---
title: "Putin Admits 'Oreshnik' Strikes Were Tests on Sheds: How the Kremlin Tries to Hide the Failure of the 'Superweapon'"
description: "Putin admitted that 'Oreshnik' missile strikes were merely tests on 'sheds', not an attack on strategic facilities. This statement triggered a wave of irony among Russian bloggers and confirmed the technical failure of the new weapon. 🚀📉"
date: 2026-06-10T15:58:00.000Z
lang: en
url: https://xab.info/en/posts/putin-admits-oreshnik-strikes-were-tests-on-sheds
tags: []
publisher: "XAB.info"
---

# Putin Admits 'Oreshnik' Strikes Were Tests on Sheds: How the Kremlin Tries to Hide the Failure of the 'Superweapon'

![Vladimir Putin at podium gesturing to explain 'test strikes' — how Kremlin hides 'Oreshnik' failure](https://xab.info/media/2026/06/11/putin-priznal-udary-oresnikom-testami-po-sarayam/putin-priznal-udary-oresnikom-testami-po-sarayam-1.webp)

In an interview with propagandistic media, Vladimir Putin attempted to rewrite the narrative surrounding the use of the 'Oreshnik' medium-range ballistic missiles. The head of the Russian state declared that the strikes, previously positioned as large-scale retribution, were in fact 'routine tests' where the targets were specifically 'sheds' and empty zones.

Such an admission dealt a direct blow to the reputation of Russian propaganda, which had previously convinced the public of the destruction of strategic facilities and 'underground NATO bases'.

### 'Testing on a Range' Instead of a Real Strike

According to Putin, the choice of targets was dictated by the need to verify operations. He claimed that the occupiers intentionally chose uninhabited areas so that drones could record the accuracy of the warhead impacts. In his version, this was a 'check of their operations, as if on a range'.

However, the factual picture of the events of May 24, 2026, looks different. During the attack, one of the 'Oreshnik' missiles fell in Bila Tserkva, Kyiv region, damaging civilian garages and an abandoned factory. Another missile landed on the occupied territory of the Donetsk region. Experts note that the submunitions were made of cheap cast iron, not the claimed tungsten or steel.

### Explosion of Outrage in the Russian Information Space

Statements from the Kremlin provoked a stormy reaction among Russian military bloggers. Many of them, who had previously actively supported the narrative about the 'superweapon', are now openly mocking the leadership's justifications.

'Remember how all the television scoundrels, rolling their eyes, enthusiastically described which super-strategic enterprises we destroyed with the help of 'Oreshnik'? Today, Putin confirmed that the storage sheds were indeed hit,' — analysts quote one of the outraged commentators.

Other commentators express disappointment at the scale of the 'retribution': 'Here are the retaliatory strikes. It's just incredible. A big hello to everyone who wrote about underground NATO bases!'.

### Technical Failure and Compromise of Secrets

Foreign experts assess Putin's words as an attempt to hide the technical failure of the new development. The ineffectiveness of the strikes led to Ukraine gaining access to the debris and electronic components of the 'Oreshnik' system. This allowed for the complete compromise of the secret technical data of the development.

Recall that on the night of May 24, 2026, Russia launched a combined strike, using hundreds of air attack weapons. Radio technical troops recorded 690 targets, including 'Kinjal', 'Tsirkon' missiles, and a medium-range ballistic missile. Air defense forces reported shooting down 55 missiles and 549 drones.

In early June, speaking at a forum in St. Petersburg, Putin returned to the topic of 'Oreshnik' again, calling the launches exclusively experimental. He claimed that the fall of munitions into civilian objects was part of a special plan to assess the accuracy of the dispersion of warheads before 'full-scale application'.