The true purpose of Ukraine’s surprise offensive into the Russian agricultural region of Kursk has been hotly debated since it was launched in August. The complete failure of the 2023 “counter-offensive” led many to believe that Ukraine’s rumored troop shortages were far worse than initially reported. Some believed that the Kursk offensive was designed to allay fears among allies that Kyiv was no longer capable of taking ground from the Russians.
The invasion of Kursk was successful primarily because the area was weakly defended, and it was weakly defended because it has no strategic value. It’s a collection of farming towns with no industrial infrastructure, and the nearest vital site (a nuclear power plant) is too far away for the Ukrainians to reach. Almost every tactician not working for Ukraine has questioned the offensive, calling it potentially one of the greatest military blunders in modern history.
Why? Because Kursk has siphoned up some of Ukraine’s best troops and weaponry and increased the ground they have to defend with the limited forces they have available. In a war of attrition, the losing side must seek to shrink and strengthen their area of defense instead of spreading themselves thin. Ukraine did the opposite.
Vladimir Zelensky claims that Kursk was designed to lure large numbers of Russian troops away from the eastern front and stop their advance. If this is the case, then the effort was unsuccessful. Russian attacks increased in the period after the Kursk invasion and now Kremlin forces are in the process of taking at least three key cities which will cement their control of the Donbas.
Another theory is that Kursk was intended to convince NATO allies that Vladimir Putin’s “red lines” are meaningless and that Ukraine should be given access to long range missiles for striking deep into the heart of Russia. If that was the plan, then it has succeeded. The Biden Administration and NATO have given Zelensky the green light to use ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles at will.
Another possible advantage for Ukraine in the “red line” narrative is that it could be used to convince NATO countries to deploy troops to the region, thus triggering WWIII. This is, at bottom, the only hope Ukraine has to push Russia back – A massive influx of western troops and hardware. But at the same time the risk of a wider war with nuclear implications grows exponentially. There are plenty of people in Ukraine, elites in globalist think tanks and officials in NATO that have no problem with that.
The problem with Kursk is that Ukraine needs to hold it until they can get the response they want from the west, but Russia appears to be poised to take the ground back. And, if these reports are accurate, then maintaining a presence in Kursk may have backfired on Ukraine.
Hellbound and Down 