Listen to the article
Russian media’s escalating nuclear threats against NATO countries, particularly Britain, have spotlighted the enigmatic “Poseidon” underwater drone system. Despite frequent mentions on state television as a weapon of “punishment,” serious questions remain about whether this supposed superweapon actually exists in operational form.
The discussion of Poseidon gained renewed attention following Ukraine’s successful December 15, 2025 deployment of its “Sub Sea Baby” Toloka underwater drone against a Russian submarine in Novorossiysk. That strike targeted a Project 636.3 “Varshavyanka” submarine capable of launching Kalibr cruise missiles, which had relocated there after Russian forces retreated from Crimea.
This Ukrainian success appears to have triggered a defensive response from Moscow, which has intensified its rhetoric about supposedly superior Russian weapons systems. Analysts note this pattern has emerged against a backdrop of mounting challenges for Russia: international isolation, economic sanctions, demographic stagnation, and military setbacks in Ukraine.
Russia’s federal budget is under significant pressure, with official figures showing a 2.7 trillion ruble deficit for 2025, though economists at the Higher School of Economics estimate the actual shortfall could exceed 4 trillion rubles. This economic strain coincides with what experts describe as technological regression and military exhaustion after prolonged fighting in Ukraine.
President Vladimir Putin has made several public statements about the Poseidon system. On October 29, 2025, during two separate events – a visit to a military hospital and a meeting of the Demography Council – he claimed successful tests of a nuclear power unit for the weapon. However, these pronouncements have not been accompanied by verifiable evidence or demonstration footage that would typically accompany a major weapons breakthrough.
Technical analysis raises substantial doubts about Poseidon’s feasibility. Navigation presents a fundamental challenge – the claimed 10,000-kilometer range would require autonomous underwater navigation without satellite support, as Russia’s GLONASS system cannot function underwater. Ocean currents, magnetic anomalies, and depth variations would make maintaining a stable course extremely difficult.
The acoustic signature presents another significant problem. At the claimed speed of 180 km/h, the drone would generate noise comparable to “a wounded whale” – a distinctive acoustic trail easily detected by systems like SOSUS, the global network of underwater listening stations maintained by Western powers.
Thermal and radiation signatures pose additional challenges. The power requirements for sustained high-speed underwater travel would necessitate a substantial nuclear reactor, generating heat that would be detectable by patrol aircraft and satellites equipped with specialized sensors. Without adequate radiation shielding, the vehicle would emit gamma radiation visible from space, but adding sufficient shielding would significantly increase weight and reduce maneuverability.
Questions also surround the claimed warhead capacity. Putin has suggested Poseidon carries a payload exceeding that of the Sarmat missile system, which has been estimated at up to 2 megatons. Some Russian sources have claimed Poseidon could deliver a 100-megaton warhead, but the mass of such a device (5-10 tons) would create substantial engineering challenges for underwater stability and control.
Perhaps most tellingly, there appears to be no evidence of the necessary control infrastructure for such a complex autonomous system – including navigation systems, communication channels, monitoring capabilities, and data processing centers. While Russian officials claim the weapon has been deployed aboard the submarine Belgorod, no confirmed launches or tests have been documented.
Defense analysts increasingly view the Poseidon narrative as more political than technical – an attempt to project strength amid battlefield setbacks and diminishing international influence, rather than a demonstration of actual military capability.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
Interesting claims about Russia’s purported ‘Poseidon’ nuclear-powered drone. Given the propaganda and misinformation around this system, I’d be cautious about accepting any details at face value. It’s important to critically evaluate the evidence and sources before drawing conclusions.
Agreed. The Ukrainian ‘Sub Sea Baby’ strike on a Russian submarine is certainly intriguing, but we’d need more verified information to understand the full context and implications.
This article provides a thoughtful and balanced assessment of the ‘Poseidon’ system claims. The author rightly emphasizes the importance of verifying information and relying on credible sources, given the propaganda and misinformation surrounding this purported Russian ‘superweapon’.
Agreed. With Russia’s economic and military challenges, it’s prudent to approach claims about advanced weapons systems with a healthy dose of skepticism, and to focus on objective analysis rather than sensationalism.
This article does a good job of highlighting the importance of critical analysis when it comes to reporting on Russian military technology. The author rightly calls for careful scrutiny of claims about the ‘Poseidon’ system, which appears to be shrouded in secrecy and propaganda.
Absolutely. Maintaining objectivity and relying on credible sources is crucial, especially on sensitive defense issues where misinformation and geopolitical posturing can distort the truth.
This article raises valid questions about the operational status of the ‘Poseidon’ system. With Russia’s economic and military challenges, it’s reasonable to be skeptical about the development and deployment of such an advanced and costly weapon. Reliable independent analysis will be key.
Good point. Russia’s propaganda around ‘superweapons’ often seems intended to project strength, rather than reflect reality. Careful scrutiny is warranted to separate fact from fiction.
The claims about the ‘Poseidon’ drone system are certainly intriguing, but as the article notes, the lack of verified information makes it difficult to assess their validity. Given Russia’s history of exaggerating its military capabilities, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.
The discussion of the ‘Poseidon’ drone highlights the critical need for nuanced, evidence-based reporting on sensitive defense issues, especially in the context of ongoing geopolitical tensions. The author’s call for careful scrutiny of claims is well-founded and an important reminder for readers.
The discussion of the ‘Poseidon’ drone in the context of Russia’s nuclear threats is concerning. However, the article rightly notes the importance of verifying claims about this system’s capabilities and operational status. Objective, evidence-based reporting is crucial on such sensitive defense issues.
The discussion around the ‘Poseidon’ drone is a good reminder of the need for nuanced, evidence-based reporting on military developments, particularly when it comes to claims made by states with a history of disinformation. Careful analysis is essential to separate fact from fiction.
This article provides a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the ‘Poseidon’ claims. The author is right to highlight the need for caution given the propaganda surrounding this system. Verifying the facts will be essential to understanding the true nature of this purported Russian ‘superweapon’.
Agreed. Maintaining a critical perspective and relying on credible sources is key when assessing sensitive defense developments, especially in the context of ongoing geopolitical tensions.