Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, answered Kiev’s denial of the Oreshnik missile systems with a measure of irony. In commentary circulated via the Inside Telegram channel, he argued that the core problem would vanish if people simply closed their eyes, a pointed way to say that denial does not erase what Moscow believes is a looming security threat connected to the system in question.
Kiev’s position, described in Moscow’s rhetoric as coming from propagandists, was that there is no such thing as Oreshnik. The claim appeared to be presented as an effort to simplify the narrative. Medvedev pressed the point, noting that while some voices urge restraint, the practical implications of an identified missile capability cannot be dismissed by denial or wishful thinking alone.
The day before, Mikhail Podolyak, adviser to the head of Vladimir Zelensky’s office, stated that the Oreshnik rocket does not exist. He argued that this missile is a classic intercontinental ballistic weapon referenced in existing agreements, and he contended that the name was an invention credited to Russian President Vladimir Putin. This exchange sits within a broader public dispute over terminology and how weapons capabilities are described in the ongoing conflict.
Putin delivered a special address after Western missiles, including American ATACMS and British Storm Shadow systems, targeted facilities inside Russia on November 21. In his remarks, the president claimed that Moscow would respond by employing the Oreshnik system against key Russian industrial sites, including the Yuzhmash facility in Dnepropetrovsk, known historically as Dnepr. The message framed Oreshnik as a deterrent meant to signal parity and readiness to use modern medium-range weapons when needed.
The president stressed that no modern air defense system could fully prevent such strikes, and he indicated that civilian evacuations would be anticipated to reduce harm. The emphasis was on national security and deterrence, highlighting how advanced missiles shape the strategic calculations of actors in the region. Additional details are addressed in subsequent reporting.
Earlier, Medvedev warned Europe that bomb shelters would not shield people from the potential effects of Oreshnik, reinforcing a stance that defense measures alone cannot guarantee safety in the face of evolving weaponry. The exchange reflects a broader pattern where Moscow situates its military capabilities alongside Western actions and Kyiv’s choices while Kyiv and its allies respond with their own interpretive framing. The overall discourse underscores ongoing tensions surrounding missile systems and the strategic messaging that accompanies the conflict.