For years, the Kremlin has leaned heavily on the spectacle of its “invincible” arsenal to maintain a psychological edge over the West. From hypersonic gliders to super-heavy missiles, the narrative has been one of technological dominance designed to freeze Western decision-making. However, that strategy appears to be hitting a point of diminishing returns.
According to Tomáš Pojar, a former Czech government adviser on national security and diplomat, Moscow’s threats involving ultramodern weapons are losing their impact. The former adviser, who now serves as Vice-Rector of CERVO University in Prague, suggests that the Kremlin has fallen into a trap of “threat inflation,” where the sheer volume of warnings has eroded the fear they were intended to instill.
The discussion centers largely on the RS-28 Sarmat, a liquid-fueled super-heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that Russia has marketed as a cornerstone of its strategic deterrence. While the missile is designed to carry multiple warheads and potentially bypass missile defense systems, its role in the current geopolitical climate has shifted from a genuine deterrent to a recurring rhetorical tool.
Pojar notes that the psychological weight of these demonstrations has shifted. Where a weapon test four years ago would have dominated European headlines and sparked urgent diplomatic consultations, recent developments have met with a more muted response. The result is a strategic environment where the West is increasingly viewing Moscow’s military parades and test announcements as performance rather than imminent policy shifts.
The Psychology of Deterrence Inflation
The concept of deterrence relies on the perceived credibility of a threat. For a threat to be effective, it must be believable, rare enough to remain significant, and backed by a clear intent to use the weapon if specific thresholds are crossed. Pojar argues that by constantly signaling the deployment or testing of “state-of-the-art” weaponry, the Kremlin has inadvertently neutralized its own leverage.
“Due to the inflation of threats coming from Moscow and the sheer volume of statements about various ‘state-of-the-art’ weapons, these threats are much less effective today than they used to be,” Pojar said. He emphasized that for threats to be taken seriously, they must be deployed sparingly.
This “weaponization of rhetoric” has created a paradox for the Kremlin. While the Russian military continues to modernize its nuclear triad, the political utility of those weapons is declining. The gap between the announcement of a capability and its actual, operational deployment has widened, leading Western intelligence agencies and policymakers to treat Russian claims with a higher degree of skepticism.
Despite this general trend, Pojar acknowledged that the strategy is not entirely obsolete. He noted that certain segments of Western political leadership still exhibit a tendency to yield to these threats, suggesting that while the broad impact is fading, pockets of caution remain that Moscow can still exploit.
The Sarmat Timeline: Expectations vs. Reality
The RS-28 Sarmat, often referred to by NATO as the “Satan II,” has been the centerpiece of this cycle of announcements. The missile is intended to replace the aging Soviet-era R-36M missiles, but its path to full operational status has been marked by repeated delays and contradictory reports.
The history of the Sarmat’s deployment reflects a pattern of promised readiness that rarely aligns with operational reality. The Kremlin has made several high-profile claims regarding the missile’s availability over the last few years:
- December 2021: Initial assertions that the missile would be deployed soon.
- June 2022: Renewed claims of imminent operational status.
- June 2023: Further statements suggesting the forces were ready for deployment.
On May 12, Sergey Karakaev, the Commander of the Russian Federation’s Strategic Missile Forces, reported a successful launch of the Sarmat to President Vladimir Putin. However, these claims of success are often contrasted by reports of technical failures. Most notably, reports indicate that a test launch in November 2024 was unsuccessful, further undermining the narrative of a flawless, “invincible” system.
| Event/Claim | Date | Reported Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment Warning | Dec 2021 | Rhetorical signaling |
| Deployment Warning | June 2022/2023 | Rhetorical signaling |
| Karakaev Report | May 12 | Claimed success |
| Sarmat Test Flight | Nov 2024 | Reported failure |
Strategic Implications for European Security
The diminishing impact of these threats has significant implications for the NATO alliance and the broader European security architecture. When the West stops reacting to every “ultramodern” weapon announcement, it gains more room to maneuver in its support for Ukraine and its own defensive postures without the constant fear of an immediate, unpredictable nuclear escalation based on untested technology.
Analysts suggest that the Kremlin is now facing a “credibility gap.” If Russia continues to announce the deployment of weapons that either fail during testing or never actually enter service, the risk is that the West will eventually ignore Russian strategic signaling entirely. This could lead to dangerous miscalculations, where Moscow believes it is communicating a red line that the West no longer recognizes as credible.
the focus has shifted from the existence of these weapons to their utility. In the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the lack of “game-changing” ultramodern weapons on the actual battlefield has made the talk of super-missiles feel disconnected from the reality of conventional warfare.
As the international community monitors Russia’s nuclear posture, the next critical checkpoint will be the official confirmation of the Sarmat’s full operational deployment and its integration into the Russian strategic command. Until then, the “Satan II” remains more of a psychological tool than a deployed military reality.
Do you think the West is right to ignore these threats, or is the risk of miscalculation too high? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
