During the recent meeting of the leaders of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a series of statements centred on the “Oreshnik” missile system. His remarks painted the missile as a revolutionary weapon capable of rivaling nuclear capabilities, but they also underscored a familiar pattern of exaggerated claims from Russia’s military-industrial narrative.
Key Statements by Putin
Putin emphasised that any long-range missile strikes on Russian territory would be met with responses potentially involving the “Oreshnik” missile in “combat conditions.” He claimed that a massive deployment of these missiles would be comparable to a nuclear strike, asserting that the world would not see equivalents to “Oreshnik” for some time. Additionally, Putin compared Western-supplied missiles to Kyiv with supposedly superior Russian counterparts, a trope commonly used in Russian state rhetoric.
These declarations, however, come amid scepticism from defence analysts, who suggest that the “Oreshnik” could be a repurposed iteration of existing missile technologies rather than a novel development.
The Myth-Building Process
Russia has a history of introducing advanced military systems that eventually fall short of their touted capabilities. Observers have likened the narrative around “Oreshnik” to that of the T-14 Armata tank and other high-profile projects, which garnered significant attention before being quietly sidelined due to technical and production issues.
The “Oreshnik” missile appears to follow this pattern. Analysts believe that the missile is not a new development but rather an adaptation of the “Topol” or “Yars” intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which rely on solid-fuel technology. While the Kremlin portrays “Oreshnik” as a game-changing weapon, experts contend that it is unlikely to possess unique capabilities due to constraints in Russia’s current technological and industrial capacity.
Technical Challenges
The purported capabilities of the “Oreshnik” have raised eyebrows among defence specialists. Adjusting an ICBM like the “Topol” or “Yars” for shorter-range strikes would require significant modifications, including alterations to its trajectory and fuel load, to achieve precise targeting. Such adjustments could compromise the missile’s reliability and effectiveness, particularly when deployed in combat conditions.
Moreover, Putin’s reference to “penetrating warheads” has been dismissed by experts as implausible. The concept of using a kinetic impactor to strike fortified targets—akin to an asteroid strike—demands an extraordinary degree of accuracy and speed. The reality, however, is that no current Russian missile system can achieve such precision without sacrificing other critical performance parameters.
A Costly Display
The recent test launch of the “Oreshnik” from the Kapustin Yar range towards the city of Dnipro, allegedly targeting the Pivdenmash industrial complex, reportedly involved dummy warheads rather than operational payloads. The exercise, carried out under the guise of a military demonstration, cost Russia tens of millions of dollars.
Despite the theatrical nature of the launch, which was conducted at night for dramatic effect, Western intelligence agencies reportedly monitored the event closely and remained unimpressed. Satellite and radar data suggested no significant advancements in Russian missile capabilities, reinforcing the perception of the launch as a strategic bluff.
Propaganda and Perception
The “Oreshnik” missile has already begun to take on a life of its own within Russian media, echoing the trajectory of previous “superweapons” like the Poseidon torpedo and the Burevestnik missile. These projects, often highlighted in state propaganda, serve to bolster domestic morale and project an image of technological prowess on the global stage.
However, the gap between rhetoric and reality becomes increasingly evident over time. Analysts predict that the “Oreshnik” will likely fade into obscurity after a brief period of hype, much like the Armata tank. Russia’s Ministry of Defence may eventually cite cost or inefficiency as reasons for discontinuing the project.
Strategic Implications
Putin’s emphasis on the “Oreshnik” demonstrates Moscow’s desire to signal strength amid growing challenges on the battlefield and heightened scrutiny from Western powers. However, the overreliance on exaggerated claims may erode credibility, both domestically and internationally.
While the “Oreshnik” launch served as a public relations exercise, it failed to elicit a strong response from Western governments. NATO member states appear confident in their assessment of Russia’s military capabilities, focusing instead on bolstering Ukraine’s defence systems to counter existing threats like Iskander and Kalibr missiles.
Read also:
Russia’s Potential RS-26 Missile Strike: Analysis and Implications for Ukraine
