 "How a ‘missile war’ will land Ukraine in greater mess")
US President Joe Biden’s recent authorisation for Ukraine to employ American long-range missiles in strikes deeper into Russian territory has sparked a significant escalation in missile war. It comes at a time when Ukraine is fast losing the captured territory in Kursk at a rapid rate, with Vladimir Putin’s assurance of recapturing all of it by January 2025 placing Ukraine on the back foot.
This decision not only empowers Ukraine to target Russian forces but also to address the presence of newly deployed North Korean troops, signalling a shift in strategic priorities. While this policy bolsters Ukraine’s military efforts and injects a renewed sense of determination into its defence, it has also intensified the risks of widening the conflict and provoking a heightened response from Moscow.
The Western Trigger
On November 18, Ukrainian forces launched a series of attacks deep into Russian-held areas using ATACMS, striking logistics hubs and airbases critical to Russia’s operations. These strikes were followed by further escalations using British-made Storm Shadow cruise missiles and US-provided HIMARS systems, demonstrating Kyiv’s growing capability to disrupt Russia’s war machine. The ATACMS, a highly precise tactical missile system, allows Ukraine to target key Russian military infrastructure with greater range and effectiveness. This decision broke earlier restraints, where Western allies limited Ukraine’s use of advanced weaponry within its borders to avoid escalating tensions with Russia.
Russian Response
Russia’s response to these developments came in the form of an experimental intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) launch targeting the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. While not armed with a nuclear warhead, the missile carried a multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV) payload, a technology designed for nuclear applications. This deployment signals Moscow’s willingness to escalate in response to what it perceives as Western provocations. The Russian president said the US was pushing the world towards a global conflict. “And in case of escalation of aggressive actions, we will also respond decisively and in a mirror manner," he added.
By firing an IRBM, Moscow intended to send multiple messages. To NATO and the US, it is a strategic warning that continued Western support for Ukraine could trigger consequences of a magnitude unseen in recent decades. To Ukraine, it signifies power asymmetry and superior firepower that underscores the risks of continuing its strikes on Russian territory.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsRussian President Vladimir Putin justified the launch as a “response to US plans to produce and deploy intermediate and short-range missiles”. He further argued that Western nations’ decision to enable Ukraine’s strikes on Russian soil crossed a red line, necessitating decisive countermeasures. This action underscores a dangerous dynamic: every escalation by one side provokes a next-level escalatory response from the other, creating an environment ripe for miscalculation. The levers of controlled escalation could go out of control, resulting in unparalleled devastation and loss of life.
The IRBM and its Capabilities
Ballistic missiles are categorized based on their range and strategic role, with IRBMs typically having a reach of 3,500–5,500 kilometres. While traditionally associated with nuclear deterrence, their deployment in conventional conflicts represents a significant departure from historical norms. It also signals a stage before nuclear arming.
The missile was launched from Astrakhan Oblast and travelled 1500 km in 15 minutes with a final trajectory speed of 11 Mach. The missile was equipped with six warheads each carrying six submunitions. Oreshnik is a modified version of the RS-26 Rubezh IRBM. Russian sources denied that this is a strategic weapon, although the missile can be armed with nuclear warheads. The missile fired by Russia reportedly carried a MIRV payload, a technology associated exclusively with nuclear-capable systems. This innovation allows a single missile to target multiple locations independently, amplifying its destructive potential.
Given that Ukraine enjoys no strategic deterrence and lies exposed to Russia’s nukes, it has a major moral and psychological dislocation impact on Ukraine with Russia announcing its reviewed nuclear doctrine aimed at the West, abating Ukraine strikes crossing red lines. It also sends a strategic message to NATO.
Broader Implications
The US decision to permit ATACMS strikes within Russia raises questions about the limits of Western involvement. This move reflects Washington’s commitment to ensuring Kyiv’s ability to defend itself and disrupt Russian operations. However, it also escalates the conflict by directly involving the West in enabling attacks on Russian soil—a threshold previously avoided to limit escalation. This also indicated the frustrations of the Joe Biden administration and Ukraine, a puppet once again biting the bait only to face greater brunt as a devastated nation.
The IRBM launch may not be the last escalation as Moscow seeks to demonstrate that strikes on its territory will not go unanswered. Further, the expansion of Western support could harden Russia’s stance, making negotiations less likely.
The IRBM’s demonstrated range and advanced capabilities pose a direct challenge to NATO’s strategic posture. Countries like Poland and the Baltic states, already under threat from Russian aggression, may push for more robust missile defence systems and U.S. troop deployments. However, these moves could deepen tensions and increase the likelihood of a broader conflict.
The combination of Russia deploying IRBMs and Ukraine utilizing Western tactical missile systems sets a precedent for the use of advanced weaponry in regional conflicts. This could spark a new arms race as other nations seek to develop or acquire similar capabilities. The IRBM launch further undermines global arms control efforts. With the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty defunct, both the US and Russia are now free to develop and deploy intermediate-range systems. This risks a return to the Cold War-era arms race, with catastrophic consequences for global stability.
Further, by deploying a nuclear-capable IRBM in a conventional conflict, Russia has blurred the lines between conventional and nuclear warfare. This raises concerns about the erosion of nuclear deterrence, as adversaries may not be able to discern whether such weapons are armed with conventional or nuclear warheads. It could lead to the deployment of nuclear-capable systems in regional conflicts, raising the spectre of a nuclear arms race in volatile regions such as the Middle East and South Asia.
Prognosis
The cycle of escalation between Russia and Ukraine is likely to continue to spike. As Kyiv expands its offensive capabilities with Western support, Moscow resorts to increasingly destructive responses, including more widespread use of advanced missile systems. The spiral risks miscalculations.
NATO will now need to balance its support for Ukraine with countermeasures against Russian response. This could involve strengthening missile defence systems in Eastern Europe, providing Ukraine with additional air defence capabilities to counter Russian missile strikes. It becomes clear that the US-led West and its dominant arms industry have no sincere intentions for conflict resolution or diplomacy.
If Russia perceives its strategic interests as increasingly threatened, it may escalate its actions not just in Ukraine but also in other theatres, such as the Arctic or the South Caucasus. This could strain NATO resources and force Western allies to reassess their global commitments. Further along with Iran, which also has a common denominator in terms of the US, the war in the Middle East could also escalate. Be it through non-state actors or direct strikes.
The US’ involvement in Ukraine is also being closely watched by China. A prolonged conflict could divert US attention and resources from the Indo-Pacific, potentially emboldening Beijing to take assertive actions in the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait. It suits China and strengthens the anti-US coalition of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.
As the conflict escalates, its economic impact is likely to grow. Energy prices, already volatile due to sanctions on Russia, could spike further if critical infrastructure is targeted. This would exacerbate inflationary pressures and economic instability worldwide.
The conflict has already showcased cutting-edge military technologies, from hypersonic missiles to drones. The deployment of the IRBM adds another layer to this trend, emphasising the growing role of advanced weaponry in modern warfare. This technological race could redefine military doctrines and lead to the development of increasingly sophisticated—and potentially destabilising—capabilities.
Conclusion
Russia’s use of an IRBM in Ukraine and the US’ decision to permit ATACMS strikes on Russian soil represent two sides of a dangerous escalation dynamic. These developments risk transforming the Ukraine war into a broader conflict with devastating consequences for global stability. The peace efforts have become both complex and bleak.
With Donald Trump poised to assume the US presidency, his administration’s approach to the Ukraine conflict will be both tricky and critical. Trump has previously expressed scepticism about extensive Washington support for Kyiv, raising the possibility of a policy shift that could embolden Moscow. A perceived withdrawal of US commitment to Ukraine might weaken NATO unity and embolden other adversaries such as China. An escalation will result in greater direct involvement. Indeed, Biden leaves with a greater mess in Ukraine and for Ukraine.
The author is former Director General, Mechanised Forces. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
