Follow us on social

Ukraine Sudzha

The hazards of Ukraine's incursion into Russia

While Kyiv has succeeded in capturing headlines, it's unclear at this point what the mission will actually achieve

Analysis | Europe

Should Americans regard Ukraine’s surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region as a turning point in the war, one that could bring Kyiv important new leverage in bargaining over a settlement, if not outright victory? As tempting as it is to believe that the Ukrainian military can aspire to more than stalemate and compromise, there is little about the Kursk offensive that justifies such hopes.

True, Ukraine’s attack seemed to blindside the Kremlin, leading rapidly to the capture of some thirty villages and forcing the evacuation of roughly 200,000 Russian citizens. Ukrainian officials claim to control more than 400 square miles of Russian territory. This initial success has generated an impressive volume of optimistic takes on Western opinion pages and talk shows, while showing increasingly discouraged Ukrainians that their beleaguered forces remain capable of seizing the initiative on the battlefield.

To shift the course of the war, however, Ukraine’s gambit must either divert significant numbers of Russian forces from the fighting in Ukraine itself, seize or destroy strategically important assets inside Russia, or hold territory over the longer term that can become a bargaining chip in negotiations over ending the conflict. None of that appears likely.

So far, the Russian military has not moved large numbers of troops into Kursk from the primary fronts in the Donbass, Zaporizhia, and Kharkiv. Rather, it has relied on substantial numbers of combat reserves that it had held back from Ukraine, coupled with air strikes on Ukrainian armor, troop concentrations, fuel depots, and supply lines. This has effectively prevented Kyiv from diverting its already stretched manpower from the frontlines in Ukraine to reinforce its initial success in Kursk. To provide cover for the incursion, Ukraine moved air defense assets toward the border with Russia, but this exposed their positions to devastating Russian strikes. As a result, Ukraine’s rapid early advances have slowed substantially, raising profound doubts about its capacity to hold captured territory for long.

Had Ukraine managed to capture the Kursk nuclear power plant, one of the largest in Russia, its bargaining power over the Kremlin might have grown quite substantially. The Russian military would have been hard-pressed to dislodge forces holding the plant without damaging or destroying the facility, and Ukrainian occupiers could have wielded the threat of releasing radiation as leverage over Putin’s demands in any negotiations. But Ukrainian forces have fallen far short of reaching that objective and have little prospect of attaining it now that Russia has mobilized forces defending the plant.

If the Kursk incursion was meant to embarrass Putin and turn up the political pressure inside Russia for ending the war, that, too, seems unlikely. Past Russian battlefield setbacks, such as the forced withdrawals from Kyiv, Kherson, and Kharkiv, had little impact on Putin’s polling numbers. Putin arguably emerged strengthened from his suppression of the Wagner uprising in 2023, the most embarrassing development he has faced since launching the invasion of Ukraine.

Russian television coverage of the incursion suggests the Kremlin is confident it can repel and even exploit the incursion. It initially highlighted humanitarian efforts to support and relocate affected civilians, then in recent days focused on successful Russian counterattacks on Ukraine’s forces and supply lines. Televised images of British- and German-supplied tanks advancing into Kursk, where the Soviet Red Army fought the largest tank battle in history against Nazi invaders, could stoke patriotic feelings in Russia and reinforce Putin’s arguments that NATO is both orchestrating and enabling Ukrainian attacks.

Indeed, rather than creating pressures inside Russia to end the war, Ukraine’s Kursk gambit could bolster Russia’s hawks, who have long complained that Putin has been too reluctant to mobilize and employ Russia’s full military capabilities in Ukraine. The combination of their criticism and the vulnerabilities created by Ukraine’s diversion of its most effective troops into Kursk may finally persuade Putin to cast aside his slow attrition strategy in favor of pursuing a decisive breakthrough of Ukrainian defenses.

And if the White House is correct that Ukraine launched the attacks on Kursk without America’s blessing, the incident may reinforce those in Washington who argue that it is imprudent to provide long-range strike weapons to a Zelensky regime that is prone to recklessness.

More than 20 years ago, General David Petraeus issued a famous challenge following the start of the Iraq War: “Tell me how this ends.” The answer in Ukraine remains no clearer today than it has been throughout the two-and-a-half years of Russia’s invasion. The Kursk incursion has shown that Ukraine can still capture headlines, but securing large amounts of Russian-held territory and shifting the course of the war seems to be beyond its reach.


A Ukrainian serviceman patrols an area in the controlled by Ukrainian army town of Sudzha, Kursk region, Russia August 16, 2024. REUTERS/Yan Dobronosov

Analysis | Europe
Trump Netanyahu in Washington
Top photo credit: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu (Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com)

Netanyahu returns to DC — in triumph or with more to ask?

Middle East

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will arrive in Washington for his third visit of Trump’s second term. Today also marks 21 months of Israel’s war on Gaza. The purpose of the visit remains unclear, and speculation abounds: will Trump and Netanyahu announce a real ceasefire in Gaza? Will Syria join the Abraham Accords? Or might Trump greenlight even broader Israeli action against Iran?

Before Netanyahu’s visit, Trump posted an ultimatum on Truth Social, claiming Israel had agreed to a 60-day ceasefire. He urged Hamas to accept the terms, threatening that “it will only get worse” if it doesn’t. Although Trump intended to pressure Hamas, reiterating a longstanding narrative that portrays the group as the obstacle to peace, Hamas has long maintained that it will only accept a ceasefire if it is part of a process that leads to a permanent end to Israel’s war and its complete withdrawal from the enclave. Netanyahu, for his part, remains adamant that the war must continue until Hamas is eliminated, a goal that even the IDF has described as not militarily viable.

keep readingShow less
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Yes to 'Department of War' name change

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Bidenites make soft landing in heart of lucrative war industry
Top photo credit: Brett McGurk (Kuhlmann /MSC/Wikimedia Commons) and Lloyd Austin ((DoD Photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Jack Sanders).

Bidenites make soft landing in heart of lucrative war industry

Military Industrial Complex

In 2021, Ret. Gen. Lloyd Austin declared he had “no intent to be a lobbyist.” On June 3, less than six months after leaving office, former President Joe Biden’s Secretary of Defense announced that he would be launching a new strategic advisory firm called “Clarion Strategies.” Some Senators allege this is simply lobbying by another name.

A pitch deck obtained by Politico noted that Clarion Strategies’ name is a “nod to its aim to equip clients with the clarity they need to navigate geopolitical upheaval driven by the war in Ukraine, advancements in defense technology like AI and unmanned systems, global trade shifts and emerging alliances among U.S. adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea and China.” In other words, the new firm is very much hoping to court clients from the defense industry.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.