On 10 December, a Russian Iskander missile struck the city of Zaporizhzhia, targeting areas with a high concentration of civilians. The attack left three dead and 11 injured. The missile hit a clinic, a beauty salon, and a shopping area, underscoring the indiscriminate nature of the strike. Emergency workers are still sifting through rubble, raising fears that the casualty numbers may rise. Four days earlier, on 6 December, a similar attack in Zaporizhzhia claimed the lives of ten people and injured 26 others.
These strikes come amid growing concerns about the use of inaccurate and non-discriminatory weaponry, such as Iskander missiles, by the Russian military. Reports indicate that these weapons often miss their intended military targets and instead cause widespread devastation in civilian areas. The 6 December attack targeted densely populated areas during peak hours, suggesting a deliberate strategy to inflict maximum civilian casualties.
Possible Motivations Behind the Strikes
Speculation abounds that these attacks are part of a broader strategy by Russian President Vladimir Putin to exert psychological pressure amid geopolitical tensions. Notably, the strikes occurred shortly after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump publicly urged Putin to cease hostilities in Ukraine. Analysts suggest that these actions may represent a calculated response from Moscow, aimed at demonstrating resistance to international calls for de-escalation.
While the Kremlin has often claimed its strikes are aimed at military objectives, the frequency of civilian casualties paints a different picture. Experts argue that the use of weapons with a wide margin of error, such as the Iskander missile, in civilian-dense areas raises serious questions about intent. Similar instances, including documented cases of missiles hitting residential areas in Pokrovsk and Dnipro, support the notion of a broader campaign of terror against Ukraine’s civilian population.
Broader Implications
The timing of these strikes highlights a troubling escalation in the conflict. The attacks come as international focus shifts toward the incoming U.S. administration. Observers speculate that Putin aims to test Trump’s resolve early in his presidency, much as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad did during the Obama administration. Notably, Trump’s past response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, which resulted in decisive U.S. military action, contrasts sharply with the restrained approach of his predecessors. Whether Trump will apply a similar strategy in the context of Ukraine remains an open question.
The attacks also highlight Russia’s ongoing challenges in sustaining its war effort. Western sanctions have reportedly hindered the production of advanced weaponry, forcing Russia to rely on older, less precise systems. Despite these limitations, Moscow appears willing to expend significant resources, such as the estimated $3 million cost of each Iskander missile, to maintain pressure on Ukraine.
International Response and Ukrainian Resilience
Ukraine has consistently called for increased international military support to counter such attacks. President Volodymyr Zelensky has urged Western allies to supply advanced weaponry, including Tomahawk missiles, which could target Russia’s missile production facilities. Such measures, Zelensky argues, are essential to deterring further aggression and protecting Ukrainian civilians.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s air defence capabilities, bolstered by Western-supplied systems like the Patriot, have demonstrated some success in mitigating the impact of missile strikes. However, gaps remain, particularly in defending against large-scale or simultaneous attacks.
Looking Ahead
The strikes in Zaporizhzhia have reignited calls for a stronger international response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Critics of outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden have accused his administration of failing to provide Ukraine with the tools needed to respond effectively to Russian aggression. With Trump set to take office in January, attention will turn to his approach to the conflict. Whether he will adopt a hardline stance, as he did in Syria, or pursue a negotiated settlement remains to be seen.
For Putin, the strategy of targeting civilians may ultimately backfire. The international community has grown increasingly united in condemning Russia’s actions, and further escalations could lead to heightened support for Ukraine. As the conflict enters another critical phase, the stakes for all parties involved continue to rise.
