On the morning of Thursday, November 21, 2024, Ukraine experienced a new and significant escalation in the ongoing conflict when an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) struck the city of Dnipro. The missile, known as the Oreshnik, was equipped with several reentry vehicles, but notably, it carried no nuclear warheads. The impact and subsequent damages were the result of a purely kinetic strike, emphasizing the use of conventional ballistic missile technology rather than nuclear escalation.
Initial reports from the Ukrainian Air Force mistakenly identified the missile as an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), which led to considerable confusion and concern both within Ukraine and internationally. However, later analysis and confirmation from the Pentagon clarified the nature of the missile. The Oreshnik missile is derived from the Russian RS-26 missile, a system officially classified as an ICBM by Russian military sources but regarded by some experts as an IRBM due to its range and operational characteristics. This classification ambiguity points to the evolution of the RS-26 into a more versatile weapon that blurs the traditional distinctions between intermediate and intercontinental ranges.
The use of the Oreshnik missile signifies a strategic shift in Russia’s operational posture in the conflict, indicating a readiness to employ advanced missile systems reminiscent of the “Eurostrategic” weapons deployed during the late Cold War. Notably, the RS-26 is conceptually similar to the RSD-10 Pioneer, a Soviet-era missile system that played a key role in the strategic balance of the 1980s. By deploying the Oreshnik in Ukraine, Russia is not only escalating the conflict but also sending a clear signal to NATO and Western countries about its enhanced missile capabilities and willingness to use them in response to perceived provocations.
This missile strike comes in the context of recent Western support for Ukraine, particularly the provision of long-range missile systems such as ATACMS by the United States and Storm Shadow by the United Kingdom and France. These systems have enabled Ukraine to carry out in-depth strikes against Russian military infrastructure, pushing the boundaries of what had previously been considered acceptable in terms of Western military aid. The Russian response—a direct kinetic attack using an IRBM—marks a dramatic escalation that will require a calibrated response from NATO, both in terms of rhetoric and military posture.
The broader implications of the Oreshnik missile strike are profound. It highlights the increasing risk of escalation beyond the borders of Ukraine and into NATO territories, particularly given the missile’s range and its ability to strike targets well beyond the immediate frontlines. The parallels with the “Eurostrategic” missile deployments of the Cold War are striking; during that period, the deployment of intermediate-range missiles on both sides of the Iron Curtain was seen as a direct threat to European stability and contributed to a highly volatile strategic environment. The deployment of similar systems today suggests a renewed emphasis on creating uncertainty and raising the stakes for NATO allies, especially those on the alliance’s eastern flank.
Russian Nuclear Doctrine Update and Strategic Messaging
In a further escalation of tensions, President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on Tuesday, November 19, 2024, updating Russia’s nuclear doctrine. The timing of this announcement is significant, coinciding closely with the Ukrainian use of Western-supplied long-range missile systems on Russian territory. The Kremlin has framed these doctrinal changes as a necessary adaptation to “current realities”—a direct reference to the evolving nature of the conflict and the increased involvement of Western powers in providing advanced weaponry to Ukraine.
The updated nuclear doctrine makes several key changes that expand the scenarios under which Russia would consider the use of nuclear weapons. Notably, it specifies that aggression by a non-nuclear state, if supported by a nuclear-armed state, could be interpreted as a joint attack on Russia. This clause appears to be a direct reference to Ukraine’s military operations, which are increasingly reliant on Western military support, both in terms of equipment and intelligence. By framing Ukrainian actions as part of a broader coalition that includes nuclear-armed NATO members, Russia is effectively creating a justification for nuclear retaliation against what it views as a collective threat.
Another significant change is the inclusion of scenarios involving “indiscriminate attacks” with conventional weapons against Russia or its key allies. These allies—Belarus, Iran, and North Korea—are explicitly mentioned in the revised doctrine, emphasizing the broad scope of what Russia now considers as threats that could warrant a nuclear response. This expansion of Russia’s nuclear doctrine serves several purposes: it deters conventional attacks on Russian territory and its allies, raises the cost of Western involvement in the conflict, and signals a readiness to escalate if its core interests are threatened.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the updated doctrine is the assertion that Russia reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear force after detecting the launch of a massive airborne attack, involving aircraft, drones, or cruise missiles. This shift reflects a heightened sensitivity to aerial threats and a reduced threshold for nuclear use in response to perceived large-scale attacks. The inclusion of drones and cruise missiles is particularly significant, given the increasing role that these platforms are playing in modern warfare, including in the conflict in Ukraine. The use of long-range drones by Ukraine and their Western allies to target Russian military infrastructure has likely influenced this doctrinal adjustment.
In his public statements, President Putin has emphasized that these changes are a response to the “hybrid warfare” being waged by the West against Russia. The term “hybrid warfare” refers to a mix of conventional and unconventional tactics, including cyber operations, economic sanctions, and the use of proxy forces. Putin’s messaging is aimed at portraying Russia as being under siege by a coordinated campaign involving multiple Western powers. By emphasizing the hybrid nature of the conflict, the Kremlin is attempting to justify its own escalatory actions, including the potential use of nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear threats.
The strategic messaging behind these doctrinal changes is clear: Russia is willing to escalate the conflict if it perceives that its core national interests are being threatened, particularly by Western-supplied advanced weaponry in Ukrainian hands. The explicit mention of nuclear-armed retaliation in response to attacks on strategic targets within Russia also serves as a warning to NATO. Moscow is effectively drawing a red line, stating that any attempt to strike critical military or infrastructure targets on Russian soil will be viewed as an escalation to a direct conflict with NATO. This rhetoric is intended to deter Western countries from providing Ukraine with the capabilities to strike deep into Russian territory, while also raising the level of uncertainty and fear within NATO about the potential consequences of continued military support for Ukraine.
The implications for NATO and European security are profound. Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine reaffirms the need for enhanced missile defense systems, particularly for countries on NATO’s eastern flank, such as Poland and the Baltic states. These countries are acutely aware of the threat posed by Russian missile systems and have been vocal advocates for a strengthened NATO presence in the region. The revised doctrine also underscores the importance of maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent in Europe, whether through the U.S. nuclear umbrella or the independent nuclear capabilities of France and the United Kingdom. The potential extension of the nuclear umbrella over Eastern Europe has gained renewed importance, as Russia’s actions have highlighted the risks faced by countries that are geographically close to the conflict.
Meeting of European Leaders: Building a Unified Security Strategy
In response to the escalating threat posed by Russia, the foreign ministers of Poland, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom met on November 19, 2024, at the Palace on the Isle in Warsaw’s Royal Łazienki Park. The meeting, which took place on the symbolic 1,000th day of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, was a critical moment for European diplomacy, aimed at demonstrating solidarity with Ukraine and formulating a unified response to the growing security challenges.
The key topics discussed at the meeting included the future of transatlantic relations, the need to build a strong and resilient Europe, continued support for Ukraine, and the European prospects of Moldova and Georgia. These discussions were held against the backdrop of the recent U.S. presidential elections, which resulted in the election of Donald Trump. The incoming U.S. president has signaled a potential shift in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, including the possibility of reducing arms supplies. This has raised concerns among European leaders about the sustainability of Western support for Ukraine and the need for Europe to take greater responsibility for its own security.
Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski emphasized that Europe must be prepared to shoulder a greater share of the security burden, particularly in light of the evolving geopolitical context. Sikorski’s call for a unified European strategy reflects a growing recognition among EU member states that the continent cannot rely solely on the United States for its security. The presence of Kaja Kallas, the former Estonian Prime Minister and future head of EU diplomacy, was also notable, as she has been a strong advocate for increasing European support for Ukraine. Kallas and Sikorski discussed the possibility of ramping up EU military aid to Kyiv, particularly in the context of the U.S. president-elect’s statements about limiting future arms transfers.
The discussions in Warsaw underscored the importance of maintaining a strong transatlantic partnership, despite the potential policy shifts in Washington. European leaders are acutely aware that the security of the continent is closely linked to the strength of the transatlantic alliance, particularly in the face of an increasingly assertive Russia. The meeting also highlighted the need for Europe to build its own defense capabilities, including through increased defense spending, the development of joint military projects, and the enhancement of strategic autonomy. These efforts are seen as essential for ensuring that Europe can respond effectively to future crises, whether they involve direct threats from Russia or other emerging security challenges.
The meeting also addressed the European prospects of Moldova and Georgia, two countries that have been significantly affected by the conflict in Ukraine and are seeking closer ties with the European Union. The inclusion of Moldova and Georgia in the discussions reflects the EU’s broader strategy of supporting countries on its eastern periphery that are vulnerable to Russian influence and aggression. Both countries have made significant strides towards aligning themselves with European norms and values, but they face ongoing challenges, including political instability and the threat of Russian interference. By including Moldova and Georgia in the talks, European leaders signaled their commitment to supporting these countries on their path towards greater integration with the EU, despite the challenges posed by the ongoing conflict.
The symbolic choice of holding the meeting on the 1,000th day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was intended to send a strong message of solidarity with the Ukrainian people. It underscored the shared commitment of European nations to supporting Ukraine in its struggle against Russian aggression and highlighted the need for a coordinated and sustained effort to provide military, economic, and political support. The meeting also served as a reminder of the high stakes involved in the conflict and the need for European unity in the face of a common threat.
Finland’s Strategic Shift: ICEYE and the F-35 Offset Program
In addition to the developments in Ukraine and the evolving European security landscape, Finland has taken significant steps to enhance its own defense capabilities through the F-35 Industrial Participation Program. ICEYE, a Finnish company that is a global leader in Earth observation satellites equipped with Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), is set to lead an industrial consortium that will deliver advanced space and analytical technologies as part of Finland’s F-35 offset program. This initiative underscores Finland’s commitment to developing cutting-edge technologies that enhance its Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, which are critical for maintaining situational awareness and ensuring national security in a rapidly changing threat environment.
The consortium, led by ICEYE, includes several other leading Finnish companies, such as Insta, Huld, DA-Group, and the Finnish Meteorological Institute. Together, they will collaborate with Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the F-35, to develop advanced space technologies and ISR capabilities for the Finnish Defence Forces. The partnership aims to deliver groundbreaking advancements, including AI-driven analytics, mobile ISR reconnaissance stations, advanced data analysis, and high-quality SAR imaging. These capabilities will enhance Finland’s ability to monitor its airspace, maritime borders, and land territory, particularly in the challenging Arctic environment, where traditional surveillance systems are often less effective.
The use of SAR technology is particularly valuable in the Arctic, where harsh weather conditions and long periods of darkness can make it difficult to obtain reliable intelligence using traditional optical satellite systems. SAR satellites, which can operate effectively in all weather conditions and at any time of day or night, provide a critical capability for monitoring activities in the region. This is especially important for Finland, given its geographic location on NATO’s northern flank and its proximity to Russia. The ability to gather high-quality, real-time intelligence is essential for maintaining a credible deterrent and ensuring the security of Finland and its NATO allies.
The partnership between ICEYE and Lockheed Martin also represents an important step forward in terms of Finland’s defense industrial base. By participating in the F-35 offset program, Finland is not only acquiring advanced military capabilities but also developing its own defense industry, which will be better equipped to support the Finnish Defence Forces and contribute to NATO’s collective defense. The collaboration between ICEYE and other Finnish companies with Lockheed Martin also opens up opportunities for further development and expanded collaboration with NATO allies and other partner nations, paving the way for consortium members to boost exports and strengthen their position in the global defense market.
The involvement of the Finnish Meteorological Institute in the consortium highlights the dual-use nature of the technologies being developed. While the primary focus of the F-35 offset program is on enhancing military capabilities, many of the technologies involved also have significant civilian applications. For example, advanced SAR imaging can be used for monitoring environmental changes, such as deforestation, ice melt, and natural disasters. This dual-use approach is consistent with Finland’s broader strategy of developing technologies that enhance both national security and societal resilience, particularly in the face of emerging threats such as climate change and hybrid warfare.
The Finnish government’s decision to invest in advanced ISR capabilities through the F-35 offset program is part of a broader strategy to enhance the country’s defense posture in response to the growing threat posed by Russia. Finland’s recent accession to NATO has fundamentally changed the security dynamics in Northern Europe, and the Finnish government is keen to ensure that it is able to contribute effectively to the alliance’s collective defense efforts. The development of advanced ISR capabilities, combined with the acquisition of the F-35, will significantly enhance Finland’s ability to defend its territory and support NATO operations in the region.
Poland’s Support for Ukraine: The Role of the WZT-3 Armored Recovery Vehicle
In another significant development, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence confirmed the commissioning of the Polish-manufactured WZT-3 Armored Recovery Vehicle (ARV) into the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The WZT-3, a specialized vehicle designed for recovering damaged or disabled tanks and other armored vehicles from the battlefield, is a critical asset for maintaining the operational readiness of Ukraine’s armored forces. Until now, the transfer of these vehicles from Poland to Ukraine had not been publicly acknowledged, highlighting the discreet nature of much of the military support that Ukraine has received from its allies.
Poland has been one of Ukraine’s most steadfast supporters since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, providing a wide range of military equipment, often in significant quantities. This support has included main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery, infantry fighting vehicles, and other heavy military equipment, which have played a crucial role in enabling Ukraine to resist the Russian onslaught. The provision of support vehicles such as the WZT-2 and WZT-3 has also been vital, as these vehicles are essential for maintaining the mobility and effectiveness of Ukraine’s armored units on the battlefield.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence’s confirmation of the WZT-3’s deployment comes at a time when Ukraine is preparing for a renewed Russian offensive, with heavy fighting expected in the coming winter months. The ability to recover and repair damaged armored vehicles is a key factor in sustaining Ukraine’s combat capabilities, particularly given the intensity of the fighting and the high rate of equipment attrition. The WZT-3, with its powerful winch and crane, provides Ukrainian forces with the capability to quickly recover and repair damaged tanks, ensuring that they can be returned to the fight as soon as possible.
The discreet nature of Poland’s transfer of the WZT-3 to Ukraine reflects the complex political and security considerations surrounding military aid to Ukraine. While Poland has been willing to provide significant support to Ukraine, it has also been mindful of the potential risks involved, including the possibility of provoking a Russian response. The lack of official announcements regarding the transfer of the WZT-3, as well as other military equipment, suggests that Poland has sought to minimize the visibility of its assistance in order to reduce the risk of escalation.
Despite these concerns, Poland’s support for Ukraine has been unwavering, driven by a recognition of the shared threat posed by Russia and the importance of ensuring that Ukraine is able to defend itself effectively. The provision of the WZT-3 is just one example of the many ways in which Poland has contributed to Ukraine’s defense efforts, often going beyond what other Western countries have been willing to provide. The WZT-3’s deployment is a testament to the close defense relationship between Poland and Ukraine and underscores the critical role that Poland has played in supporting Ukraine’s war effort.
The broader significance of Poland’s support for Ukraine lies in its impact on the overall balance of power in the conflict. By providing Ukraine with the means to maintain and repair its armored forces, Poland has helped to ensure that Ukraine remains capable of conducting offensive operations and defending against Russian attacks. This support has been particularly important during periods when other Western countries were hesitant to provide military aid, or when the supply of critical equipment was delayed. Poland’s willingness to step up and provide the necessary support has made a tangible difference on the battlefield, helping to sustain Ukraine’s resistance and prevent Russian forces from achieving their objectives.
[…] Ukraine Hit by Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile: Escalation in Eastern Europe… […]
[…] Ukraine Hit by Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile: Escalation in Eastern Europe… […]