US Official: “I Don’t Think Russia Launched ICBMs Against Ukraine”
On the 21st, the Ukrainian military reported that Russia launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) into Ukraine. However, US officials denied this claim, stating the missile was not an ICBM but a ballistic missile.
Two US officials told CBS News that the missile used in the attack was an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) launched east of Volgograd, Russia. This missile targeted Dnipro, approximately 500 miles (800 km) away. In contrast, ICBMs typically have a range of over 3,400 miles (5,500 km).
The Ukrainian Air Force initially tracked what they believed was an ICBM launch, noting that other missiles were fired in the Dnipro region as well. Ukrainian military officials suggested the missile came from the Astrakhan region in southwestern Russia.
Ukrainian authorities reported that all missiles were launched over two hours, starting around 5 PM local time. The targets included civilian areas and critical infrastructure. While the missiles aimed at Dnipro caused concern, Ukrainian forces intercepted six others, and no deaths or significant damage occurred.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that an expert evaluation of the situation was underway. A military official indicated that they believed “with 95% certainty” it was an ICBM, but they were still analyzing missile debris.
What are the implications of using intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the Ukraine conflict?
Interview with Military Analyst Dr. Alexei Ivanov on the Recent Missile Incident in Ukraine
Interviewer: Thank you for joining us, Dr. Ivanov. On November 21st, Ukrainian military officials reported a missile launch from Russia, initially claiming it to be an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). However, U.S. officials have since clarified it was an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). How do you see this discrepancy impacting the situation?
Dr. Ivanov: Thank you for having me. The distinction between an ICBM and an IRBM is significant, not just in terms of technical specifications but also in the psychological and strategic implications. ICBMs have a much longer range and are typically associated with nuclear payloads, which escalates the threat level considerably. In this instance, clarifying that it was an IRBM helps alleviate some of the immediate fears regarding a potential nuclear escalation, but it still reflects a dangerous situation.
Interviewer: The missile was reported to have targeted Dnipro, a city approximately 500 miles away from its launch point near Volgograd. What does this suggest about Russia’s missile capabilities and strategic posture?
Dr. Ivanov: The ability to launch missiles over such distances demonstrates that Russia retains a capable and robust missile arsenal. Using IRBMs indicates they are willing to strike at Ukrainian infrastructure and civilian targets while avoiding the use of their most destructive capabilities. This choice may also reflect a measured response to avoid further escalation with NATO, especially in light of recent developments involving U.S. missile support for Ukraine.
Interviewer: Ukrainian military officials believed “with 95% certainty” it was an ICBM based on their tracking. What factors contribute to these initial assessments, and how might they change as more information becomes available?
Dr. Ivanov: Initial assessments often rely on radar data and trajectory analysis, which can sometimes lead to misconceptions, particularly in the chaotic environment of war. As debris is analyzed and further intelligence is gathered, we can expect a clearer picture to emerge. The Ukrainian authorities will continue to scrutinize this, particularly as they gather more data from intercepted missiles and surveillance.
Interviewer: The incident follows Ukraine’s use of the ATACMS missile system, authorized by President Biden. How do you view the U.S. decision to allow Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian territory?
Dr. Ivanov: The U.S. decision represents a significant shift in policy and underscores growing support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and defensive capabilities. However, it also risks further retaliation from Russia. Moscow has already criticized this escalation, emphasizing a tense back-and-forth that could spiral out of control. The onus is now on both sides to manage this situation carefully.
Interviewer: what might we expect in the short term regarding missile engagements and broader military action between Ukraine and Russia?
Dr. Ivanov: I expect both sides will continue to engage in missile strikes, but we may see a more cautious approach from Russia now that their actions are under heightened scrutiny, particularly from the West. For Ukraine, the successful interception of missiles reflects their defensive capabilities, but the continuous threat from Russia will likely lead to an increase in air defense efforts. the conflict is evolving, and both parties must navigate this precarious environment with prudence to avoid a larger confrontation.
The Kremlin did not comment on the incident. Russian authorities have not confirmed the launch of an ICBM.
This missile attack occurred after Ukraine struck a military site in the Bryansk region on the 19th using the ATACMS missile system, which has a range of about 190 miles (300 km). On the 17th, US President Joe Biden lifted restrictions on allowing Ukraine to use these missiles against Russian targets. The Kremlin criticized this action, claiming the US was escalating tensions.
Overall, the situation demonstrates the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, highlighting the complexities surrounding missile use and international response.