Russia’s latest large-scale attack on Kyiv and its surrounding areas has become one of the most serious escalatory moments in the war in Ukraine.

The assault, carried out overnight on May 24, involved hundreds of drones and missiles and, according to Reuters and other international media, included the use of Russia’s hypersonic Oreshnik ballistic missile near the Ukrainian capital. Ukrainian authorities said at least four people were killed and more than 60 were wounded, while some reports put the number of injured at around 100. The scale of the attack, the choice of weapons and the political message behind it have made the strike one of the central international stories of May 25. 

The use of Oreshnik gives this attack a significance that goes beyond the immediate destruction in Kyiv. Russia has presented the missile as one of its most advanced systems, and President Vladimir Putin has previously claimed that it is extremely difficult to intercept because of its reported speed of more than 10 times the speed of sound. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had warned before the attack that Russia appeared to be preparing a combined strike using different types of weapons, potentially including Oreshnik. That warning now looks like part of a broader Ukrainian effort to alert Western partners that Moscow is raising the level of pressure not only on the battlefield, but also in the psychological and political dimensions of the war. 

According to Russian state news agencies cited by Reuters, Moscow said the overnight strikes involved four types of missiles: Oreshnik, Iskander, Kinzhal and Zircon. Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed the attack targeted Ukrainian military command facilities, air bases and defense-industrial enterprises, describing it as retaliation for Ukrainian attacks on civilian targets inside Russia. However, Reuters noted that these claims had not been independently verified. This distinction is important because Russia regularly describes its large-scale strikes as attacks on military infrastructure, while Ukrainian officials and international media often report damage to civilian areas, homes, public facilities and critical infrastructure. 

In Kyiv, the impact was immediate and severe. The attack caused fires, damage across multiple districts and disruption in a city that has already spent more than four years under the pressure of Russian missile and drone warfare. The Guardian reported that civilian infrastructure was hit, including a market, schools, a water facility, the National Art Museum and government buildings. Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said damage was recorded across all districts of the capital. These details underline why Ukraine and its partners view the strike not merely as a military operation, but as an attempt to terrorize the civilian population and undermine the sense of security in the country’s political center. 

Strategically, the attack appears designed to send several messages at once. To Ukraine, Russia is signaling that Kyiv remains vulnerable despite the country’s strengthened air defenses and Western military support. To Europe, Moscow is demonstrating that it still has the ability to escalate with high-profile missile systems. To the United States, the strike may be intended as a warning that continued military assistance to Ukraine will not prevent Russia from intensifying the war. The Oreshnik element is particularly important because it creates a sense of strategic intimidation even when such a missile is used with a conventional warhead.

This is why European reaction was so strong. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas accused Russia of “reckless nuclear brinkmanship,” while European leaders condemned the attack as a dangerous escalation. The concern in Europe is not only about the physical damage caused by the missile, but also about the political symbolism of using a system associated with nuclear-capable strategic pressure. In this sense, Moscow may be attempting to blur the line between conventional warfare and nuclear signaling, creating uncertainty and fear among Ukraine’s partners. 

At the same time, Russia’s decision to use such weapons may also reveal its own strategic frustrations. Large missile attacks on Kyiv generate global headlines, exhaust Ukrainian air defenses and cause serious civilian suffering. But they do not necessarily create decisive gains on the front line. When Russia turns to spectacular strikes on the capital, it may be trying to compensate politically and psychologically for the slow, costly nature of the war on the ground. The objective may be not only to destroy targets, but to create pressure on Ukrainian society and test whether Western governments are prepared to continue supporting Kyiv under higher risks.

For Ukraine, the attack will likely strengthen demands for more advanced air defense systems. Kyiv has repeatedly argued that its survival depends not only on artillery shells, armored vehicles and drones, but also on the ability to protect cities from ballistic and hypersonic threats. If Russia continues to use weapons like Oreshnik, Ukraine will press even harder for additional Patriot systems, interceptor missiles and deeper integration with Western early warning and air defense networks. The latest strike gives Kyiv a powerful argument: delays in air defense deliveries carry direct human costs.

For Europe, the key question is how to respond without allowing Russia to control the escalation ladder. A weak response could encourage Moscow to repeat such strikes. But a stronger response, including new sanctions, faster weapons deliveries and more direct military support for Ukraine, will require political unity at a time when many European countries are already under economic and domestic pressure. Russia’s calculation may be that fear of escalation will slow Western decision-making. The danger for Moscow, however, is that the opposite could happen: the Oreshnik strike may convince European leaders that Russia understands only pressure.

The information war dimension is also central. Russia frames the attack as retaliation and insists that military targets were hit. Ukraine presents it as another example of Russian terror against civilians. International media coverage has already turned the strike into a symbol of a new and more dangerous phase of the war. The fact that the UN Security Council was convened after the attack shows that the issue has moved beyond the battlefield and into the diplomatic arena. 

The attack on Kyiv with the reported use of Oreshnik is therefore more than another missile strike. It is a strategic signal. Russia is trying to show that it can still escalate, intimidate and impose costs on Ukraine and its partners. But the political effect remains uncertain. Past Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities have often failed to break Ukrainian resistance and instead strengthened Western support. If the same pattern repeats, the Oreshnik strike may become not a symbol of Russian dominance, but a turning point that pushes Europe and the United States toward a tougher, faster and more coordinated response.

By Samir Muradov

News.Az