Thursday, December 26

Russia did not fire an ICBM at Ukraine, U.S. officials say, disputing a claim by Kyiv

A U.S. official and a military officer with knowledge of the situation informed NBC News that Russia did not launch an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) toward Ukraine on Thursday, refuting a claim made by Kyiv.

In what would have been the first known use of an ICBM in an ongoing conflict and the most recent escalation by the Kremlin, Ukraine accused Moscow of launching the ICBM at the eastern city of Dnipro in a nocturnal attack.

According to U.S. officials, the weapon was an experimental ballistic missile with an intermediate range, and Russia has a limited stock of that type of missile. The normal range of an intermediate-range ballistic missile is less than 3,500 miles.

It’s unknown why the Kremlin would have utilized an ICBM against its neighbor given that they usually have a range of around 3,400 miles. Both nuclear and nonnuclear payloads can be carried by such missiles.

Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, referred inquiries to the Russian Defense Ministry rather than immediately responding to Ukraine’s accusation.

Following the lifting of constraints on Kyiv by Washington and its allies, which Moscow had long warned would be greeted with a serious retaliation, Ukrainian forces launched their first long-range American and British missiles against Russian territory.

Western officials criticized President Vladimir Putin’s decision to reduce the bar for his nation’s deployment of a nuclear weapon this week as the latest example of Russian saber rattling in the war, which has now lasted more than 1,000 days.

‘Using Ukraine as a training ground’

Early on Thursday, the Ukrainian air force stated that the purported ICBM was fired from the Astrakhan region in southern Russia, which is located in the Caspian Sea, at Dnipro. However, they did not provide a specific missile model.

See also  29+ best Black Friday at Target deals right now

The air force claimed in a Telegram statement that Moscow had also used a variety of additional missiles to assault Dnipro. It claimed that Ukrainian military had shot down six cruise missiles and that Russian aircraft had fired seven cruise missiles and an air-launched ballistic missile.

The regional authority’s head, Serhii Lysak, said on Telegram that the Dnipro attack had harmed two individuals. According to local authorities, a separate attack on the eastern city of Kryvyi Rih injured 15 people.

A Western official swiftly refuted the story, stating that a ballistic missile rather than an ICBM was fired. The Western official stated that the impact of the employed missile was still being evaluated and declined to provide any other details.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokeswoman described the reports as extremely alarming, but he also stated that the intelligence services were still investigating them.

If confirmed, this would undoubtedly be just another instance of Russia’s serious, careless, and escalating actions, which only serves to fortify our determination, the official stated.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, seemed to represent the ambiguity.

“Today, our crazy neighbor once again showed what he really is and how he despises dignity, freedom, and people’s lives in general.” Zelenskyy stated in a video that was broadcast on Telegram, “He is so afraid that he is already using new missiles.”

The speed and height of the missile launched by Russian forces indicated that it was an ICBM, but investigations were currently underway, he continued, adding that it is clear that Putin is using Ukraine as a training field.

See also  Are the Lakers still a championship contender? All signs point to no

Analysts cautioned against reading too much into Kyiv’s allegation on Thursday.

Due to their expensive cost and relatively limited accuracy, such missiles are not very useful in conventional roles. However, nuclear forces expert Pavel Podvig stated that such a strike might be useful as a signal.

I would advise folks to remain composed and not assume that traveling across continents is always perilous. In a post on X, however, Podvig, a senior researcher at the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research, stated that it should be treated seriously.

Putin formally updated his nation’s nuclear doctrine on Tuesday, which outlines the circumstances in which Moscow might contemplate employing nuclear weapons. The revision justifies a Russian nuclear strike in the event that a non-nuclear nation backed by a nuclear state launches an assault.

According to commentators, there is very little chance that the Kremlin will decide to use nuclear weapons in its conflict with Ukraine, especially at this point in time when its military is developing and its adversary is exhausted.

In recent months, Russian forces have taken the initiative and managed to squeeze out a string of territorial gains, especially on the front lines in the east. In their attempt to regain captured territory in the Kursk border region of Russia, thousands of troops led by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un have also supported them.

Despite the grave tenor of the Kremlin’s rhetorical response, observers said that while the West’s relaxation of limits on Ukraine’s deployment of long-range weaponry may help Kyiv, it is unlikely to significantly alter the tactical situation.

See also  Reddit targets international users for ad growth, teases bolstered search feature

Russian nuclear use is less likely now than it was earlier in the conflict. According to Alexander Bollfrass, head of strategy, technology, and weapons control at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank, Russia stands to gain little from taking the confrontation to a nuclear level because political and military developments benefit Russia.

There would be political repercussions in addition to the questionable military advantages of using those weapons.

In an email to NBC News on Wednesday, Bollfrass warned that using nuclear weapons would run the danger of offending China and other non-Western nations whose neutrality or support is essential to preserving the Russian war economy. Additionally, it would set up a very risky relationship with the incoming Trump administration.

Note: Thank you for visiting our website! We strive to keep you informed with the latest updates based on expected timelines, although please note that we are not affiliated with any official bodies. Our team is committed to ensuring accuracy and transparency in our reporting, verifying all information before publication. We aim to bring you reliable news, and if you have any questions or concerns about our content, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *