INTERVIEW. War in Ukraine: with this intercontinental missile launch, Russia wants to “hysterize the war scene” with “another nuclear threat”

This intercontinental missile launch from Moscow is a first. Why is he intervening now after three years of conflict? Is it significant?

It’s a bit of a storm in a teacup. Russia has long used so-called “dual” weapons which can carry nuclear warheads. The fact that this is an intercontinental missile, therefore with a greater range, is of no particular interest. It doesn’t change the effect of the missile so it’s no more worrying than when the Russians use smaller missiles. It simply means that they are ready to use munitions worth tens of millions of euros to strike Ukraine.

Also read:
War in Ukraine: what is this RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental missile that kyiv accuses Russia of having used for the first time?

Normally, an intercontinental missile is used to strike over a long range. But in terms of effect, it’s roughly equivalent to firing six cruise missiles. On the other hand, ICBMs are more difficult to intercept. Only Patriot defense systems could be capable of this and even then…

How to interpret this Russian action? Is this a new escalation?

I don’t think this marks a turning point in this war. On the other hand, it is quite crazy for the Russians to use such sophisticated and complex missiles, normally designed for nuclear strikes, to hit logistical targets. I think there is a desire to make the war scene a little hysterical. We have this acceleration of the conflict ahead of the negotiations which should start on January 20 with the arrival of Donald Trump, who has shown his desire to stop the fighting. So the two co-belligerents are accelerating the war to demonstrate a position of strength before these negotiations. Joe Biden’s authorization to strike Russian soil with long-range missiles has the same objective.

Also read:
DIRECT. War in Ukraine: Russia fired ‘experimental medium-range’ missile at Ukraine, US says

The Ukrainians are trying to make the situation more dramatic than ever in order to lead to negotiations that are less unfavorable to them. On the other hand, Moscow hopes to dissuade kyiv from firing long-range missiles, ATACMS and Storm Shadow, because it hurts them. Although it will not turn the tide of the war, these munitions allow the Ukrainian army to target logistical zones and important command centers of the Russian army which, until now, were considered out of range. This will slow down a Russian army which is already not in good condition, even if the kyiv forces are not in good condition either.

Also read:
War in Ukraine: missiles, anti-personnel mines, atomic weapons… the inevitable escalation between Ukraine and Russia?

Is this a serious threat from Moscow? To whom? Should we fear a crossing of the red line with a nuclear threat?

Once again, the Russians are trying to hysterize the debate, so they are still raising this nuclear threat. Putin has accustomed us to playing on our fears. Since the start of the war, he has spoken about the nuclear threat approximately 110 times. In reality, we do not wage war with these weapons which rather signify the end. These are weapons of mass destruction, not confrontation. They were only used once by the Americans during World War II.

The Russians hold this language for us. Even the use of ATACMS missiles to target Russian territory could not justify such a response. The smallest nuclear warhead is equivalent to 20,000 times the power of an ATACMS missile.

Also read:
INTERVIEW. War in Ukraine: for Vladimir Putin, is the nuclear bomb an “instrument of bluff”?

And if it came to fruition, which I don’t think it would, we would have an alert from the United States, which is monitoring all of this very closely. Furthermore, China warned Russia that this would be unacceptable. And we would inevitably have a response from NATO, with conventional weapons, of course, but which would sign the death warrant of the Russian army in Ukraine.