Motives behind Russia's attack on Ukraine with ballistic missiles

In a televised address on November 21st following the attack targeting the city of Dnepros, Putin said the attack was part of Moscow's response to Ukrainian attacks on US missiles, ATACMS and British, Storm Shadow, after reporting that these countries have given Kiev permission to use these systems to hit Russian territory. Putin added that Russia has the right to target military targets in states that have allowed Kiev to use their weapons for attacks within Russia.

In February, this was a political attack, not a military attack”, wrote on X, Mick Ryan, retired Australian Army General, who is now a senior researcher at the Lawy Institute with headquarters in Sydney.

The ballistic missile attack was part of a broader attack on Dnipros, where Ukrainian authorities said three people were injured. They said the attack damaged an industrial object and a rehabilitation centre for disabled persons, with broken windows, collapsed ceilings, and debris scattered around the floor, according to photographs.

Fabian Hoffman, a defence and research expert at Oslo University, told Kyiv Independent that the “attack has no military value, is entirely for political purposes”.

In this article, you can learn what Putin tried to accomplish with this attack:

<x0)

Since Putin ordered the launch of Ukraine's invasion in February 2022, he and other Russian officials, and state-controlled media, have repeatedly made threats to possible conduct of a nuclear attack, in an effort to intimidate the West and curb the US and Europe to send weapons to Kiev.

In fact, this nuclear threat has been so frequent that Russia may be losing its threat: The Kremlin may be concerned that this is seen as allowing the violation of <x0-lines without consequences.

Putin “could perceive that the mention he makes to nuclear weapons, having mentioned them so often, has reduced the value of conveying his message that he sees as NATO's intervention in his genocide war”, Ryan wrote. “He needed another signal for Washington and chose to do it with another”.

Putin has often established the possibility of a nuclear attack long before the start of Ukraine's conquest. But there are many reasons for Russia to avoid using its nuclear arsenal, including its question on its effectiveness against Ukraine and the consequences Moscow may face from the countries of the world, including from China, India and South Global states.

Without “

However, nuclear threats were not lacking: In his address, Putin said that the rocket he called Orshenik and Petagon said was based on the existing RS-26 model or on that Rubez “here stood a non-substanti burden.

It's a kind of signal you're engaged in when you can't scale the situation in the way you've threatened to scale”, wrote on November 21, Ruth Deyermond, legalist at the Department of War Studies at London Royal College.

Like earlier words and actions, including the warning this month of a change in Russian nuclear doctrine apparently aimed at granting Putin freedom to use nuclear weapons if he decides to use it, even the latest attack said little about Russia's current intentions.

“Both the attack on the Orshenik ballistic missile and Putin's statement on November 21st do not present a major change in Russian offensive capabilities or in the possibility of using nuclear weapons”, the Washington Institute for War Research wrote on X.

Biden, Trump, Ukraine, and Europe

With US President Joe Biden standing at the White House less than two months before President-elect Donald Trump takes over the presidency, Putin can hope that the <x0->the investigation of the rocket”, as he said, could do a two-work course: warn Biden against major moves towards strengthening Kiev and encourage the ongoing Trump, whose claims he will soon end the war have raised hope for a peace effort and for the US to restrain Ukraine.

While the US may be the main target of Russia's message, the attack may have been intended to sense fear in Europe and increase concern on the continent at a time when the new Trump administration has raised questions not only about the US level of support for Ukraine, but also about its NATO and solidarity with the European Union.

Putin “is not sending a message to Washington alone. He has used a weapon with a range of over 5,000 miles [5,000 km], which can be used against any target in Europe and the United Kingdom”, Ryan wrote. “This is a message to Europe, not only for its support for Ukraine but also for Russia's capacity and the will to influence policies that are related to defence and security well beyond Ukraine”. / REL

Share Now