Ukraine on Thursday accused Russia of launching an intercontinental ballistic missile as part of an overnight attack, in what would be the first use of such a weapon during the conflict. The claim was disputed by a Western official, who said it was a ballistic missile but not an ICBM that was fired.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to the accusation, with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov referring questions to Moscow’s defense ministry. The Western official declined to further characterize the missile that was used, which they said was targeting the eastern city of Dnipro, adding that its impact was still being assessed.
ICBMs typically have a range of at least 3,400 miles, so it’s unclear why the Kremlin would allegedly use one against its neighbor. Such missiles can carry either nuclear and non-nuclear payloads.
The ICBM’s alleged deployment comes two days after Ukrainian forces used their first long-range U.S. ATACMS missiles to strike Russian soil — a move that Moscow had long warned would be met with a significant response. Ukrainian forces also used British-supplied long-range Storm Shadow missiles inside Russia for the first time on Wednesday, the Kremlin said.
The Ukrainian air force said that the alleged ICBM was launched from the Caspian Sea region of Astrakhan in southern Russia at Dnipro, but said it had not yet received any information about whether there had been any victims. It did not specify exactly what model of missile was used.
In a statement posted on Telegram, the air force said that Moscow had also attacked Dnipro with various other missiles. It said that Russian aircraft had fired an air-launched ballistic missile and seven cruise missiles, and that Ukrainian forces had shot down six cruise missiles.
Serhii Lysak, the head of the regional authority, said on Telegram that two people were injured in the attack on Dnipro. Meanwhile, 15 people were injured in a separate attack on the eastern city of Kryvyi Rih, local authorities said.
The alleged escalation in the war, which has now lasted more than 1,000 days, follows President Vladimir Putin’s latest nuclear saber rattling.
The Russian leader revised his country’s nuclear doctrine — a document detailing the conditions under which Moscow would consider using nuclear weapons — earlier this week, with the change justifying a nuclear strike by Russia if attacked by a nonnuclear country that is supported by a nuclear state.
Analysts have urged caution in interpreting Putin’s alleged deployment of an ICBM for the first time.
Using such a missile “in a conventional role does not make a lot of sense because of their relatively low accuracy and high cost. But this kind of a strike might have a value as a signal,” said nuclear forces expert Pavel Podvig.
“I would urge people to keep calm, not assume automatically that “intercontinental” is something inherently and immediately dangerous. But it should be taken seriously,” said Podvig, a senior researcher at the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research, in a post on X.
Ultimately, analysts say, the likelihood of the Kremlin opting to use nuclear weapons in its war with Ukraine is very slim — particularly now, when its military is advancing and its opponent is worn down.
Russian forces have seized the momentum in recent months and eked out a succession of territorial gains, particularly on the eastern front lines. They have also been bolstered by thousands of Kim Jong Un’s troops in their quest to retake occupied land in Russia’s Kursk border region.
The West relaxing restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons may boost Kyiv but will likely do little to transform the battlefield situation, analysts said, despite the dire nature of the Kremlin’s rhetorical reaction.
“At this stage in the war, the risk of Russian nuclear use is lower than before. Political and battlefield developments favor Russia, so there is little to gain by escalating the conflict to the nuclear level,” said Alexander Bollfrass, Head of Strategy, Technology and Arms Control at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank.
In addition to the unclear military benefits of deploying those weapons, there would also be diplomatic drawbacks.
“Nuclear weapons use would risk alienating China and other non-Western countries whose support or neutrality is key to maintaining the Russian war economy,” Bollfrass told NBC News in an email Wednesday. “It would also get the relationship with the incoming Trump administration off to a very dangerous start.”