British Storm Shadow diminishes in Ukraine’s conflict with Russia

In recent months, a notable quiet has enveloped one of the most discussed weapons in Ukraine’s military inventory: the Storm Shadow cruise missile.

Initially celebrated as a transformative asset when Kyiv was granted permission by the United Kingdom and the United States to deploy these long-range munitions against targets deep within Russia in November 2024, the missile has seemingly receded from public attention.

Reports regarding its use, which once ignited intense discussions and prompted Russian threats of retaliation, have significantly diminished by March 2025. This raises a pressing question for military analysts and observers: has Ukraine ceased utilizing the Storm Shadow, or has its significance in the conflict been intentionally minimized?

An analysis of open-source intelligence, official communications, and expert opinions suggests that the situation is influenced by a combination of logistical challenges, Russian countermeasures, and evolving geopolitical dynamics—all of which have contributed to the missile’s reduced visibility.

The Storm Shadow, a collaborative effort between Britain and France, is not just any missile. With a range surpassing 155 miles and a design that allows it to fly low and closely follow the terrain, it is engineered to penetrate deep into enemy territory, avoiding radar detection until it strikes with its 990-pound warhead with remarkable precision.

When Ukraine first deployed it against Russian positions after receiving Western approval late last year, the results were immediate and significant.

Attacks on military sites in the Kursk and Bryansk regions, validated by Ukrainian sources and geolocated videos shared on X in November 2024, demonstrated the missile’s capability to target high-value locations well beyond the front lines.

The Kremlin reacted with outrage, condemning the action as an escalation and alluding to potential “asymmetric” responses, including subtle nuclear threats. For a brief period, it appeared that the Storm Shadow could reshape the conflict, providing Ukraine with a crucial advantage in a war increasingly characterized by attrition.

By December 2024, discussions surrounding the conflict began to diminish. Analysts monitoring the situation via platforms like X observed a significant decline in credible reports of Storm Shadow missile strikes.

Previously, there were almost weekly assertions of successful attacks, often supported by blurry drone footage or Russian Telegram messages highlighting the destruction. However, such reports became infrequent.

An evaluation from the Institute for the Study of War on December 15, 2024, indicated that Ukraine may have “nearly exhausted” its supply of these missiles, noting the lack of new shipments from the UK or France.

Britain, which has been the primary supplier of Storm Shadows to Ukraine, is estimated to have delivered between 100 and 200 units since 2023, according to defense officials referenced by Reuters.

France, a co-manufacturer, contributed its own Scalp-EG variant, but its input was relatively minor. With no public acknowledgment of significant resupply in late 2024 or early 2025, it appears that Ukraine may have depleted its stock at a rate that is unsustainable for a prolonged conflict.

This shortage is understandable. Each Storm Shadow missile costs over $2 million, and production is not particularly rapid. The manufacturer, MBDA, does not produce these missiles at the same pace as artillery shells; they are precision weapons made in limited quantities.

Western stockpiles, already strained by years of commitments in other areas, struggled to meet Ukraine’s demands, especially after Kyiv intensified its deep-strike operations following the approval in November.

A statement from the UK Ministry of Defence in January 2025, although somewhat ambiguous, indicated a focus on “prioritizing existing stocks” for NATO allies, implying that London may be reluctant to further diminish its own reserves.

In contrast, France has remained silent, providing no updates on additional shipments since mid-2024. For Ukraine, this situation likely presents a difficult decision: either conserve the remaining missiles for crucial situations or risk exhausting their supply entirely.

Meanwhile, Russia has not remained passive while Ukraine utilizes this weapon. The Kremlin’s air defense systems, particularly the S-400 and Pantsir-S1, have consistently posed challenges for Kyiv.

On January 12, 2025, Russia’s Ministry of Defense announced that it had intercepted six Storm Shadows during an attempted strike on Bryansk Oblast, a claim supported by state media such as TASS.

While such assertions often deserve scrutiny—given Russia’s tendency to inflate its achievements—independent open-source intelligence researchers, including the GeoConfirmed team, have confirmed the presence of debris consistent with Storm Shadow components in the vicinity. This incident is not unique.

Throughout late 2024, Russian sources reported intercepting the missile in locations like Crimea and Kursk, frequently displaying wreckage on Telegram channels such as Rybar.

If even a portion of these claims is accurate, it suggests that Ukraine’s valuable weapon may not be as invulnerable as previously believed when faced with a sophisticated defense network developed over years of conflict.

The technical aspects of the situation provide valuable insights. The Storm Shadow missile depends on its stealthy characteristics—featuring a low radar profile and a terrain-following flight path—to evade detection. However, Russia’s air defense network, enhanced by long-range radar systems and integrated command structures, has adapted to these challenges.

An anonymous military analyst from the Royal United Services Institute, speaking to the BBC in February 2025, indicated that Moscow has likely focused on countering Western-supplied weapons following their introduction, reallocating resources to safeguard critical areas.

While the missile’s subsonic speed is advantageous for fuel efficiency over its 155-mile range, it allows defenders additional time to respond compared to quicker systems like ballistic missiles. Coupled with electronic jamming—an area of expertise for Russia—the effectiveness of the Storm Shadow may be diminishing, prompting Ukraine to reconsider its deployment strategy.

On a broader scale, political factors may also be influencing the situation. The initial excitement surrounding Storm Shadow strikes in November 2024 came with repercussions: increased tensions with Moscow at a time when Western resolve was already being questioned. Putin’s threats of “consequences” were not without merit.

In December, there was a notable increase in Russian missile and drone assaults on Ukrainian cities, with the UN reporting over 2,000 civilian casualties that month. This escalation coincided with a political shift in Washington, as Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025, approached.

Trump, who campaigned on the promise to end the conflict “in 24 hours,” reportedly urged European leaders to temper their aggressive actions, according to a leak from Axios on January 25. It remains uncertain whether this had any impact on Ukraine’s use of the Storm Shadow, but the timing is noteworthy.

By early 2025, Kyiv’s rhetoric began to lean towards diplomacy, with President Zelensky alluding to “new initiatives” in a March 10 interview with CNN—an indication that the nation was not solely focused on long-range strikes.

There is also the potential for intentional ambiguity. Ukraine and its allies have a history of keeping sensitive operations confidential. The initial Storm Shadow strikes in 2023, which targeted Crimea under Russian control, went unacknowledged for several weeks.

A source associated with Ukraine’s General Staff, as reported by The Times of London on March 15, 2025, indicated that some missiles are being held in reserve for “specific high-value targets,” although information was limited.

This approach aligns with Kyiv’s overarching strategy of conserving limited resources while maximizing psychological effects. If accurate, the absence of reports may indicate not a lack of action but rather a strategic restraint—holding back until the opportune moment.

What implications does this have for the conflict? The quiet phase of the Storm Shadow could represent a pivotal moment, or it may simply be a temporary pause. While Russia’s defenses have shown resilience, they are not invulnerable; a February 2025 attack on a munitions depot in Rostov, tentatively attributed to Storm Shadow by the OSINT group Oryx, demonstrates that the missile still poses a threat.

However, without new supplies, Ukraine’s capacity to maintain such operations is uncertain. The UK and France are also facing their own challenges—domestic budget constraints, NATO commitments, and the potential for Russian retaliation against their interests.

A report from Jane’s Defence Weekly on March 20, 2025, speculated that London might advocate for a multinational fund to increase production, but no definitive actions have been taken.

Currently, the Storm Shadow exists in a peculiar state of uncertainty. Once a representation of Western resolve and Ukrainian resistance, it has become a silent figure in the narrative, with its absence as significant as its previous presence.

The conflict continues, and while artillery and drones dominate the daily operations, the future of the missile could still influence the outcome—if Kyiv and its allies decide to utilize it.