Did the "Oreshnik" Change the World?
Have we entered a new era of warfare? (Free)
Let’s marvel this one more time.
This is a video of Russia striking a Yuzhmash rocket-plant in Dnipro with a new type of hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), “Oreshnik” (hazelnut tree), with a non-nuclear payload, in the early morning of the 21st of November. But, did it also change the whole concept of nuclear deterrence overnight?
It has now been reported also on the mouth of President Putin that the “Hazelnut” is a new form of a ‘kinetic energy weapon’. I am (still) not an expert, but what this implies that the missiles (submunitions) destroy their targers with pure motion of movement alone. The Oreshnik can naturally carry a conventional or a nuclear payload, but the most interesting fact is that it does not need to. The sheer kinetic energy does most of the damage.
President Putin notes in his speech that “battle blocks” (non-explosive warheads, as I understood it) of the Oreshnik hit their targets with a speed of 3 km per second, with them reaching a temperature of 4000 Celsius. Thus, the submunitions (blocks) would reach hypervelocity, that is, a point where “velocity is so high that the strength of materials upon impact is very small compared to inertial stresses”. Essentially, metals and fluids behave alike leading to “vaporization” of the target. That is, the target would simply turn into dust. This is wild, but what it implies?
In the same video, President Putin states that Russia is currently picking Ukrainian targets for further “testing” of the Oreshnik. These include decision making centers, industrial production sites and military facilities. The point here is that there is unlikely to be any defense against the Oreshnik, which implies that Russia could strike any target, anywhere in Europe at will.
What would response of NATO be in the face of such an onslaught? If it would experience such strikes in Europe, NATO would probably be forced to respond with nuclear strikes to keep up some appearances of deterrence. However, what if Russia would destroy critical Ukrainian decision and military targets with multiple Oreshnik strikes? This is the big question.
If we assume that NATO leaders (warmongers) would be rational actors, they would not risk a nuclear war because of these strikes. However, like we have seen, escalation is the aim. Moreover, the humiliation some NATO military leaders may feel can become too big. They may fear the failing of nuclear deterrence in the face of such a weapon. This would lead them to conduct, probably ‘tactical’ (low-yield) nuclear strikes to selected Russian targets. This would, naturally, carry the potential of unleashing a nuclear war.
So, we can now just hope that President Trump is able to reach some form of pre-inauguration agreement on Ukraine, while keeping the ‘hotheads’ in NATO leadership at bay. If not, we all are in danger.
An advertisement removed on 4/24/2025.
Paywall removed on 1/9/2026.
Disclaimer:
The information contained herein is current as at the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.
No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision, and readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.
Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.