Burevestnik: Russia’s ‘Flying Chernobyl’ & the new shadow over global security

Q1: What exactly is the Burevestnik missile?

The 9M730 Burevestnik, known to NATO as the SSC-X-9 “Skyfall”, is Russia’s experimental nuclear-powered, nuclear-capable cruise missile. Announced by President Vladimir Putin in 2018, it is projected as a strategic weapon with unlimited range, capable of flying for hours or even days, following unpredictable trajectories, and evading modern air defences.

In essence, Burevestnik represents Moscow’s claim to possess a missile that can strike anywhere on Earth, a direct answer to Western missile-defence systems and perceived US military dominance.

Q2: How does its nuclear propulsion supposedly work?

Russia claims the missile uses a miniaturised nuclear reactor instead of conventional fuel. The reactor would heat incoming air and propel the missile using a nuclear-powered ramjet engine.

If true, such a design could theoretically keep the missile airborne indefinitely, refuelling only in the sense that its reactor continues to function. This would make traditional interception nearly impossible, as it could loiter, change course mid-flight and attack from unexpected directions.

However, these claims rest on extremely challenging engineering, designing a lightweight, shielded, reliable reactor that can function safely in flight is no small feat. The United States experimented with similar concepts under Project Pluto in the 1960s but abandoned them due to technical infeasibility and radiation hazards.

Q3: Why do some call it a “flying Chernobyl”?

The label stems from the enormous environmental and safety risks such a weapon poses. A crash or malfunction could scatter radioactive debris across vast areas. In fact, in 2019, an explosion at a Russian testing site near Nyonoksa killed several scientists and briefly spiked local radiation levels. Western intelligence linked that incident to a failed Burevestnik test.

A nuclear-propelled missile that flies through the atmosphere without proper containment is effectively a mobile radiation source, a nightmare for both military planners and environmentalists.

Q4: What is meant by its “invisibility” or stealth capabilities?

“Invisibility” in this context is not literal. The missile is designed to fly at extremely low altitudes, hugging terrain to avoid radar detection. Combined with its potential for unpredictable flight paths, this could make early warning and interception very difficult.

However, modern air-defence networks, once aware of its presence, could still detect and track such a missile, especially through infrared or electronic intelligence. Its so-called invisibility is more strategic rhetoric than physical reality.

Q5: How has NATO responded to this development?

NATO’s stance has been one of measured concern. While the alliance has condemned Russia’s continued development of destabilising nuclear technologies, it has stopped short of panic.

Western intelligence agencies remain sceptical of Moscow’s technological claims, pointing to repeated test failures and limited evidence of success. NATO’s response has focused on:

• Enhanced surveillance and verification of Russian missile activities

• Strengthening missile defences and early-warning systems

• Reinforcing deterrence posture while avoiding direct escalation

In short, NATO treats Burevestnik as a potential threat, but also as a signalling tool in Russia’s broader strategic messaging, rather than an immediate battlefield reality.

Q6: Does this mean a new arms race is underway?

To some extent, yes — but not necessarily a repeat of the old Cold War. The development of Burevestnik fits within a broader trend of renewed nuclear brinkmanship: hypersonic glide vehicles, long-range precision weapons and cyber–space warfare are all part of a new generation of deterrence competition.

However, the global context is different. The world today is multipolar and deeply interconnected. Economic interdependence and global scrutiny act as partial brakes on unrestrained arms racing. Yet the rhetoric and testing of nuclear-powered systems have undeniably rekindled Cold War-style tensions.

Q7: Can this weapon actually shift the global balance of power?

Unlikely in the near term. Even if technically viable, the missile would not overturn the strategic balance built on nuclear deterrence parity. Both NATO and Russia already possess secure second-strike capabilities through submarines and ICBMs.

Where Burevestnik matters most is psychological and political: it projects defiance, demonstrates technological bravado and reinforces Putin’s narrative of Russia as an unconstrained superpower. In other words, it’s as much about perception as performance.

Q8: What should policymakers, and future civil servants, take away from this?

As a civil services aspirant, the key takeaway is to think beyond the hardware. Burevestnik symbolises how technology, politics and perception intertwine in strategic competition. Effective policy must rest on three pillars:

1. Verification and transparency: Strengthen monitoring mechanisms and radiation detection networks to verify such claims independently.

2. Crisis management: Maintain communication channels between nuclear powers to prevent accidents or miscalculations from spiralling into conflict.

3. Strategic restraint: Balance deterrence with diplomacy; invest in defensive resilience but avoid the trap of reciprocal escalation.

The goal is not to outbuild every adversary, but to outthink them, by ensuring national security without inviting catastrophe.

Q9: So, are we sliding back into the Cold War?

Not entirely, but we are entering a colder world. The ghosts of the 20th-century arms race linger, reanimated by fear, mistrust and technological ambition. The Burevestnik is less a revolution in warfare and more a reminder that strategic competition never really ended; it only changed shape.

Whether the world succumbs to another era of confrontation or navigates toward managed coexistence will depend not on the missile’s range, but on the range of our collective wisdom.