Russia's Oreshnik ballistic missiles, touted as a revolutionary and terrifying weapon, have so far failed to live up to the hype. The $30 million, 40-ton missile, based on a nuclear-capable RS-26, is fast, powerful, and impossible to intercept, but it's also expensive, rare, inaccurate, and potentially unreliable. This raises a deeper question: is the Oreshnik really a terror weapon designed to intimidate, or is it just a costly blunder?
The recent strike on Ukraine on May 23rd, which may have involved two missiles, has provided further evidence of the Oreshnik's limitations. The missile's warheads are filled with concrete instead of explosives, possibly due to the risk of disintegration during the hot, fast terminal phase of flight. This explains why the warheads failed to hit any valuable targets, including an airfield where the Ukrainian air force stores derelict Sukhoi Su-24 bombers. Instead, the missiles struck a garage complex, inflicting no casualties.
The single security camera video depicting a second Oreshnik falling onto Russian-occupied Donetsk Oblast is particularly telling. It suggests that one of the missiles may have failed to even reach free Ukraine, and the other apparently hit nothing of major military or symbolic value. This raises a deeper question: is the Oreshnik really a terror weapon designed to intimidate, or is it just a costly blunder?
The Oreshnik's inaccuracy and possible unreliability are not surprising, given its lack of maneuverability. The 36 warheads follow a gravity-driven descent after separation from the post-boost vehicle, making it very limited against most point targets. This is a significant limitation, especially considering the high cost of each missile, which likely exceeds the price of more common shorter-range ballistic missiles in Russia's arsenal.
In my opinion, the Oreshnik is getting less terrifying each time one of them falls impotently onto Ukraine. The physical evidence tells a very different story from Kremlin propaganda, and the reality on the ground reveals a stark contrast between the missile's supposed capabilities and its actual tactical destruction. While Moscow touts this weapon as a revolutionary force, the evidence suggests that it's not a practical or cost-effective weapon, and it may not be very effective as a terror weapon either.
