Ballistic Bluster: Russia’s Calculated Message to the West

Russia wants us to believe that the news over the last 24 hours is ominous and a harbinger of war.

If you haven’t been following, Russia has launched a conventionally armed intermediate-range ballistic missile at Ukraine. Likely an RS-26 Rubezh (or a derivative), it is fairly run-of-the-mill as far as Russian missiles are concerned and apparently dispatched six (or so) re-entry vehicles over Ukrainian territory. Damage is said to be minimal.

This was certainly messaging aimed at the Biden administration after it authorized limited use of long-range weapons in the Kursk region. Even more likely, the missile launch is aimed at supporting Trump’s assertion that ongoing support for Ukraine is bringing the world to the brink of war. Traditional “peace” movements will be mobilized, and U.S. isolationism will be further encouraged.

That is what Russia wants. The reality is quite different.

• Reuters is reporting that Russia warned the U.S. of the launch in advance, following nuclear de-escalation protocols, and that the U.S. warned Ukraine and its neighbours.

• The West keeps an exceedingly close watch on Russian nuclear capabilities. In this case, no movement of warheads from Russian storage facilities was observed. Such movement is typically detected 24 to 48 hours beforehand.

• A ballistic missile is a very inefficient way of conducting a conventional attack. The re-entry vehicles (RVs) are essentially unguided after entering the atmosphere. The estimated circular error probable (CEP) is 50 metres—adequate for a nuclear weapon, but essentially useless for a conventional warhead. The RVs are essentially poorly designed submunitions.

• There is no indication that any other Russian nuclear forces have changed their alert posture.

The Biden administration has already responded, stating that the missile launch will not change their position on supporting Ukraine or on their authorization of longer-range deep-strike weapons. Russia should have anticipated this, and I surmise that the message was aimed more at Trump and his minions. After all, Trump has been stating for months that support for Ukraine risks a wider conflict, which—coincidentally—is exactly Moscow’s position. An IRBM strike plays into this narrative almost perfectly, and I would not be surprised to see another launch as 20 January approaches or soon after Trump’s inauguration.

The only solution for the West, of course, is not to cave to what is essentially blackmail. I believe Western Europe has the fortitude to maintain the course, as does the Biden administration. I have no faith—none—that Trump, with his strange affinity for Putin, will have the same desire to support a democratic Ukraine.

* Thanks to John Ridge (@John_A_Ridge on Twitter) for the technical detail.