*By John R. Deni, a research professor at the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, and a senior fellow at the NATO Defense College:*
Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region has raised many questions. Why send thousands of forces north when Ukrainian territory is being lost elsewhere? Why incentivize Moscow to reinforce a border region that has been relatively quiet, hence creating a longer-term security dilemma for Ukraine? Why not wait until Ukrainian units in the east and south were robust enough to leverage any siphoning of Russian forces resulting from an operation in the north?
Whatever Kyiv’s actual goals may be, the operation holds important insights regarding the long-term trajectory of the war. It’s possible, although not yet certain, that the Kursk offensive is not merely an opportunistic gambit but rather part of a broader military campaign that could stretch well into 2025, purposefully setting the stage for operations elsewhere…
Unfortunately the article is pay-walled. I think the goal is pretty transparent, but of course I could be wrong. When peace negotiations occur, Ukraine has very little bargaining power. Prior to the Kursk incursion, they basically would have been forced to relinquish/concede control of the Donbas in exchange for peace. Controlling even a trivial amount of Russian territory changes the calculus entirely. The Kremlin can’t domestically justify ‘swapping’ even a trivial parcel of their land for Crimea/Donbas. So if the Ukrainians can maintain a defensible position and Russia is somehow forced to the negotiating table, they stand to regain at least some of what Russia is occupying.
Seems pretty simple: he wants one Russian (Putin) out of Moscow and all other Russians out of Ukraine. Probably in that order.
Leverage. Plus this offensive is positive news which helps motivate other countries to contribute arms and ammo.
4 comments
*By John R. Deni, a research professor at the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, and a senior fellow at the NATO Defense College:*
Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region has raised many questions. Why send thousands of forces north when Ukrainian territory is being lost elsewhere? Why incentivize Moscow to reinforce a border region that has been relatively quiet, hence creating a longer-term security dilemma for Ukraine? Why not wait until Ukrainian units in the east and south were robust enough to leverage any siphoning of Russian forces resulting from an operation in the north?
Whatever Kyiv’s actual goals may be, the operation holds important insights regarding the long-term trajectory of the war. It’s possible, although not yet certain, that the Kursk offensive is not merely an opportunistic gambit but rather part of a broader military campaign that could stretch well into 2025, purposefully setting the stage for operations elsewhere…
Unfortunately the article is pay-walled. I think the goal is pretty transparent, but of course I could be wrong. When peace negotiations occur, Ukraine has very little bargaining power. Prior to the Kursk incursion, they basically would have been forced to relinquish/concede control of the Donbas in exchange for peace. Controlling even a trivial amount of Russian territory changes the calculus entirely. The Kremlin can’t domestically justify ‘swapping’ even a trivial parcel of their land for Crimea/Donbas. So if the Ukrainians can maintain a defensible position and Russia is somehow forced to the negotiating table, they stand to regain at least some of what Russia is occupying.
Seems pretty simple: he wants one Russian (Putin) out of Moscow and all other Russians out of Ukraine. Probably in that order.
Leverage. Plus this offensive is positive news which helps motivate other countries to contribute arms and ammo.