In international relations, perception can sometimes outweigh reality, especially during times of conflict.
Misunderstandings or exaggerations in military contexts can shape public opinion and justify actions.
A recent statement by General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, provides a striking example of this.
His claim about a nonexistent Western missile system has sparked reactions from military analysts and even the Russian press.
During a briefing held on December 18, 2024, in Moscow, Gerasimov addressed military attaches and discussed NATO’s activities near Russia’s borders, writes Digi24.
He described an alleged threat posed by a land-based missile system called “Dark Typhon,” which he claimed had been deployed in Denmark.
According to Gerasimov, this system has a range of 2,400 kilometers and represents a significant risk to Russian security.
However, the missile system he referred to does not exist. Military experts point out that NATO countries do not have a system by that name.
In fact, most NATO tactical missile systems have ranges well below what Gerasimov described. The only NATO country with a missile exceeding 300 kilometers in range is Turkey.
Analysts at the IISS Military Balance blog have suggested that Gerasimov might have conflated the names of two existing systems: the Dark Eagle hypersonic missile and the Typhon medium-range missile system.
Dark Eagle is a U.S. ground-based hypersonic missile that had its first successful test launch this year.
It has been under development for several years, and each missile costs $41 million.
Meanwhile, the Typhon system is based on the Mark 41 vertical launch platform and can fire either Tomahawk cruise missiles or modified Standard Missile-6 projectiles.
Neither of these systems is deployed in Denmark or anywhere else in Europe.
After the briefing, even Russian media debated the credibility of Gerasimov’s statement. Some outlets criticized his comments as disconnected from reality, while others aligned with Kremlin propaganda.
Military analysts see this episode as more than a mistake. It reflects the Russian leadership’s tendency to misinterpret or distort information about NATO’s actions, perhaps to justify its own policies and bolster its narrative.
