Russia’s Oreshnik Missile Strike on Dnipro Likely Had No Explosives, Analyst Says
The Oreshnik missile Russia fired at the Ukrainian city of Dnipro on Nov. 21 likely carried no explosive charge and caused minimal damage, according to German military analyst Julian Ropcke of Bild.
Ropcke, analyzing available footage of the strike, suggested that the missile—described as a modification of the RS-26 Rubezh—was equipped with a substitute payload designed to simulate the size and weight of a nuclear warhead.
“This demonstrates that it was a propaganda and political action rather than a military one. There was neither a nuclear charge nor explosives inside. That’s why the damage is so insignificant,” Ropcke said in comments reported by Bild.
A Propaganda Tool, Not a Weapon?
Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed the Oreshnik missile is a newly developed intermediate-range ballistic weapon that is “impossible” to counter with air defense systems. However, he described the Nov. 21 launch as a “test” without a nuclear warhead.
Analysts like Ropcke interpret the strike as a symbolic gesture aimed at sending a political message rather than achieving military objectives. This aligns with earlier assessments that the strike was intended to signal strength to Western allies of Ukraine, particularly the United States and Europe.
Minimal Impact in Dnipro
Ukraine reported the strike caused minor damage to an industrial facility and a rehabilitation center in Dnipro, wounding three people. The lack of significant destruction has raised questions about the missile’s intended purpose and payload.
According to Ropcke, Russia’s use of a non-explosive missile in this case highlights its reliance on dramatic displays for propaganda, especially as Moscow faces mounting pressure on the battlefield.
Strategic Messaging
The Oreshnik missile, believed to be nuclear-capable, is seen by experts as part of Russia’s strategy to rattle NATO allies and showcase its advanced military technology without escalating to direct nuclear threats.
However, as noted by Ropcke, the strike’s lack of impact diminishes its military credibility. Instead, it appears to have been orchestrated to sustain the Kremlin’s narrative of dominance amid growing resistance to its actions in Ukraine.