Putin's threats to Europe
The messages in Russia's use of an IRBM on Dnipropetrovsk.
Commercial Summary: In response to the US and UK allowing Ukraine to target Russian territory with their weapons, Russia has given itself the legal right to attack any NATO country, including with nuclear weapons, and to attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons. It demonstrated a missile which it claims is uninterceptable on 21 November. These steps are also intended to pre-empt Trump’s likely brinkmanship while accepting the risk of greater escalation. Russia is likely to use sabotage operations across NATO countries, including by backing protest groups.
In response to the US and UK authorising the use of their weapons on Russian territory, on 21 November, Russia conducted a missile strike on Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk using a nuclear-capable hypersonic intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) called Oreshnik (Hazel). The missile has six Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) that travel at Mach 10.
Russia informed the US thirty minutes before the strike to ensure that the US did not think this was a nuclear strike directed at a NATO ally. NATO surveillance would have detected the launch, but not whether the weapon was nuclear armed and not its target.
The strike sends several messages:
It shows that Russian hypersonics cannot be intercepted. THAAD, the most advanced American missile defence system, has a maximum speed of Mach 8.2, and is unlikely to intercept a much faster missile.
It signals to the US that, in an extreme scenario where the two sides fight a limited nuclear war, Russia can mirror the US’ strategy: Just as the US, by supplying weapons, is turning Ukraine into scorched earth before Russia takes it, Russia, through direct attacks, can turn Europe into scorched earth before the US takes it. (A war between the US and Russia on European soil used to be the European nightmare scenario, but that was when Europe had astute and capable leadership).
It shows that Russia can land a nuclear strike in Ukraine at will. Sending more Western weapons is therefore pointless, as, even if initially successful, Russia will retain escalation dominance.
Russia has warned that it would target the military bases of countries that provide Ukraine with weapons that are used against its territory. It changed its nuclear doctrine to, in effect, consider all NATO members responsible for attacks by Ukraine that are backed by nuclear powers in NATO (US, UK and France).
The change also impacts Ukraine, in that it says that if a state backed by a nuclear power attacks Russian territory (which, to the Russians, includes recently annexed Ukrainian territories), that would be considered an attack by a nuclear state, and therefore the use of nuclear weapons would be permitted.
Russia under Putin is extremely legalistic. It sets out in legislation what it intends to do, to the extent that the Russian assassinations on foreign soil were preceded by a change in law authorising the assassinations. As such, the change in doctrine is a strong indicator of intent.
Outlook
Russia has given itself the legal right to attack NATO countries, including with nuclear weapons. It intends this as a signal and a credible threat.
Russia likely expects Trump to engage in brinksmanship, and is mirroring his strategy pre-emptively, hoping to limit his escalatory options while accepting a greater risk of miscalculation. Trump likes to negotiate by starting off with a very hard position. Russia is pre-empting that.
Trump will not be able to use the tactics he used successfully on North Korea, and, less successfully, on Iran, against Russia. The Russians demand a steep price for de-escalation, including all of Ukraine and concessions in the Caucasus, the Balkans and the Middle East. Trump likely lacks the political capital to deliver that. He can, however, manage the escalation and reduce it if he so wished, especially in Ukraine.
Russia is very likely to use asymmetric attacks against Britain, Germany, the Baltic states and others, including:
Sponsorship for groups like Palestine Action, Just Stop Oil, Stop the War and others in Britain. In Britain, these groups have disrupted Elbit Systems and the production of parts for the F-35.
Industrial sabotage targeting energy, weapons manufacturing, and industrial production, using either such groups, cyber attacks, or Russian assets.
Russia is almost certainly willing to finance parties that prefer peace in Ukraine. However, the popularity of such parties is to be blamed on European policies, not Russian disinformation.
Russia is very unlikely to even attempt “disinformation campaigns” against Britain. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s policies are so dystopian that they leave very little for Russians to do, other than report on them accurately.
Similarly, European countries that are embracing mass migration and Net Zero do not need the Russians to destabilise their governments with disinformation campaigns that favour parties the establishment considers far-right. The costs of Net Zero, an expansive welfare state and mass migration speak for themselves.