In a move that has sent shockwaves through global capitals, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the successful test of the 9M730 Burevestnik—a nuclear-powered cruise missile boasting what Moscow claims is virtually unlimited range and the ability to evade all modern missile defenses. The test, which took place on October 21, 2025, saw the missile travel an astonishing 14,000 kilometers (about 8,700 miles) and remain airborne for 15 hours, according to Russian Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov. The Kremlin has dubbed this weapon "invincible," and NATO refers to it as SSC-X-9 Skyfall.
Putin, speaking in military fatigues at a high-level meeting with Russia’s top generals, hailed the missile as a "breakthrough" and ordered that preparations begin for its military deployment. "It is truly a unique weapon, one that no other country in the world possesses," he declared, as reported by VladimirPutinNews and The Guardian. This announcement comes at a time of heightened tensions between Russia and the West, not least due to the ongoing war in Ukraine and the deepening standoff with the United States and its allies.
Yet, behind the triumphalism, a chorus of concern is rising. Arms control experts have sounded the alarm over the environmental and safety risks posed by the Burevestnik. They have dubbed it a "flying Chornobyl"—a reference to the infamous 1986 nuclear disaster—because its nuclear propulsion system could, if something goes awry, release radioactive particles mid-flight, potentially contaminating vast regions. This isn’t just theoretical; the missile project is already linked to a 2019 explosion in northern Russia that killed at least five scientists. At the time, Putin honored the victims posthumously, calling their work "unparalleled."
Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute in California, was blunt about the risks, stating on X (formerly Twitter), "Russia’s nuclear-powered cruise missile Burevestnik isn’t invincible … NATO aircraft could intercept it. The problem is that Burevestnik represents another step in an arms race that offers no victory for either side." According to The Guardian, many Western analysts share Lewis’s skepticism, insisting the missile’s supposed invulnerability is more myth than reality.
These technological developments are not occurring in a vacuum. The missile test coincided with one of the deadliest Russian drone assaults on Kyiv in recent weeks. According to CrispNG, Russian drones struck residential areas in the Desnianskyi district, killing three people and injuring 31, including children. Fires ripped through apartment blocks as emergency services worked desperately to save those trapped inside. Ukraine’s Air Force reported that 101 drones were launched overnight, with 90 successfully intercepted. Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, condemned the strikes as "terror against civilians," arguing that Moscow’s tactics are designed to break Ukrainian morale while distracting from Russia’s mounting losses on the battlefield.
The conflict has not remained confined to Ukrainian soil. Just days after the Burevestnik test, Ukrainian drones targeted Moscow itself, forcing the closure of two major airports—Domodedovo and Zhukovsky. Russian authorities claimed to have intercepted 28 drones, but, in keeping with a pattern, offered few details about potential damage. Ukrainian officials have been clear that their strikes are aimed at infrastructure supporting Russia’s war effort, not civilians. Still, the fact that the war has now reached the Russian capital’s skies has rattled nerves in Moscow, underscoring Ukraine’s evolving capabilities despite limited Western support.
All this unfolds against a backdrop of intensifying economic pressure on Russia. New U.S. sanctions targeting Russia’s oil industry have caused a 6% spike in global oil prices and halted Russian crude deliveries to key customers like India and China. The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) estimates that, if these sanctions persist, Russia could lose up to $7.4 billion in monthly revenue—money that has been crucial in financing its war machine. The sanctions, announced last Wednesday, were described by The Guardian as a major blow to Moscow’s energy sector, threatening to undermine the Kremlin’s core source of income.
Diplomatic relations have also taken a hit. Donald Trump, the former U.S. president, canceled a planned meeting with Putin in Budapest, citing the Russian leader’s unwillingness to de-escalate the Ukraine conflict. When asked about the missile test, Trump didn’t mince words: he called it "not appropriate" and suggested that Putin should "focus on ending the war with Ukraine rather than testing missiles." Trump also pointedly noted that the U.S. has a nuclear submarine "right off their shores" that doesn’t need to travel such distances, adding, "We test missiles all the time." These remarks, reported by The Guardian, reflect the strained nature of current U.S.-Russia relations.
Russia, for its part, has accused the U.S. of trying to sabotage dialogue. Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s envoy, spoke of "titanic attempts" by Washington to undermine any chance of meaningful negotiations. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has criticized what he described as a radical shift in America’s position on the Ukraine war, particularly Trump’s call for a freeze in the frontlines and a ceasefire—an idea Moscow has flatly rejected.
Military analysts are quick to point out that much of Putin’s nuclear posturing is strategic rhetoric rather than a genuine shift in battlefield tactics. Sean Bell, a defense analyst for Sky News, described the missile announcement as "pure rhetoric," arguing that "it’s of no benefit to Russia to engage in a nuclear exchange." The real goal, Bell suggested, is psychological: to intimidate the West and reaffirm Russia’s dominance as the Ukraine war drags on. The optics of a successful nuclear test are powerful, especially as Western unity shows signs of fatigue and the U.S. heads into a contentious election season.
But the stakes are high. Last November, Moscow lowered its threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, a move widely interpreted as a signal of its readiness to respond aggressively to perceived threats. Soon after, Russia deployed its new nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile on the Ukrainian battlefield. Just last week, Putin personally oversaw strategic nuclear force drills that included practice missile launches, warning of a "very serious, if not crushing, response" should Ukraine carry out further strikes deep inside Russian territory with Western-supplied missiles. Russian state television openly framed these exercises as a warning to the West, with influential analyst Sergei Karaganov calling them "a rehearsal for a first strike, intended as punishment or a warning in the event of further aggression against Russia."
Europe is watching these developments with growing anxiety. Officials warn that if Ukraine falls, countries like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia could face direct security threats. NATO has already increased surveillance and defense readiness in Eastern Europe, bracing for potential escalation sparked by Moscow’s nuclear brinkmanship. Meanwhile, Western governments are struggling to maintain public support for costly aid to Kyiv, as economic pressures mount at home.
Putin’s strategy, it seems, is to outlast Western resolve, using both nuclear displays and economic leverage to fracture the coalition backing Ukraine. The Burevestnik missile may be more than just a weapon; it’s a message to the world that the Kremlin is prepared for a prolonged—and potentially even more dangerous—endgame in the region.
As the world holds its breath, the latest developments in Russia’s nuclear arsenal and the ongoing war in Ukraine serve as a stark reminder of how quickly the balance of power—and the very rules of global security—can shift.
