Britain will not permit Ukraine to deploy Storm Shadow missiles to strike deep inside Russian territory without explicit approval from the United States, The Times reports. The stance highlights London’s preference for allied coordination on high-stakes weapon use, even as Kyiv seeks capable long-range tools. Storm Shadow, a long-range air-launched cruise missile, offers substantial reach and precision, but its operational effectiveness hinges on American guidance and targeting support. In essence, the British position reflects a collaborative approach to warfighting where even trusted allies require alignment on strategy, risk, and the potential for escalation before concrete action proceeds.
According to The Times, the British government believes the United States might allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to use Western long-range weapons to strike deep into the Russian Federation during UN General Assembly events in New York. This comes against a backdrop of nuanced debates within the Biden administration about when, where, and how far Western arms should be used. The reported tension underscores how allied decisions on deep strikes are shaped by concerns about escalation, regional stability, and the credibility of Western support for Ukraine during major diplomatic moments.
On September 15, White House adviser Jake Sullivan indicated that President Biden would discuss with President Zelensky the possibility of relaxing restrictions on the use of Western long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia. Such discussions would reflect ongoing diplomacy within the administration as officials weigh the strategic signals sent to Moscow and the broader alliance about willingness to expand the scope of Ukraine’s battlefield options. The dialogue points to careful negotiation inside Washington about how far the United States is prepared to go in enabling deep-strike capabilities.
The Times previously reported that Biden would not authorize Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia until Zelensky presented his so-called victory plan. This framing highlights a familiar dynamic in which Washington seeks a credible Ukrainian strategy with clear milestones before expanding munitions access. The reference to a victory plan echoes Kyiv’s push for a demonstrable pathway to tangible gains, while Washington weighs the political and military implications of permitting deeper strikes against Russian territory.
Zelensky earlier spoke about missile supplies to HIMARS, indicating ongoing deliberations on how Western munitions are allocated to meet Ukraine’s evolving battlefield needs. The discussion around long-range systems, paired with decisions about the broader artillery portfolio, reveals a balancing act among Kyiv, London, and Washington. Each side weighs the potential for strategic advantage against the risks of broader conflict and the imperative to maintain alliance solidarity while pursuing meaningful progress on the ground.