The Russian leader’s use of the missile against Ukraine sends a powerful signal about his intention to weaken NATO and bend Europe’s security architecture to Russia’s will.
Following Russia's recent launch of the Oreshnik intermediate-range missile, the state-run media outlet RT broadcast a graphic illustrating the missile's flight times to key European capitals: 20 minutes to London and Paris, 15 minutes to Berlin, and 12 minutes to Warsaw. In what marks his most forceful nuclear posturing since the invasion of Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin has consistently praised the missile in public remarks, asserting that NATO lacks the capability to intercept it and cautioning that Moscow could deploy it against Kyiv's "decision-making centers." Although the missile is capable of carrying nuclear warheads, Putin has stated that it will initially be equipped with multiple conventional warheads. "We believe we have the right to use our weapons against the military facilities of those nations that permit their weapons to be used against ours," Putin warned during a November 21 speech, which included an announcement of the Oreshnik strike on an aerospace manufacturer in Dnipro, Ukraine. Western leaders and analysts have dismissed Putin’s statements as mere Russian saber-rattling, particularly after President Joe Biden allowed Kyiv to utilize the U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to target locations within Russia. However, Putin's threats, clearly aimed at Europe, arise at a pivotal moment, with the United States undergoing political changes and Europe wary of President-elect Donald Trump’s admiration for Putin and the potential impact on U.S. commitments to NATO. Meanwhile, Russia continues to make advances in eastern Ukraine, increasing pressure on Kyiv's forces as Putin dismisses any possibility of compromise to resolve the conflict. Moscow's deployment of an intermediate-range ballistic missile conveys a strong message regarding Putin's resolve to succeed in Ukraine, as he aims to undermine NATO, create divisions between Europe and the United States, deter European backing for Ukraine, and reshape Europe’s security framework in favor of Russia. The Oreshnik—translated as "hazelnut tree"—represents a direct and potentially severe threat to Europe, even when armed conventionally, according to analysts. Some Western arms experts view this development as the initiation of a new arms race in Europe that could persist for decades and cost billions for both NATO nations and Russia, with Moscow already allocating around 40 percent of its budget to military and security forces. In a move anticipated months earlier but executed to express dissatisfaction over Ukraine’s use of ATACMS and French-British Storm Shadow missiles against Russia, Putin also officially lowered Russia’s threshold for nuclear weapon usage last week.
This situation further complicates the uncertainty surrounding Russia's potential use of nuclear weapons, as Putin aims to create doubt and heighten security anxieties in Europe ahead of Trump’s inauguration. Russia's earlier nuclear strategy indicated that nuclear weapons could be deployed in response to a conventional attack threatening its existence. This phrasing has now been altered to include attacks that present a “critical threat” to the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Russia or Belarus, along with a clause allowing Moscow to initiate a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear state—like Ukraine—if that state employs the weaponry of a nuclear power, such as the United States.
The Pentagon and Western arms-control analysts contend that the Oreshnik missile is not a new development; they suggest it is likely derived from the RS-26 Rubezh missile, which underwent multiple tests over a decade ago, was publicly shelved in 2018, and has recently been revived and modified. Putin has ordered large-scale production of the Oreshnik and indicated that many similar systems are under development. During a meeting on November 22 with senior military and security officials, Sergei Karakayev, commander of Russia’s strategic missile forces, stated that the Oreshnik “can strike targets all over Europe” and that a coordinated assault “would be akin to the use of nuclear weapons.” Analyst Decker Eveleth from the CNA security think tank in Arlington, Virginia, noted that Russia could potentially annihilate air bases and military installations across a broad swath of Europe with just a handful of conventionally armed Oreshnik missiles, emphasizing that the weapon's nuclear capabilities pose a significant nuclear threat. “Oreshnik likely has the ability to deliver six nuclear warheads to Europe within approximately 15 to 20 minutes, and due to its speed and flight path, interception would be exceedingly challenging,” he explained. At the aforementioned meeting with security leaders, Putin smiled while commending the missile, boasting that no other nation possesses such a weapon and promising state honors to its developers. His message was unmistakable: Russia holds a considerable edge over Europe in missile strike capabilities, particularly at a time when Trump’s future support for NATO remains uncertain. “The intended effect was certainly achieved: panic, disputes, calls for negotiations and peace,” remarked hawkish state television host Vladimir Solovyov, relishing the idea that Russia could target “those NATO bases supplying weapons that Americans are launching from Ukraine against Russian territory—in Poland, Romania, Britain, or anywhere else.” RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan echoed this sentiment on the same program, asserting that Russia must instill fear in Europe regarding the tangible consequences of war. “Until they see the fist coming toward their face, they will not stop,” she stated. Alexander Graef, a senior researcher at the Hamburg-based Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy, believes Europe is on the brink of “a new missile age.” In July, the U.S. and Germany unveiled plans to rotate intermediate-range American missiles into Germany starting in 2026—a move that provoked a strong reaction from Moscow—while several countries have joined a French-led initiative, the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA), aimed at developing long-range missiles. “We are entering an arms race that will evolve over the next 20 years,” Graef remarked. “I anticipate that various parties—Russia, European nations, and the United States—will expand their arsenals because they currently lack sufficient numbers to effectively employ these weapons against the numerous potential targets.” However, some question NATO’s resolve to deter Russia, as Moscow seeks to exploit existing divisions among member states, notably courting Hungary’s Viktor Orban, who has adopted a firmly pro-Kremlin position.
Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat and an authority on arms control and global security, stated that NATO leaders have consistently wavered in response to Putin’s nuclear threats, which have effectively deterred timely military support from the West to Kyiv, enabling Putin to evade defeat. “I don’t believe the intentions in Moscow are truly aimed at initiating a nuclear conflict. The weapon is fear. It primarily serves as psychological warfare, and I think it has been quite effective. This propaganda is working,” he remarked. “It fundamentally reflects a misunderstanding of how to engage with Vladimir Putin.” Bondarev further explained that Putin would not agree to any arrangement with Trump to resolve the Ukraine conflict unless it resulted in a triumph over Kyiv, excluding Ukraine from NATO and retaining control over occupied Ukrainian territories. Such an outcome would set the stage for the Russian leader to challenge Europe in the future, potentially even launching an invasion of one of the Baltic states. “He doesn’t aim to partition Ukraine; he seeks to fragment the world. He desires his own sphere of influence where no one, including the United States, can enter without his consent. I’m puzzled as to why Americans fail to recognize this, because if they broker a deal with Putin, they will effectively grant him this victory.” The Oreshnik would have been prohibited under the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) between the United States and the Soviet Union, which banned missiles with ranges between 310 and 3,400 miles. Trump withdrew the U.S. from this treaty in 2019 following longstanding American allegations of Russian violations. “We had a treaty that forbade this type of missile for good reason. They were considered highly destabilizing,” said François Diaz-Maurin, associate editor for nuclear affairs at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, referring to the missile’s speed, its multiple independently targeted warheads, and the potential for catastrophic misunderstandings due to its dual conventional and nuclear capabilities. “Once launched, this missile reaches European capitals within 12 to 16 minutes. That leaves very little time for detection and reaction. Moreover, there’s a possibility that it could carry nuclear warheads among several of them. It provides minimal time to discern what is approaching you.” Even as Europe begins to recognize the necessity of safeguarding itself and deterring Russia, it currently lacks the capacity to match Putin, who has oriented a significant portion of Russia’s economy toward warfare and weapons production, he noted. “This new missile underscores why Europe should take charge of its own security,” Diaz-Maurin concluded.