed PR move in light of recent setbacks.

Strategic and Military Consequences

The missile strike also comes in the wake of a significant Ukrainian military success. The Ukrainian strike on the command center bunker in the Kursk region with 12 “Storm Shafow” missiles resulted in the deaths of 18 Russian and Korean top officers, with many more injured. Putin downplayed the casualty figures, stating that only service personnel and guards were among the casualties. This claim has been met with skepticism.

Conclusion: Political Posturing and Public Perception

The missile strike and its associated claims may be viewed as a desperate attempt by Putin to maintain public support and distract from mounting military defeats. The poorly executed spectacle, however, reveals the uncertainty and strategic weaknesses within the Russian military hierarchy. As the situation in Ukraine continues to evolve, the genuine capabilities of Russian missiles and the political motivations behind their deployment will be closely monitored.

It is clear that the Russian missile claims are a combination of political posturing and a desperate attempt to maintain public and international support. As the situation unfolds, it will be crucial to verify the claims through technical analysis and strategic assessment to understand the true nature and implications of these actions.