Kenneth Glad
A new generation of high-profile weapons has been presented as a leap ahead in modern military power. On the battlefield, however, their impact is being judged by results rather than rhetoric.
The war in Ukraine has become a contest of attrition, logistics and adaptation. Drones scout trenches. Artillery pounds supply lines. Air defenses intercept what they can.
In that environment, even the most advanced weapons must prove they can deliver consistent results.
Western military analysts say the conflict has rewarded systems that are reliable, affordable and easy to replace. Hypersonic missiles and experimental platforms may capture headlines, but they do not automatically change battlefield momentum. Wars are won by systems that work every day.
Against that backdrop, independent Russian outlet The Insider has examined Russia’s much-publicized “miracle weapons,” citing investigations and expert assessments.
Big claims, modest effects
Among the systems highlighted is the Oreshnik missile. In a 2024 speech, according to Russian media outlet Gazeta, President Vladimir Putin described it as a “meteorite as hot as the Sun,” adding: “We know from history how and where meteorites fell and what the consequences were. It was enough to create entire lakes, wasn’t it? What was the result of the Tunguska incident? It’s well known.”
However, publicly available satellite imagery reviewed in open reporting after reported strikes has, reports the Russian outlet, not shown destruction comparable to those descriptions. Deployments of newer systems have not decisively altered the course of the war.
The same pattern appears with other high-profile weapons. Their use has been limited, their impact contained.
Technology and theater
The Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, sometimes nicknamed the “Flying Chernobyl,” writes The Insider, has been portrayed by Putin as “a unique weapon that no other country possesses”. CSIS researchers argue that it does not fundamentally shift Russia’s strategic position.
Poseidon, the nuclear-powered underwater vehicle, has been used more as a symbol than a battlefield tool. In 2022, state television presenter Dmitry Kiselyov said: “An explosion of this thermonuclear torpedo off the coast of Great Britain would raise a gigantic wave – a tsunami up to 500 meters high,” and would “turn whatever was left of them into a radioactive desert that would be unusable for a long time.”
Researchers at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs have written that such rhetoric is often intended to influence Western political calculations rather than signal imminent operational use.
With the New START treaty expiring on February 5, 2026, the absence of binding limits adds another layer of uncertainty. Analysts at SIPRI warn that without verification mechanisms, mistrust grows and arms competition becomes harder to contain.
The weapons exist. Whether they deliver the strategic leverage promised is another question.
Sources: The Insider, Gazeta, The Swedish Institute of International Affairs
