The video shows how bright objects rain from a dark sky. They cause destruction where they hit.
The video shot on Thursday morning is from the large city of Dnipro in Ukraine.
Also among other things newspaperi The New York Times has published a video of the same attack.
The extraordinary thing about the video is that there is no explosion on the surface of the earth.
This shows that there were no explosives in the missile’s warheads, says the docent of the National Defense University Stefan Forss.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that it was a missile test with a new type of medium-range ballistic missile Orešnik, which did not have a nuclear warhead.
Forss does not believe Putin’s words.
According to him, it is more likely that the missile was previously developed, but the missile type RS-26 Rubeš, which was excluded from serial production, or its slightly modified version.
The intelligence services of Western countries are probably well informed about what kind of missiles are being developed in Russia, Forss says.
The Rubeš missile was successfully tested for the first time already in 2012, but it has reportedly never been used in a war situation. On the other hand, there is only very fragmented information about the Orešnik missile.
According to Forss, the missile was probably fired towards Ukraine from the Kapustin Jar missile test site, located 800 kilometers away.
According to Ukrainian information, the very high trajectory of the missile would confirm that it was probably an RS-26 Rubeš.
The tremendous speed of the falling objects caused heating and glowing on reentry into the atmosphere. According to President Putin’s announcement, the speed of the parts of the missile approaching its target was up to 2-3 kilometers per second, so they heat up in the atmosphere like meteorites.
According to the Dnipro authorities, the attack caused only minor damage. Only a few buildings were damaged. Russia’s goal was not to cause maximum destruction, but to demonstrate its ability to strike with a strategic missile.
Russia appears defiant, but hints at a willingness to negotiate
Last week, the United States gave Ukraine permission to use American long-range ATACMS missiles on Russian soil. At the beginning of the week, Britain, on the other hand, gave permission to use its Storm Shadows missiles.
In the past, the United States repeatedly refused Ukraine’s request to lift restrictions on ATACMS missiles.
President Joe Biden however, the administration changed its mind when North Korea decided to send an estimated 11,000 troops to Russia. President Donald Trump’s election victory is believed to have accelerated the decision.
According to Putin, the Dnipro attack was a response to the “aggressive actions” of the military alliance NATO.
– It is quite clear that this is the first interpretation. Whatever the purpose of the attack was in the end, this is how the matter is interpreted in this situation, docent of military sciences Ilmari Käihkö says.
The purpose of the Russian attack was above all to send a message that it is possible to carry out such an attack again, Käihkö estimates.
– On the other hand, we are sending a message to the West not to act this way, because Russia has the ability to increase rounds. On the other hand, we also communicate to our own people that Russia is not weak.
Another military expert is also on the same line.
Russia wants to convey that it can raise stakes and bring new equipment to the war even at this stage.
– All this week’s developments are linked to possible ceasefire negotiations. Russia is now showing that they too have new chips on the table, the head teacher of strategy at the National Defense University Christian Family room says.
According to him, Russia is also trying to communicate to the countries that support Ukraine in new ways that this will have negative consequences for them.
At the same time, Russia seeks better negotiating positions in possible ceasefire negotiations. It can be concluded from Russia’s communication that they have more desire for peace negotiations than before. In communication, peace has been repeatedly mentioned through different channels, Perheentupa states.
– At the same time, we want to confuse and create uncertainty, but we also want to communicate that there is a willingness for ceasefire or peace negotiations.