As has been widely reported in the world’s media, Ukraine has for the first time launched UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles into Russian territory. This follows the US consent to use its ATACMS missiles in a similar manner of a few days ago.

The catalyst for this relaxation of restraints on Ukrainian use of western-supplied long range precision missiles seems to have been the presence of up to 11,000 North Korean troops in the Kursk Oblast warzone.

Storm Shadows have, of course, been used against Russian military targets before, but only in occupied Ukrainian territory. Their successful employment has been held largely accountable for the withdrawal of the Russian Black Seas Fleet from Crimea after significant losses.

Aside from the politics, the importance here from a military point of view is that they have both longer range and double the payload of the American ATACMS missiles – approximately 190 miles compared to 155 miles for the American munition, and a warhead weighing in at roughly 900 lbs versus 500 lbs.

However, the numbers of these weapons available for Ukraine to use is not infinite. It’s estimated that it originally had roughly 50 ATACMS, and perhaps double that number of Storm Shadow or the French equivalent SCALP. Some of these have been used already and it’s unclear how many Kyiv has left.

Nor are they cheap. It seems that twelve Storm Shadows may have been used in the latest attack, and they cost £767,000 each. Accordingly their targets have to be of the highest priority and their routes to target carefully planned to give them the best chance of surviving the flight against Russia’s air defence systems.

It’s also not clear how many more, if any, the UK can or is prepared to send to Zelensky. As with other natures of ammunition that Britain has donated, the cupboard at home may be looking increasingly bare and stocks could be at a critical level. To quote former Chief of the General Staff Patrick Sanders, “it would make your hair stand on end”.

With this escalation in the conflict and the threats being made by Putin in response, hinting at the possibility of a tactical nuclear weapons, it seems rather counter-intuitive that UK Defence Secretary John Healey has chosen this particular moment to announce cuts to Britain’s military.

He has effectively pre-empted the Strategic Defence Review by Lord Robertson’s team, due to report in the Spring of 2025, by announcing the early retiral of some Royal Navy warships, some reconnaissance drones, and various helicopter types. These measures will, we are assured, save some £500 million.

In the bigger picture of defence spending this is a paltry figure. Britain’s annual defence budget is in the order of £55 billion per annum, so the projected savings are but a drop in the ocean. And this when everyone involved in UK defence matters is urging a rapid increase in defence spending in the face of rising global threats.

It’s hardly encouraging for our Armed Forces or our allies. One gets the impression that the Labour Party in government has not quite grasped the magnitude of the task facing it as it tries to deal with defence matters.

Whether this is a result of lack of military experience in party ranks, or a succession of weak and supine senior military chiefs of staff, or indeed “all the Tories’ fault” is not the point.

The central point, which Keir Starmer should be considering, is that when the UK next goes to war, and we all hope that will be never, our Armed Forces go with what they have, not with what they’d like to have.

Even if the defence budget was boosted to stratospheric levels today it would take at least ten years to put the services on a proper operational footing.

We can only hope that we’ll be lucky enough to be granted this period of grace to catch up. But there’s no time to lose.

Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a political and defence commentator and former Army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk