Russia’s latest test of its flagship strategic weapon, the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, ended in a spectacular failure when the rocket erupted in flames shortly after leaving its silo. Marketed for years as the “Satan II” system that would guarantee Moscow’s nuclear dominance, the missile instead disintegrated in full view of tracking cameras, undercutting a central pillar of the Kremlin’s deterrence narrative. The blast has raised fresh questions about the reliability of Russia’s most heavily hyped strategic project at a moment when its leadership has leaned on nuclear rhetoric to project strength.
The failed liftoff is not an isolated mishap but the latest in a pattern of troubled tests that have dogged the Sarmat program and other advanced Russian systems. As I trace the record of repeated explosions, aborted launches, and partial successes, a consistent picture emerges of a nuclear modernization drive that looks formidable on paper yet struggles to deliver in practice. That gap between ambition and performance matters far beyond the test range, because it shapes how adversaries read President Vladimir Putin’s threats and how stable the broader nuclear balance really is.
The fiery failure that shattered a flagship test
The most recent launch attempt was supposed to showcase the maturity of the RS-28 Sarmat, the heavy ICBM that Russia has branded as Satan II and promoted as one of the “world’s deadliest” strategic weapons. Instead, the missile exploded in the early phase of flight, with reports describing a blast that destroyed the vehicle almost as soon as it cleared the silo. Russian officials have not issued a detailed public account, but the scale of the failure was evident enough that it quickly filtered into open reporting on the test and on the broader Sarmat program.
Accounts of the launch describe a catastrophic malfunction that prevented the missile from reaching even a fraction of its planned trajectory, cutting short what was meant to be a demonstration of operational readiness. The incident has been linked directly to Russia’s effort to field Satan II on full combat duty, a goal that President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly highlighted as proof that Russia can outmatch Western missile defenses. Instead of reinforcing that message, the explosion has become a vivid symbol of how vulnerable even the most vaunted systems can be when they leave the drawing board and face the realities of a live firing, a point underscored in detailed coverage of the Satan II liftoff.
A missile that did not even reach 4,000 feet
Technical reconstructions of the failed launch suggest that the Sarmat did not even manage to climb to a meaningful test altitude before breaking apart. One detailed account notes that the missile failed before it could reach 4,000 feet, a figure that illustrates just how early in the flight profile the malfunction occurred. For a system designed to arc across continents and deliver multiple warheads to distant targets, failing within the first kilometer of ascent is not a marginal glitch but a fundamental breakdown in propulsion, staging, or structural integrity.
Reports also describe components being ejected from the missile as it climbed, a sign that the vehicle may have suffered a serious structural or engine anomaly before the final explosion. In the context of Russia’s broader strategic posture, that kind of failure undermines the image of a flawless, unstoppable weapon that the Kremlin has cultivated. It suggests that, despite years of development and repeated public boasts, Russia is still wrestling with basic reliability issues on a system that is supposed to anchor its long range nuclear deterrent, a reality that is laid bare in technical analyses of the troubled Sarmat test footage.
Yasny and the pattern of Russian ICBM mishaps
The failed Satan II launch fits into a wider pattern of Russian ICBM problems that have surfaced at key test sites. At the Yasny range, a separate Russian intercontinental ballistic missile test also ended in a mid launch explosion, highlighting that the issue is not confined to a single model or one unlucky firing. That incident, like the Sarmat failure, involved a missile breaking apart shortly after ignition, suggesting systemic challenges in quality control, aging infrastructure, or the integration of new technologies into legacy platforms.
Reports from Yasny describe a Russian ICBM that was destroyed in a dramatic blast, with debris raining back over the test area and prompting questions about the safety protocols governing such launches. The fact that this occurred at a major range underscores how even heavily used facilities are not immune to catastrophic failure when complex systems are pushed to their limits. The Yasny mishap has been cited as part of a broader narrative of Russian test setbacks, with detailed accounts of the ICBM explosion at Yasny reinforcing the impression that Russia’s strategic rocket forces are under strain.
Putin’s prestige project and the “Much Feared Satan” narrative
For President Vladimir Putin, Satan II is not just another missile program but a prestige project that he has personally tied to Russia’s status as a great power. The RS-28 Sarmat has been showcased in speeches and military parades as a weapon that can outfly and outmaneuver Western defenses, with its heavy throw weight and multiple warhead capability presented as proof that Russia can hold any target at risk. That narrative has been amplified by references to the system as a “Much Feared Satan” platform, a phrase that captures how the Kremlin wants adversaries to think about the missile’s psychological impact as much as its technical specifications.
The problem for Putin is that the test record does not match the rhetoric. One detailed assessment notes that the “Much Feared Satan 2 Nuclear Missile Failed 4 Out of 5 Tests,” a stark statistic that cuts directly against the image of flawless performance. When a system that is supposed to be the backbone of Russia’s future deterrent fails in four out of five trials, it raises doubts not only about the missile itself but about the decision making that pushed it forward so aggressively. Those doubts are sharpened by the fact that this is a personal project for Putin, with the Much Feared Satan Nuclear Missile Failed Out of five tests figure now circulating as a shorthand for the gap between his promises and the program’s reality.
Earlier Sarmat explosions and the Russian RS heritage
The latest liftoff disaster is not the first time a Sarmat has blown up during a test, and the history of the Russian RS family underscores how persistent the problems have been. Earlier, a Russian RS 28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile was reported to have exploded during a test launch, again cutting short a trial that was meant to validate the system’s readiness. That incident, like the most recent one, involved a ballistic missile that failed catastrophically instead of completing its planned trajectory, reinforcing the impression of a troubled development cycle.
Analysts have pointed out that the RS lineage carries both the weight of Soviet era engineering and the constraints of Russia’s current industrial base, which has been stretched by sanctions and the demands of the war in Ukraine. When a Russian RS Sarmat test ends in an explosion, it is not just a single failure but a sign that the integration of new guidance, propulsion, and warhead technologies into this heavy ICBM has not gone smoothly. Detailed reporting on the Russian RS Sarmat blast has highlighted how these earlier mishaps foreshadowed the latest failure, suggesting that the underlying issues were never fully resolved.
Hypersonic ambitions and a broader test site problem
The troubles are not limited to traditional ballistic missiles. At a Russian test site, a Hypersonic missile also exploded in what has been described as a likely failed launch, adding another high profile setback to Moscow’s roster of advanced weapons programs. Hypersonic systems are central to Russia’s claim that it can field next generation strike capabilities that outpace Western defenses, so a test site explosion involving such a weapon carries both technical and symbolic weight.
Reports indicate that Russian Telegram channels circulated footage and details of the Hypersonic missile failure, suggesting that the incident was significant enough to break through the usual veil of secrecy around these tests. The same accounts link the mishap to the broader context of Russia’s work on the RS 28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, implying that the test infrastructure and engineering teams are juggling multiple complex projects with uneven results. Coverage of the Hypersonic missile explosion at a Russian test site has therefore been read as another data point in a pattern of overpromised and underdelivered strategic systems.
Arms control experts question the Sarmat’s future
Outside Russia, arms control specialists have been tracking the Sarmat program closely, and the latest explosion has reinforced their skepticism about the missile’s long term prospects. One detailed assessment notes that a Russian RS 28 Sarmat heavy intercontinental ballistic missile exploded at its test launch site, casting doubt on whether the system can be fielded in the numbers and timelines that Moscow has advertised. For experts who study strategic stability, a weapon that is both heavily hyped and technically unreliable is a volatile mix, because it can encourage risky signaling without delivering the underlying capability.
Analysts have also pointed out that the Sarmat was supposed to replace certain Soviet designed missile systems and provide Russia with a modern heavy ICBM that could remain on active combat duty for decades. When that same Russian RS Sarmat ICBM keeps failing in tests, it raises questions about whether Russia will have to extend the life of older systems or accept a smaller and less flexible deterrent force. Detailed commentary on the Sarmat failure and its impact on the heavy ICBM fleet has emphasized that these setbacks are not just engineering problems but strategic ones, with implications for how Russia manages its treaty obligations and its long term nuclear posture.
Strategic messaging, deterrence, and the credibility gap
From a deterrence perspective, the repeated failures of Satan II and related systems create a credibility gap between Russia’s nuclear messaging and its demonstrated capabilities. Putin has used the Sarmat and other advanced missiles as centerpieces in speeches aimed at the West, presenting them as proof that Russia can respond to any perceived encroachment with overwhelming force. When those same missiles blow up on liftoff or fail to reach even 4,000 feet, adversaries are likely to recalibrate their assessment of how much of that rhetoric is backed by operational hardware.
At the same time, a faltering strategic modernization program does not automatically make the situation safer. An arsenal that relies on aging systems and unproven new designs can be more prone to miscalculation, especially if leaders feel pressure to compensate for technical weakness with more aggressive signaling. The pattern of explosions at Yasny, the Hypersonic test site, and the Sarmat launch facilities suggests that Russia is pushing its strategic forces hard while still working through serious reliability issues. That combination of ambition and fragility is what makes the latest Satan II liftoff disaster more than just a failed test, turning it into a warning sign about the stability of Russia’s nuclear posture and the risks that come with betting so heavily on a missile that keeps blowing up on the pad.
More from MorningOverview