Is that a MiG 25? or 31? Probably 31.
Several problems with the "hypersonic cruise missile" idea. First - that's just a metal casing, as far as anyone can tell. We have no idea what is in there or if it works as advertised. It actually looks rather similar to an existing Russian anti-ship missile, so it is hard to tell just what it is. Second is the problem we have with all hypersonic missiles - guidance and communication. While it could be inertial guided, the plasma plume that develops around objects moving that fast cuts off most forms of electromagnetic communication. It blinds any seeker head to IR sources, radio sources - passive or semi-active illumination, and data streams. One might be able to get 'close enough' given the speed and the potential for a nuclear payload, but this is a crutch.
Don't get me wrong - put enough rocket propellant behind something, and it will go Mach 10. But, there again, put enough rocket propellant behind something and it can get to a substantial fraction of the speed of light, too - but let's not hand out the trophy, just yet. Russia may very well have developed a missile capable of high speeds over sustained distances, but let's look at the pictured system.
Where is the warhead? That front end is going to get hotter than hell's saunas, so I imagine most of it is non-critical space reserved for heat shielding and load balancing. Maybe a hardened penetrator of some kind because **** you and the wall you're behind. So, that leaves most of the front third. The second third is composed of a very large amount of taper. This could hold the warhead, but we are looking at a fairly small warhead compared to the overall missile. This leaves us with are tailing third, which is... going out on a limb, here, likely where the fuel is stored. Once again, the proportions of this device are rather different from what would be found on most missiles. The wide, 'squat,' design suggests a relatively short, but intense burn session.
Compounded with the platform we see it with - the MiG 31 FoxHound, it would suggest we are not looking at a 'cruise missile' as an air-breathing kamikaze drone like the TLAM. This is a device far more similar to the Aim-54C Phoenix - which launched into a high ballistic arc to then streak toward its target on a re-entry dive. An air-launched ballistic missile. Given the aircraft it is attached to, it is likely flown to a very high altitude at supersonic speeds and lobbed into a ballistic arc that allows it to, then, assume a variety of attack trajectories. Consider that it could appear to be a 'dud' missile that falls from an aircraft in a ballistic arc right up until a thousand feet from the water/ground, where it pitches up and kicks on its motor to scream at Mach-whatever along the surface for a few kilometers, or come almost straight down from 40k feet at very high speeds.
So, assuming this is a missile and that it is competent in its function, that is how I would assess it to work.
Since we can already intercept ballistic missiles on re-entry at Mach 20+, I'm not really all that concerned. The challenge would be that this missile could potentially be able to strike within a time-frame that prevents proper screening and intercept, particularly in a scenario where it falls beneath the radar horizon only to come screaming in over the ocean swell. If anything was going to get through an SM3 screen, that would be it. We can shoot down ballistic missiles until the inventory is expended - but you're talking about a hell of a short time to get a missile in the way of what I described.
