UK Considers Long-Range Missile Use in Russia After US Policy Shift

Following the United States’ authorization for Ukraine to employ American-provided long-range missiles against targets within Russia, attention now turns to the United Kingdom’s forthcoming decision. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has consistently advocated for Washington’s approval to utilize the potent US-manufactured Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, for strikes inside Russian territory. Concurrently, British defense officials have been seeking Washington’s consent for Kyiv to deploy UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles against military objectives within Russia. However, London had been reluctant to proceed independently, awaiting a policy shift from the White House, which occurred on Sunday. This alteration in US policy facilitates Ukraine’s use of Storm Shadow missiles with reduced constraints, a development Ukraine has sought for several months. Storm Shadow missiles, along with their French counterpart known as SCALP, have been delivered to Ukraine in limited numbers—specifically, in the low hundreds rather than thousands—and their deployment has thus far been confined to targets within Ukrainian territory. Ukraine has previously utilized these missiles against Russian-occupied Crimea, notably striking Russia’s Black Sea naval headquarters located in Sevastopol. These air-launched missiles travel at near-supersonic speeds and are equipped with highly explosive warheads, rendering them effective for penetrating Russian bunkers and ammunition depots. Extensive discussions regarding the potential use of Storm Shadow missiles deep within Russia took place during the Nato summit in Washington in July. Starmer maintained that the missiles were intended for defensive applications but stated, “it’s up to Ukraine to decide how to deploy it.” At that time, President Zelensky posted on X that he had “learned about the permission to use Storm Shadow missiles against military targets in Russian territory,” further noting that he and Starmer had the “opportunity to discuss the practical implementation of this decision.” However, no tangible developments followed the summit. President Zelensky has emphasized that the deployment of long-range missiles constitutes a crucial element of his “Victory Plan.” He reiterated this concern during his visit to Downing Street last month to brief Starmer, a meeting also attended by the incoming Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte. Although no policy alteration resulted, Rutte affirmed that no legal impediment existed to prevent Ukraine from targeting Russia, provided the missile-supplying nations granted their consent. UK Defence Secretary John Healey has diligently sought to prevent any public divergence from Washington’s stance. During a recent joint press conference with US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, when questioned on the subject, Healey stated that public discourse on such matters would exclusively benefit Russia. Currently, he maintains a reserved posture regarding the UK’s position. On Monday, in response to inquiries about the deployment of British weaponry within Russia, he declared he “won’t be drawn on details about long-range missiles.” Addressing a query from DUP MP Sammy Wilson in the House of Commons, Healey asserted that “it risks operational security and the only person that benefits from public debate is President Putin.” He further mentioned having conversed with the US defense secretary on Sunday concerning Russian escalation during the weekend, and indicated plans to speak with the Ukrainian defense minister later on Monday. He concluded by stating, “I want this House to be in no doubt – the prime minister has been clear that we must double down and give Ukraine the support that it needs for as long as it needs. And we will continue to work in close co-ordination with the US in our support for Ukraine.” Concerns persist that, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats largely proving to be unsubstantiated, enabling Ukraine to strike targets deep within Russia using Western-provided missiles could trigger a significant escalation. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned that President Putin had indicated such an action would place Nato “at war” with Russia, arguing that such strikes would ultimately be executed by the authorizing nations rather than Ukraine itself. Professor Justin Bronk, affiliated with the defense think tank the Royal United Services Institute, informed BBC News that it is “very likely” that US President Joe Biden’s delayed decision to permit long-range strikes with ATACMS ballistic missiles will similarly allow Storm Shadow missiles to be employed in at least the same capacity. He added, “US objections will presumably have been dropped for them.” He further commented, “Russian threats are unlikely to be considered a significant deterrent at this stage, since Russia has threatened dire consequences – including allusions to nuclear attacks – repeatedly throughout the war at each stage when Western equipment has been supplied.” However, he noted that expanding the operational zone for UK Storm Shadow missiles is unlikely to “make any difference” to Ukraine’s capacity to retaliate against Russia. He elaborated, “most of the more critical targets such as fighter bombers on Russian air bases are likely beyond the range of these missiles in practical terms – and there will be a limited number of the missiles available after lengthy combat use of the system in the war to date.”