NGRNValerii Khardin, NGRN Intern
Russia has repeatedly proven that its primary strategy is terror and destruction. In its war against Ukraine, the Kremlin has continuously deployed new types of weaponry in an attempt to intimidate the civilian population and achieve its imperialist goals, which lost any connection to reality long ago. Over the past three years, Moscow has resorted to using nearly its entire military arsenal in a desperate bid to maintain the illusion of being the “second strongest army in the world,” with the sole exception of its strategic intercontinental missiles.
However, after Ukraine’s successful use of American ATACMS ballistic missiles against Russian territory, Moscow, in an attempt to create the illusion of a response, resorted to deploying experimental weaponry. Thus, on November 21, 2024, the city of Dnipro was struck by an “Oreshnik” missile. While the effectiveness of this type of missile still requires assessment, its very use indicates Russia’s determination to maintain the initiative in high-tech warfare and uphold its dominant position in the missile-drone battle. For Ukraine, this escalation poses an extreme danger, as the country has effectively become a testing ground for weapons that have never been used anywhere else in the world. Moreover, this type of weaponry is extremely difficult to intercept, and with the means currently available to Kyiv, practically impossible to counter.
“Oreshnik” – A New Threat or an Illusion of Power?
According to Russian media and public statements by the President of Russia, the “Oreshnik” is a medium-range ballistic missile capable of attacking targets at a speed of Mach 10 (2.5–3 km per second), making it nearly impossible for modern air defense and missile defense systems to intercept. It is also equipped with a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) containing several thermonuclear warheads, each with a yield of 150 kilotons, which significantly complicates interception once the kinetic projectiles are deployed. One of the missile’s main features is its range, which allows it to reach targets in Warsaw, Berlin, Paris, and other major European cities within 20 minutes. This became particularly relevant after joint public statements by the unrecognized President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, and Vladimir Putin about the possible deployment of these missile systems in Belarus, which would significantly extend the missile’s operational reach.
However, the situation is not as promising for Russia as it may initially appear. Most Western analytical centers claim that “Oreshnik” is not a groundbreaking development but rather a modified version of the RS-26 “Rubezh” missile, adapted to contemporary needs and conditions. As a result, Russian sources struggle to explain Ukrainian assessments regarding the “Oreshnik’s” flight duration from Kapustin Yar, as the missile launched by Russia at Dnipro on November 21 took approximately 15 minutes to reach its target—a duration equivalent to the reported flight time to the U.S. Ramstein base, despite the significantly greater distance. The only plausible explanation is an inefficient, excessively high-altitude trajectory, which may have been necessary to strike a target in the missile’s “blind zone” (a distance shorter than its minimum operational range) when launched from Kapustin Yar. The distance to the city was approximately 800 kilometers, whereas the minimum range of its likely prototype, the RS-26, is 2,000 kilometers. This inefficient trajectory also affects accuracy, meaning that “Oreshnik” is currently incapable of effectively targeting compact Ukrainian military facilities.
Additionally, during one of his press conferences, Vladimir Putin responded to a question about “Oreshnik” by stating: “Different targets at different distances require different types of missiles or different warhead configurations. This necessitates additional engineering work.” This suggests that to strike a specific target, specialized warheads must be prepared, while a long-range missile must be capable of engaging targets at various distances to remain effective. The need to modify warheads for each strike raises doubts about the overall efficiency of these missiles and resembles the South Korean “single-use missile syndrome,” where each new missile is manufactured in limited numbers and tested only once or twice in combat. Doubts also arise regarding the number of “Oreshnik” missiles available to Russia, as only one confirmed operational launch has been recorded so far. Given the high production costs and lengthy preparation time for an attack, it is reasonable to assume that the Kremlin possesses only a handful of these systems. The prospects for mass production remain uncertain. On November 28, the Russian President announced that serial production had commenced immediately after the missile’s successful deployment. However, just two weeks later, during his December 16 press conference, he only mentioned plans to begin production “in the near future.” Western sanctions further complicate Moscow’s access to critical high-tech components. Thus, “Oreshnik” currently serves more as an intimidation factor or a demonstration of power aimed at preserving Russia’s image as a “mighty military state,” a status once held by the Soviet Union.
Nonetheless, Russia’s use of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) plays a significant role in the current stage of the Russo-Ukrainian war, as intercepting such a missile under present conditions is nearly impossible for Ukraine, regardless of whether it is a new model or merely a modernization of Soviet-era intercontinental weaponry. The “Oreshnik” itself has immense destructive potential and an unpredictable trajectory, posing a direct threat to all military installations within Ukraine, as well as to the civilian population, which remains vulnerable to Russian terrorist attacks.
Despite Russian media claims that intercepting such a missile is impossible, defense systems capable of countering it have long been developed. The most advanced American surface-to-air missile and missile defense systems, operated by experienced Ukrainian forces with extensive air defense expertise, can dismantle the myth of the invulnerability of Russia’s intercontinental missile arsenal—just as they previously debunked the supposed invincibility of the Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” aeroballistic missile using the American MIM-104 Patriot system.
Which Air Defense System Could Be the Key to Victory in the Battle Against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles?
Ukraine’s air defense system has repeatedly demonstrated its effectiveness by intercepting both cruise and ballistic missiles. However, countering ICBMs presents a far greater challenge. As previously mentioned, the primary difficulties lie in their speed, unpredictable trajectory, and maneuverability. Currently, no air defense system available to Kyiv is capable of protecting the country against such threats. ICBMs must be intercepted in space—before the warheads separate and descend at hypersonic speeds. Even the American MIM-104 Patriot system is incapable of fulfilling this task.
The best available option for Ukraine today is the American THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system, specifically designed to intercept ballistic missiles at altitudes of up to 250 kilometers. It employs a hit-to-kill method, destroying targets through direct impact rather than using explosive warheads. This system could help Ukraine intercept the “Oreshnik” or any other intermediate-range ballistic missile while it is still over Russian territory, where its speed is relatively lower. This would prevent the warheads from separating, making them far easier to neutralize. Moreover, THAAD integrates seamlessly into the broader American missile defense system and can work in conjunction with the MIM-104 Patriot, which is already deployed in Ukraine. This would reinforce Ukraine’s multi-layered air defense, with the Patriot handling lower-altitude interceptions while THAAD neutralizes threats at longer ranges.
However, there are significant challenges. The THAAD system is extremely expensive, with a price tag of nearly $3 billion, and only about ten batteries exist worldwide.
Another system capable of defending Ukrainian airspace is AEGIS—one of the most advanced multifunctional missile defense systems, designed to intercept threats at various distances and phases of flight. A key component of AEGIS is the AN/SPY-1 radar, capable of tracking up to 2,000 targets simultaneously at distances of up to 500 kilometers, including high-speed ballistic missiles. The system processes vast amounts of data in real time, accurately assessing threats over great distances. When paired with SM-3 (Standard Missile 3) interceptors, which destroy ballistic missiles at altitudes exceeding 150 kilometers, AEGIS provides multi-phase protection against intercontinental threats.
A major advantage of AEGIS is its mobility compared to THAAD, making it more suitable for Ukraine’s current conditions, where Russian forces continuously attempt to locate and destroy Ukrainian air defense assets. AEGIS can also integrate with Ukraine’s existing systems, such as Patriot and SAMP/T, to create a comprehensive defense network capable of neutralizing threats at various altitudes and distances.
Israeli air defense systems could also play a crucial role. Notably, David’s Sling and Arrow are designed to intercept enemy missiles at ranges of 300 and 2,000 kilometers, respectively.
The Arrow 3 system is a high-tech Israeli missile defense system specifically developed to counter long-range ballistic missiles, including ICBMs. It serves as an excellent example of a system capable of destroying threats before they re-enter the atmosphere, making it highly effective against the “Oreshnik.” A key component is the Green Pine radar, which can detect targets thousands of kilometers away.
David’s Sling serves as a complementary system to Arrow, designed to neutralize threats that сan break the first layer of defense. Covering altitudes up to 300 kilometers, David’s Sling can effectively integrate with other systems already in service in Ukraine, such as Patriot and SAMP/T. Its primary feature is the Stunner missile, which employs advanced maneuvering and guidance systems to achieve high-precision targeting. While these systems can function independently, they were originally designed as a unified air defense solution. Thus, the optimal approach for Ukraine would be to acquire both, not only to counter ICBMs but also to enhance its existing air defense network to an entirely new level, integrating the capabilities of the world’s best defense systems.
Russia’s use of the “Oreshnik” missile on November 21, 2024, did not dramatically alter the nature of modern warfare; rather, it introduced a new element that requires strategic adjustments. At present, viable defense solutions exist to counter such threats. Although Russia’s ICBM did not demonstrate the capabilities its state media claims, Kyiv must take this escalation seriously and prioritize acquiring systems capable of neutralizing Moscow’s advantage. Successfully intercepting such a missile would not only protect Ukraine’s military infrastructure but also nullify Russia’s air superiority and expose the true strength of its so-called “advanced” weaponry.