Follow us on social

google cta
Diplomacy Watch: Russia retaliates after long-range missile attacks

Diplomacy Watch: Russia retaliates after long-range missile attacks

Putin says Moscow launched new experimental IRBM, US military confirms

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

As the Ukraine War passed its 1,000-day mark this week, the departing Biden administration made a significant policy shift by lifting restrictions on key weapons systems for the Ukrainians — drawing a wave of fury, warnings and a retaliatory ballistic missile strike from Moscow.

On Thursday, Russia launched what the Ukrainian air force thought to be a non-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attack on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro, which if true, would be the first time such weapons were used and mark a major escalatory point in the war.

In a televised address on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that Moscow launched a new, hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile. He added that the long-range strikes from Ukraine this week have given the regional conflict the elements of a global one, and that Russia could use the missiles against countries that have allowed Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia.

U.S. officials have confirmed that the new Russian missile, called the "Oreshnik," is based on the design of Russia’s longer-range RS-26 Rubezh intermediate ballistic missile (IRBM). It can carry multiple nuclear warheads but was armed with conventional weapons in the Thursday attack.

The new missile was experimental and Russia likely possessed only a handful of them, officials said.

The strike was seen largely as a response to the Biden administration’s authorization for the Ukrainian military to use the American-made ATACMS missile system to strike deeper into Russian territory. On Tuesday Ukraine reportedly used the system to fire six missiles into Russia’s western Bryansk region, which Moscow said it successfully defended.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led a months-long effort for NATO authorization to strike deeper into Russia. On Tuesday, according to CNN, he said his military now has the U.S. ATACMS system and its own long-range capabilities, and that “we will use all of this.” The Ukrainian military also struck Russian targets with UK-made long-range Storm Shadow missiles on Wednesday. Some Russian officials warned that the strikes could lead to a “third world war.”

Moscow’s position for months has been that an attack on Russian territory with British, French or U.S.-made missiles would constitute direct warfare against those countries. Russian ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin doubled down on this threat after Ukraine fired UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles into Russia on Wednesday.

"Britain and the UK are now directly involved in this war, because this firing cannot happen without NATO staff, British staff as well," Kelin said.

Earlier this week, as an apparent warning to the West, Putin signed an update to Russian nuclear policy that lowers the threshold for a retaliatory strike.

The revised document says Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear or WMD strike against Russia or its allied nations, or in response to aggression against Russia or Belarus with conventional weapons threatening their sovereignty or territorial integrity.

The doctrine also declares that an attack by a non-nuclear power supported by a nuclear power is considered a joint attack, and that an attack from one member of NATO would be considered an attack from all members.

The White House said the policy came at no surprise, and that it will not respond with any alteration of its own nuclear policies.

Other Ukraine News This Week:

The U.S. gave Ukraine further slack later on Tuesday, with The Washington Post reporting that Biden approved the provision of antipersonnel mines to Ukraine — undoing his own policy from 2022.

According to CNN, the Americans expect Ukraine to use these mines to defend their own territory, not as an offensive tactic in Russia. Russian forces, on the other hand, have been using similar devices on the front lines since their invasion began in 2022.

Still, Biden’s move could prove controversial, the Post said, citing their indiscriminate nature and a 160-member international treaty banning their use based on an elevated risk to civilians.

The Biden administration’s policy shifts came after a violent weekend of Russian attacks: according to CBS, Moscow launched a drone and missile assault on Ukraine on Sunday, targeting energy infrastructure ahead of the winter and killing scores of civilians.

Biden is just under two months away from exiting office, with the incoming Trump administration having made clear in recent months its intentions to try to end the war.

From State Department Press Briefing on Nov. 18

In Monday’s press briefing, State Department Matthew Miller repudiated the idea of presidents working together across terms when asked about how typical it might be for a lame-duck president to make significant foreign policy decisions like enabling the long-range missiles.

“...the President was elected to a four-year term and the American people expect him to govern for a four-year term and make the decisions that he believes are appropriate,” Miller said. “There is no one who thinks that for the first two months of the next term they’re supposed to continue to carry out the decisions made by this President.”

From State Department Press Briefing on Nov. 19

Miller condemned Russia’s rhetorical responses to the long-range missile attack in Tuesday’s press briefing.

“Since the beginning of its war of aggression against Ukraine, [Russia] has sought to coerce and intimidate both Ukraine and other countries around the world through irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior,” Miller said. “Despite what Russia says, neither the United States nor NATO pose any threat to Russia. Russia’s irresponsible and bellicose rhetoric will not do anything to improve Russia’s security.”

“This policy in itself just highlights Russia’s hypocrisy,” he added. “Russia is suggesting here that they would use or could use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state if they undertake the same kind of aggression that Russia itself is inflicting upon Ukraine and its people.”


Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine uses long-range missiles, Russia responds
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
Trump Venezuela
Top image credit: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Geo-kleptocracy and the rise of 'global mafia politics'

Global Crises

“As everyone knows, the oil business in Venezuela has been a bust, a total bust, for a long period of time. … We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” said President Donald Trump the morning after U.S. forces invaded Caracas and carried off the indicted autocrat Nicolàs Maduro.

The invasion of Venezuela on Jan. 3 did not result in regime change but rather a deal coerced at the barrel of a gun. Maduro’s underlings may stay in power as long as they open the country’s moribund petroleum industry to American oil majors. Government repression still rules the day, simply without Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Russian icebreakers
Top photo credit: Russian nuclear powered Icebreaker Yamal during removal of manned drifting station North Pole-36. August 2009. (Wikimedia Commmons)

Trump's Greenland, Canada threats reflect angst over Russia shipping

North America

Like it or not, Russia is the biggest polar bear in the arctic, which helps to explain President Trump’s moves on Greenland.

However, the Biden administration focused on it too. And it isn’t only about access to resources and military positioning, but also about shipping. And there, the Russians are some way ahead.

keep readingShow less
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: An Iranian cleric and a young girl stand next to scale models of Iran-made ballistic missiles and centrifuges after participating in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli rally marking the anniversary of the U.S. embassy occupation in downtown Tehran, Iran, on November 4, 2025.(Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT)

Want Iran to get the bomb? Try regime change

Middle East

Washington is once again flirting with a familiar temptation: the belief that enough pressure, and if necessary, military force, can bend Iran to its will. The Trump administration appears ready to move beyond containment toward forcing collapse. Before treating Iran as the next candidate for forced transformation, policymakers should ask a question they have consistently failed to answer in the Middle East: “what follows regime change?”

The record is sobering. In the past two decades, regime change in the region has yielded state fragmentation, authoritarian restoration, or prolonged conflict. Iraq remains fractured despite two decades of U.S. investment. Egypt’s democratic opening collapsed within a year. Libya, Syria, and Yemen spiraled into civil wars whose spillover persists. In each case, removing a regime proved far easier than constructing a viable successor. Iran would not be the exception. It would be the rule — at a scale that dwarfs anything the region has experienced.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.