Oreshnik hypersonic missile launch: Escalation Point – Analyzing the U.S.-Russia Brinkmanship from the Diesen-Johnson Interview

End of Negotiations & Oreshnik Launch: Analysis of US-Russia Brinkmanship

Oreshnik hypersonic missile launch | The geopolitical climate between the United States and Russia has entered one of its most perilous phases since the Cold War. A recent interview between analyst Glenn Diesen and Larry Johnson, a former CIA intelligence analyst and State Department official, provides a stark, insider’s assessment of this deterioration.

The conversation centers on a series of provocations that have effectively terminated diplomatic negotiations, culminating in Russia’s demonstrative launch of its Oreshnik hypersonic missile. Johnson’s analysis paints a picture of a Washington that Moscow now perceives as operating outside international law, compelling a Russian strategy of measured but increasingly severe retaliation. The core thesis is alarming: the framework for managed competition has collapsed, replaced by a “law of the jungle” dynamic where might makes right, making the unthinkable—a direct NATO-Russia conflict—a tangible risk.

The Provocation Nexus: From Kyiv to the Kremlin

The interview identifies a chain of events that shifted Russian strategic calculus from grievance to a posture of imminent defense. Johnson posits that the triggering incident was the December 28th drone attack targeting President Vladimir Putin’s official residence. While previous attacks, like the one on the Crocus City Hall, were met with anger, this provoked unprecedented fury in Moscow. The reason, Johnson suggests, citing sources like former advisor Alexei Arestovich, is the alleged co-location of a nuclear command center near the residence. This transformed the event from an assassination attempt into a perceived strike on Russia’s nuclear deterrent capability—a red line of the highest order.

This was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern. Johnson connects it to the June 2025 attack on Russia’s Engels air base, home to its strategic nuclear bombers, and strikes on Russian early-warning radars. From the Kremlin’s viewpoint, these are not random acts of war but a coordinated campaign to degrade its strategic defense and retaliatory systems. The subsequent U.S. seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker, denounced by Moscow as “piracy,” further cemented the narrative of a Washington unbound by international law. Johnson argues these actions answered a critical question for Russian intelligence: “Does the United States respect international law and international agreements?” The conclusion in Moscow, he states, was a definitive “no.”

The Russian Response: Cautious Escalation and the Signal of the Oreshnik

Faced with what it sees as existential provocations, Russia’s response, according to Johnson, is a doctrine of “cautious escalation.” Its immediate retaliation was conventional yet crippling: a massive campaign against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, destroying 50% of Ukraine’s stored natural gas and key substations as winter set in. This move aims to degrade Ukraine’s military-industrial capacity and societal resilience without expanding the war’s geographic boundaries—for now.

The launch of the Oreshnik hypersonic missile served as the exclamation point on this strategy. Johnson clarifies a critical detail: contrary to some reports, Russia provided the U.S. with a 2-3 hour warning before the launch. This protocol was intentionally designed to prevent misinterpretation as a nuclear strike while demonstrating an undeniable capability.

The Oreshnik, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead but launched without one, is a dual-purpose signal. First, it is a tangible warning to NATO that Russia can strike any target in Europe with impunity, as existing missile defenses are useless against hypersonic glide vehicles. Second, and more profoundly, it is a signal that Russia’s restraint is conditional and wearing thin. As Johnson interprets it, the message is: “We prefer not to [strike NATO], but if you continue to escalate… we’ll have no alternative but to defend ourselves.”

The Death of Negotiations and the “Law of the Jungle”

A central pillar of Johnson’s analysis is the complete collapse of the diplomatic track. He declares negotiations a “dead end,” arguing the United States under the current administration has abandoned any pretense of serious engagement. He points to the lack of basic diplomatic normalization—no ambassador in Moscow, no direct flights, seized Russian diplomatic property—as evidence that Washington is not interested in dialogue.

This creates a fundamental shift in the international order. Johnson states that figures in the U.S. administration have openly dismissed international law, embracing a philosophy where “might makes right.” This, he warns, returns the world to a “law of the jungle” paradigm, where security is derived solely from raw power and the willingness to use it.

For Russia, a nation whose leader, Putin, is described by Johnson as a lawyer who values legalistic frameworks, this is a destabilizing revelation. It invalidates past agreements and future promises, leaving military preparedness as the only logical course. Johnson suggests this very U.S. posture is ironically accelerating the fragmentation of NATO, as European allies question the reliability and rationale of American leadership, particularly over extralegal actions like the seizure of the Russian tanker.

The Gathering Storm: Pathways to a Wider War

The interview concludes by mapping the dangerous pathways that could lead from the current standoff to a broader conflagration. Johnson sees two primary “pots of gunpowder”:

1. NATO-Russia Miscalculation: The next Russian step, Johnson speculates, could be formal warnings that U.S. reconnaissance aircraft near its borders or attempts to board Russian-flagged vessels will be met with lethal force. Should the U.S. test these boundaries, a direct military clash becomes probable.
2. A U.S./Israel Strike on Iran: Johnson highlights that Russia now has a closer military relationship with Iran than ever before. An attack on Iran could instantly draw Russia into a wider Middle Eastern conflict, creating a second explosive front.

On the Ukrainian battlefield, Johnson foresees a rapid deterioration for Ukraine, citing critical manpower shortages versus a Russian military that has expanded to 1.5 million troops. He predicts the imminent encirclement of major cities like Zaporizhzhia and Sumy. The endgame in Ukraine, however, does not equate to peace. The danger is that a desperate NATO, losing its proxy, might escalate directly, or that Russia, emboldened by victory, might seek to decisively punish nations like Germany for their support of Ukraine. The historical memory that once cautioned against war, Johnson laments, has faded in the West, replaced by a dangerous illusion that conflict “happens to other people far away.”

👉 Share your thoughts in the comments, and explore more insights on our Journal and Magazine. Please consider becoming a subscriber, thank you: https://borealtimes.org/subscriptions – Follow The Boreal Times on social media. Join the Oslo Meet by connecting experiences and uniting solutions: https://oslomeet.org