Not just the RS-26 "Rubezh": which missiles struck Dnipro and what are the implications for Russia, according to an aviation expert.

The Dnipro was hit by a ballistic medium-range missile from Russia, and it is unlikely that the Kremlin warned the West about the launches. Meanwhile, the development of such missiles is prohibited under the agreements that Moscow inherited from the USSR. What is the point of using an empty 50-ton missile against a Ukrainian city? Aviation expert and leading researcher at NAU Valery Romanenko explained this during a broadcast on media NV.

Romanenko clarified that a missile designed for strikes at distances of 2,000 km cannot hit a target located closer than the specified technical parameters. This indicates that the Russians must have used a different means of attack rather than employing existing "Topol" or RS-24 "Yars" missiles (intercontinental missiles with ranges of 12,000 and 11,000 km respectively). Thus, we are talking about medium-range missiles (MRBMs) with ranges from 1,000 to 3,500 km. Meanwhile, Moscow had agreements with Washington not to produce such missiles, and the Americans adhere to them. However, the strike on Dnipro demonstrates that Moscow has violated these agreements and used MRBMs against the Ukrainians, the aviation expert concluded. According to him, the response to such a violation should be serious.

"It is capable of flying closer than 2,000 km, which means that the Russians have developed medium-range missiles and violated fundamental agreements between Russia, which is the successor of the USSR, and the United States, and this is a very serious violation. If there is an investigation, and if this is confirmed, I believe that the consequences will be extremely serious," he summarized.

Additionally, there is an agreement between the countries to provide warnings when using intercontinental ballistic missiles, to prevent a massive missile launch in response and the "start of a war," Romanenko stated. If this aspect of the agreement was also not fulfilled, then we have yet another violation.

"So, on one hand, the Russians demonstrated the capability to strike with such a missile. On the other hand, they should expect serious retaliatory reactions from the United States," the expert declared.

The media NV interlocutor also noted that Russia could have used other missile models: this is a possibility since precise data is still lacking. According to his assumptions, Dnipro could have been hit by missiles from North Korea or Iran (for example, the MRBM Shahab-3 or "Sajjil"). According to reports from the local military administration, "the destruction is not too significant," meaning the missile was likely empty, without explosives, although its primary purpose is indeed a nuclear warhead. On the other hand, Romanenko does not understand why the Russians would conduct such a "demonstrative launch." He explained: if it were about using a "nuke" against the Ukrainians, they could use a conventional artillery shell of calibers 203 and 152 with the appropriate "filling."

"Most likely, this is a warning. But I don't understand why ballistic missiles were used for this purpose. So, this kind of demonstration is just another foolishness, unclear for what purpose," Romanenko stated.

Russia Strikes Dnipro — Details of the Shelling on November 21

We remind you that CNN has added some details to the Russian strike on Dnipro with a medium-range ballistic missile.