After ATACMS and “Oreschnik” attacks: Turning Point in the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

On November 21rst a dramatic speech was given by Russian President Putin, which marks a turning point in the Ukraine conflict and sent shockwaves around the world. Putin spoke about an “escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, instigated by the West”, where the United States and its NATO allies were announcing that they authorize the use of their long- range high precision weapons for strikes inside the Russian Federation. “Experts are well aware, and the Russian side has repeatedly highlighted it, that the use of such weapons is not possible without the direct involvement of military experts from the manufacturing nations.” Putin recalled that on November 19^th six ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles, produced by the United States, and on November 21, during a combined assault involving British Storm Shadow systems and HIMARS systems produced by the US, were attacking military facilities inside the Russian Federation in the “Bryansk” and “Kursk” regions. “From that point on as we have repeatedly emphasized in prior communications, the regional conflict in Ukraine provoked by the West has assumed elements of global nature. Our air defense systems successfully counteracted these incursions, preventing the enemy from achieving their apparent objectives.”

The Russian president also referred to a fire at an “ammunition depot in the Bryansk region”, caused by the debris of ATAMCS missiles, that was extinguished without casualties or significant damage. In the Kursk region “the attack targeted one of the command posts of the Russian ‘Group North.’  Regrettably, the attack and the subsequent air defense battle resulted in casualties, both fatalities and injuries among the perimeter security units and servicing staff. However, the command and operational staff of the control center suffered no casualties and continues to manage effectively the operations of our forces to eliminate and push enemy units out of the Kursk region.”

Hypersonic missile “Oreschnik” tested

What is actually happening, would not affect the course of combat operations in the special military operation zone, the President stated. “Our forces are making successful advances along the entire line of contact, and all objectives we have set will be accomplished.” He then described Russia’s response, that in its counteroffensive “Russian Armed Forces delivered a combined strike on the facility within Ukraine’s defense industrial complex. (…) In field conditions, we also carried our tests of one of Russia’s latest medium-range missile system, in this case, a non- nuclear hypersonic ballistic missile that our engineers named Oreshnik (…). The tests were successful, achieving the intended objective of the launch. In the city of Dnjepropetrovsk, Ukraine, one of the largest and most famous industrial complexes from the Soviet Union era, which continues to produce missiles and other armaments, was hit.”

Military experts commenting the latest Russian military moves

In a discussion with “Dialogue works,” on November 26^th  Russia expert Professor Gilbert Doctorow characterized the recent Oreshnik missile deployment as  a “clear signal to the West.” With this hypersonic missile Russia could “hit any target” and “there is no air defense system design that is capable to intercept it.”  He stated that Kremlin spokesman Peskov had reported that 30-45 minutes before its launch, a warning had been given by Russia to the US about Russia’s intention. “This is Putin’s final warning to the West,” Doctorow said. He spoke about the Oreshnik missile attack that was hitting a defense industry complex and production site near the city of Dnjepopetrovsk. As Doctorow claimed, the German arms factory “Rheinmetall” , being located at the Dnipro river, that is doing the repair of  German Marder tanks, would have been hit. According to Doctorow “this was the strongest possible message to German Chancellor Scholz, to target an arms factory in Ukraine.”  In the context of the recent update of Russia’ nuclear doctrine, Doctorow pointed out that recently in Poland and Romania, i.e. by mid- November the “installation of US delivered Ballistic Missile Defense system” had been completed. (!)

President Putin announced that Russia is “conducting combat tests of the Oreshnik missile system in response to NATO’s aggressive actions against Russia. Our decision on further deployment of intermediate range and shorter- range missiles will depend on the actions of the United States and its satellites. (…) We will determine the targets during further tests of our advanced missile system based on the threats in the security of the Russian Federation. We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against military facilities of those countries that allow to use their weapons against our facilities(!), and in the case of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond decisively and in mirror -like manner. I recommend that the ruling elites of the countries that are hatching plans to use their military contingents against Russia seriously consider this.”

He underlined that “he is without fear” to use “Oreshnik”, and that “there are no means of countering such weapons today. That the Oreshnik hypersonic missiles can attack targets at a speed of Mach 10, which is 2,5 to 3 kilometers per second and that “Air defense system currently available in the world and “missile defense systems” being created by the Americans in Europe cannot intercept such missiles. It is impossible.” (!)

The president reiterated that it was not Russia but the US that destroyed the international security system: By continuing to fight and by clinging to its hegemony, they are pushing the world into global conflict. “We have always preferred and are ready now to resolve all disputes by peaceful means, but we are also ready for any turn of events.”

“Act of highest frustration on the Biden side to allow deep strikes deep inside Russia”

In an interview with Flavio von Witzleben November 28^th former NATO General Harald Kujat, who was interviewed together with the German Journalist Patrick Baab, qualified Biden’s decision to give green light for the Ukrainian use of ATAMCS for strikes deep into Russian territory as an “act of deep frustration.” The reason for this being that “the American plans did not really yield results according to their plans.”  The danger is that the US which is disengaging,” knows that the strategic situation is not developing in their favor.”

According to Kujat the real problem, which “we are facing in Europe are politicians that are incapable to see the consequences of their political decisions. …We live through and see a phase of totally irresponsible policy in Europe,” Kujat stated: And “there are European politicians who act recklessly towards their own population… We are led by elites that give the impression of being totally unreliable.” They have no knowledge, they don’t even know the countries, they have no basic qualification but see reality with the eyes of a computer. “It is intolerable that we slide into existentially threatening situations, simply because we are governed by politicians who don’t understand what effect their decisions have.” Kujat also underlined as do many of the few qualified military experts in Germany, that he

thinks that “Putin will not overreact.” At some point, there will be the end of the war and there should be a “European security order in which both Russia and Ukraine have their place.”  What we need is an Alliance of collective security.

Former NATO official criticizes strongly the “German strategic community”

One of the sharpest analysis concerning the Ukraine war and Germany’s role in it, was made in an article by Michael Rühle (Cicero, November 28 2024 Germany’s “Strategic Community” and the war in Ukraine – with dynamite and pious words), who since 30 years used to work in the staff of NATO, including areas such as political planning, energy and climate security, as well as hybrid threats. His judgement concerning the actual state of mind of the German “strategic community” is devastating! It’s long overdone that someone points to the incredible nonsense that several representatives of the German Strategic Community and their corresponding stooges in the media have been peddling to the German public over the last three years.

Rühle begins his analysis by stating that Trump may not immediately be able to stop the war, but he can make pressure on Kiev to make a “deal” with Russia: Russia would end its war, Ukraine for a time being would renounce the areas occupied by Moscow since 2014. The idea that Ukraine could join NATO after some kind of peace deal, remains wishful thinking. The reality is however that the governments in the West (US and Europe) think, they should bring Kiev into a better position, by giving them m o r e weapons. Yet with winter setting in and the emergence of North Korean soldiers on the battlefield, the Ukraine stands with its back against the wall.

Rühle points to the following strategic blunders made in the thinking of the German Strategic Community:

1. The “narrative” according to which a “compromise peace” in which Ukraine had to give back the occupied territories to Moscow, is judged as “politically and morally not acceptable.” Politically it would mean, that the “aggressor Russia would be rewarded.” (sic) This in turn would only reinforce Russia’s intention to “reconstitute its former Russian empire” by further armed conflict. Hence only one logic counts in the German “narrative: Namely that only if Ukraine has reconquered the areas occupied by Russia, serious peace negotiation would be possible. In order to achieve this victory, Ukraine needs a lot more weapons than the West was so far not allowing.

As Rühle underlined, the debate in Germany was from the beginning characterized by terminological “fuzziness”.”  For many discussants, the freezing of the military status quo was seen as “equivalent” to a Russian victory and hence had to be totally rejected, while others demanded a “defeat” of Russia. Most of the time it was left open, whether this defeat would be fulfilled by giving back the occupied areas to Ukraine or whether other steps like a “regime change “in Moscow were necessary. Yet one line always was vehemently pushed: Anyone who demanded less than a “Ukraine victory”, was suspected of “appeasement” policy. (This explains the fanatical witch-hunt which was particularly conducted in Germany against senior politicians, well- experienced journalists and decent analysts, all being blamed and disqualified as “Putin – understanders.”)

2. The failure of the Ukraine offensive in early summer 2023, according to Rühle, marked the first major “turning point” in the German debate. The worry about Ukraine’s future grew even further and with it the readiness on the side of the German strategic community to look at Putin’s attack against a western neighbor solely as the beginning of a “chain of imperial expansions” , which could only be prevented by a “victory” of the Ukraine. Hence the “survival of Ukraine was declared as a” basic prerequisite for the future security of all of Europe”; the military support of Ukraine was equivalent to investment in our own security, given the fact that Ukraine- following this narrative- was representative for fighting of all of Europe.” The longer the war lasted, the louder the voices became in the German strategic community, that went beyond the demand for more long- range weapon deliveries and was thinking about a more “robust” military engagement in Ukraine.
3. A major mistake by the German strategic community was its inability to understand and to underestimate Russia, i.e. long before the first attack of Russia on Ukraine 2014, the German strategic community underestimated Russia’s resistance against a “West orientation of Ukraine.” This mistake goes like a red thread through the relations between the West and Russia after the end of the Cold War. The wide spread belief in Germany and other places that one could just downplay the question of “core interests of Russia” as belonging to past fights for spheres of influence and instead insist on the right of Ukraine for its free choice of alliances, is one of the causes for the actual conflict and will remain so in the future conflicts in the “zone of privileged interests” that Russia has a claim for. Another major mistake of the German strategic community was its “alarmism” in respect to Russian military capabilities. In their narrative they were totally fixated on Russia’s expansionism.
4. The fact that the strategic community in its majority adopted the Ukraine policy of maximal aims and for years tried to justify it analytically, is one of the biggest blunders that were made. The mistake was that the community did not take into account the changing political and military situation, but tried by way of questionable “threat analysis” to “emotionalize” the debate by linking it to the narrative “Ukraine victory” by all means. The next strategic mistake is already programmed: Together with many Ukrainians they will be knitting “a stab in the back legend”, according to which only insufficient western military support would have prevented a victory of Ukraine.