By Matt Wickham
On November 21, Russia escalated its war in Ukraine by launching a never-before-used ballistic missile, the modified RS-26 Rubezh, signaling a dangerous new phase in the war. Initially, President Zelensky described it as a “new Russian missile” with the “characteristics” of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), but experts later clarified that it was in fact an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). Regardless of the exact classification, most agree that this missile strike was intended to send a message of fear and warning to both Ukraine and the West.
Following the missile’s use, U.S. officials reassured they saw no reason to raise the nuclear threat level, with no signs that the Kremlin is preparing for further escalations. The RS-26, however, will serve not only as a potentially devastating military asset but also as a tool for psychological warfare, fuelling global fear and uncertainty—a tactic the Kremlin has long exploited.
A New Threat
The RS-26, known by various names—including “Oreshnik,” as given by Putin in his post-strike evening address—had largely remained shrouded in secrecy throughout the war. But now it has emerged as a key element in the Kremlin’s escalation policy of blackmailing the West. In his address and again in a meeting with military enterprise leaders, Putin vowed its reuse against Ukraine, effectively turning the country into a testing ground for potential future deployment against Western targets.
“Ukraine as a testing ground” quickly became a narrative embraced by Russian propaganda. Maria Zakharova claimed this was Kyiv’s own undoing, citing Ukraine’s consistent calls for the West to test weapons on its soil to help defend against Russian aggression. She argued that by doing so, Ukraine “jinxed it.”
According to Ukraine’s military intelligence, GUR, the missile’s flight time from Astrakhan to its impact in Ukraine was just 15 minutes. It carried six combat units, each with six sub-munitions, reaching speeds exceeding Mach 11 (~13,500 km/h) during its terminal phase. Measuring 20 meters in length and 2 meters in diameter, it can carry up to 1.2 tonnes of payload with an accuracy of about 100 meters.
Analysts believe it is virtually impossible for Ukraine to intercept it with current systems, including the Patriot, which has been effective against other nuclear-capable missiles like the Kinzhal. U.S.-produced anti-ballistic missile systems like GMD, THAAD, and Aegis Ashore cannot guarantee complete interception—a reality that Putin was quick to highlight. Ukraine is likely to pursue negotiations for stronger defences, but for now, the Oreshnik’s capabilities appear unstoppable.
Psychological Impact: Fear and Manipulation
More impactful, however, is its psychological effect. When videos of the missile striking Dnipro surfaced, they resembled scenes from a disaster movie. Thick clouds heightened the dramatic impact as the missile tore through the sky, creating a monstrous visual effect. Fortunately, the reported damage in Dnipro was minimal, but the psychological toll remains.
The psychological ripple effects are already visible. Western Russian sympathisers have used the strike to renew calls for an end to the war, blaming the Biden administration for “escalation” by supporting Ukraine’s defence.
Meanwhile, those prone to nuclear panic—fuelled by decades of pop culture and misconceptions about the weapon’s use—are reacting exactly as the Kremlin would have hoped, with irrational fear. This fear serves as a political weapon, potentially influencing upcoming European elections, such as in Germany, by pushing voters toward candidates less willing to support Ukraine, and thus, in their mind, less chance for nuclear war.
Propaganda Victory for Russia?
Russian propaganda channels quickly seized on the threat of a missile strike, mocking the panic it caused and downplaying the incident as routine. The propaganda response unfolded in two stages.
In the first phase, as shared by Ukrainian military analyst Oleksandr Kovalenko, some Russian propagandists avoided discussing the (then thought) ICBM strike, perhaps to avoid drawing attention. Others, however, focused heavily on the event, spreading conflicting claims about the missile’s type and its target, sowing confusion.
In the second phase, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova and her theatrical, “unexpected” phone call mid-press-breifing, instructing her not to comment on the “ballistic missile”.
There is no doubt that Zakharova, effectively hired for her theatrics in public presentations and now after decades of propaganda experience, understood that answering a sensitive national security call directly in front of a live microphone—without even attempting to turn it off or step away—would have been recorded. Despite her later claims on Telegram that using her phone in breifings is routine for her, this would be the first time she has ever stopped one to answer a call. As the key spokesperson on foreign policy, she knew exactly what she could and couldn’t comment on before stepping onto the “stage.”
The Kremlin’s media also leaned into familiar themes. Propagandist Yulia Vityazeva resurrected her “No Ukraine, no problem” narrative, asserting that if Ukraine didn’t exist, its citizens wouldn’t need to seek shelter in bunkers. A narrative fuelled by fake reports circulated on Russian channels, claiming that bunkers were either closed or full—aimed at deepening panic felt in the capital.
Another, to undermine the legitimacy of Ukraine’s leadership by suggesting that Zelensky and parliamentarians prioritised their own safety over the welfare of ordinary Ukrainians. This narrative gained traction after U.S. intelligence reports hinted at a possible strike on Ukrainian government quarters, specifically parliament, on November 22. Ukrainian parliamentary sessions were subsequently cancelled under safety concerns.
Sergey Markov, a Russian propagandist, pushed this narrative, stating, “And they don’t just don’t care about the ordinary people of Kyiv. On the contrary, Zelensky is interested in having as many Kyiv citizens killed as possible.” While this narrative is absurd, it taps into existing mistrust of politicians, particularly in Ukraine, where public confidence in the government has been strained by years of political volatility.
However, Markov’s attack quickly lost credibility (if they ever had any). It was later revealed that President Zelensky had strongly opposed a parliamentary “holiday” out of caution for a missile attack 1,003 days into the war—completely undermining Markov’s narrative and rendering his criticism of Zelensky null and void.
The West’s Response: A Fine Line Between Survival and Victory
The strike highlights the dangerous phase we’ve entered. Some critics argue that Biden’s strategy of managing escalation has been too cautious, emboldening Russia. However, the alternative—direct confrontation—could have, according to the White House’s intelligence apparatus, triggered a nuclear war much earlier.
By carefully navigating the Kremlin’s narrative, the U.S. has helped Ukraine survive nearly three years of a war that was never in its favour, continuing its strategy of containment and incrementally providing Ukraine with what it needs for its defence. What’s more, it’s important to remember that the West has never promised Ukraine’s victory, but rather its survival—and in doing so, the survival of both the West and humanity.
Essentially, the West is managing the threat to both Ukraine and itself. But the White House knows that after giving Ukraine the green light to strike Russian territory, it cannot back down without showing weakness, which would allow Russia to continue its bloody path of territorial expansion.
Putin’s Dangerous Gamble: A Step Too Far?
For Russia, the strike serves several purposes. It appeases domestic propaganda after months of calls for a stronger response from Putin, as his flexible red lines have caused the propaganda apparatus quite the embarrassment. The strike also creates panic abroad, reinforcing Russia’s policy of deterrence through fear and nuclear sabre-rattling.
It’s clear that fear among Ukrainians has risen again, as people are now again taking air raids seriously—despite them being a part of everyday life for almost 1,000 days. Yet, despite the threats of unprecedented missile strikes in the heart of Kyiv, people continue to carry on with their daily lives, going to work and facing the threat head-on.
While the escalation is serious, it is unlikely to provoke immediate escalation action from Russia. For now, the missile appears to be used primarily as a tool of psychological warfare—a strategy underscored by Putin’s routine public meeting with military-industrial leaders the day after his blackmail address, a familiar Kremlin pattern.
However, more nationwide missile strikes are expected, particularly as winter sets in. Unlike drones, which have increased in frequency over the past months, missile capabilities remain largely unaffected by the seasonal shift now seen in the country.
Russia has placed itself in a precarious position. For the sake of global safety and ensuring nuclear weapons remain solely a deterrent, the West, particularly NATO, must intervene, and Russia’s escalations must be met with a response. Perhaps Putin has inadvertently nudged the West into changing its incremental approach. Could this strike be the fateful miscalculation that pushes the Kremlin beyond the point of no return—one that could irreparably alter the course of this war and reshape the global balance of power in Ukraine’s favour?