The New York Times was quite alarmed at Russia’s use of its new Oreshnik IRBM against Ukraine on Nov. 21. “Russia’s military fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile at Ukraine that Western officials and analysts said was meant to instill fear in Kyiv and the West,” the Times said in an article co-authored by five reporters. “Though the missile carried only conventional warheads, using it signaled that Russia could strike with nuclear weapons if it chooses.”
The Times continued: “The use of an intermediate-range missile drawn from Russia’s strategic arsenal was notable, Ukrainian and Western officials said. The target inside Ukraine was well within the range of the conventional weapons that Moscow has routinely used throughout the war. But this time, Russia launched a longer-range missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads that is mainly intended as nuclear deterrence; that choice, the officials and military analysts said, signals a warning aimed at striking fear into Kyiv and its allies.”
The Times quoted Fabian René Hoffmann, a weapons expert at the University of Oslo, saying that from a Russian perspective, “what they would like to tell us today is that ‘Look, last night’s strike was non-nuclear in payload, but, you know, if whatever you do continues, the next strike might be with a nuclear warhead.’”