Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

"Oreshnik" in Belarus: not a game-changer on the front, but a direct nuclear threat to Europe

Former head of Finnish intelligence Pekka Toveri explains why shifting the emphasis to medium-range capabilities is not so much a tactical advantage as a strategic warning. What this means for the security of Ukraine and Europe — briefly and without hysteria.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 21, 2026 · 2 min read

"Oreshnik" in Belarus: not a game-changer on the front, but a direct nuclear threat to Europe
Ракета РС-26 "Рубіж", експериментальним варіантом якої є "Орєшнік" (Ілюстративне фото: ресурс окупантів)

Expert's position

The former head of Finnish military intelligence and now Member of the European Parliament Pekka Toveri tells LIGA.net that the deployment of the medium-range missile "Oreshnik" in Belarus is an important but not a game-changing step at the tactical or operational level.

"The deployment of the 'Oreshnik' is not a game-changer at the tactical or operational levels. Yes, it allows strikes on targets in Western Europe roughly 300 km farther. But it also brings the launchers closer to NATO assets, making them easier to detect and destroy."

— Pekka Toveri, former head of Finnish military intelligence, Member of the European Parliament

What this means for Europe and for Ukraine

The expert's key point is the difference between tactics and strategy. On the battlefield, the 'Oreshnik' in the numbers currently available to the Russians does not change the balance of forces. Instead, its placement in Belarus has a strategic and political effect: a signal of Moscow's readiness to use systems capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear warheads.

This complicates matters for Europe: even if the missiles are easier to detect because they are closer to NATO borders, the psychological and diplomatic pressure increases. Toveri also highlights the breach of the logic of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (the INF Treaty) — after the U.S. withdrawal in 2019 over numerous violations by Russia, the West did not deploy corresponding systems in Europe, but Russia is demonstrating a different approach.

According to LIGA.net, there is currently no confirmation in Belarus of the deployment of the 'Oreshnik' launchers specifically (BelPol reports). Exiled Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya emphasizes that responsibility for the escalation lies with the Lukashenko regime.

Practical consequences and recommendations

For Ukraine and its partners this means several specific steps: strengthen intelligence and air/missile defenses on critical axes, make vulnerable supply chains for the 'Oreshnik' priority targets for intelligence and strike, and push for increased political pressure on Minsk and Moscow.

"NATO must clearly demonstrate through exercises and deployments of the necessary means that it is prepared to destroy these launchers. The Alliance should also begin negotiations on creating and improving its own medium-range nuclear capability."

— Pekka Toveri, former head of Finnish military intelligence, Member of the European Parliament

Conclusion

The 'Oreshnik' does not change the immediate front line, but it changes the tone of the geopolitical conversation: this is not just about missiles, it is about Moscow's willingness to discard existing agreements and intimidate Europe. For Ukraine it is important not to be swayed by theatrical displays of force, but to work on real instruments of deterrence — from intelligence and air/missile defense to diplomacy and coordination with partners. Analysts expect this will lead to an increase in NATO exercises and discussions — but that will require time and political will.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026