On the morning of August 6, the regional government of the Russian federal subject of Kursk, which borders Ukraine to the west, sent an alarm on its Telegram channel asking residents to take shelter to avoid incoming missile attacks. A few hours later, the channel posted photos of dilapidated residential buildings, with a message from the region’s acting governor, Alexei Smirnov, “Tonight, the city of Sudzha was shelled from the Ukrainian side. Many residential buildings were badly damaged.” Ukraine had earlier launched a surprise offensive on the ground in Russia’s southwestern province of Kursk. Invasion of the country Or the then Soviet Union since World War II.
While the Russian Defence Ministry was quick to claim that it had repelled several attacks by the Ukrainian army, which is equipped with about a battalion of tanks and armoured vehicles, footage geolocated by the Washington DC-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) revealed otherwise. In its August 7 update, ISW said that armoured vehicles had advanced about 10 kilometres from the international border with Sumy, Ukraine. Russia’s line of fortifications had apparently been breached.
Implication of the attack
The attack was carried out in a very discreet manner, shocking Moscow and raising questions about an intelligence failure. On August 7, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Kiev of a “large-scale provocation,” while Army General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff, tried to downplay the situation by saying the situation was “largely under control.”
Ukrainian forces continued their rapid advance towards Kursk in the following days, seizing villages and capturing advancing troops. On 16 August, they destroyed two bridges across the Seym River. Another bridge was attacked on 19 August.
According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, by August 19, his forces had taken control of 92 settlements and 1,250 square kilometres of Russian territory in Kursk. Mr Smirnov briefed Mr Putin on the situation on August 22, saying 1,33,190 people had been evacuated from these areas.
For Ukraine, the long-running war, which has been going on for two and a half years now, took a turn for the worse in May this year, when the Russian army launched an offensive in Kharkiv – its second-largest city. Already losing ground in the east, where Moscow has continued its aggression since the beginning of the war, Kiev now saw the battle lines drawn and was clearly in retreat. The August 6 offensive was, in a way, its last ditch effort to change the dynamics of the war.
logic
Strategically, this surprise offensive serves several purposes for Kiev. It can be seen as a diversionary tactic used to force Russia to withdraw its forces from the ongoing offensive in the east or Kharkiv. Planning an attack on Kursk must also take into account the geographical importance, as a ground offensive there would disrupt the movement of Russian forces towards Kharkiv, which is southeast of Sumy.
However, according to Mr. Zelensky, its purpose The aim of this operation was to “create a buffer zone” This will deter further Russian attacks across the border. Citing ISW, Mr Zelensky said the Russian military had launched about 2,100 artillery strikes against the border from Kursk to Sumy since June 1.
If Kiev succeeds in maintaining the buffer zone created through the territorial developments carried out in Kursk, it could also serve as leverage in any potential future negotiations with Moscow. This is all the more significant, especially at a time when the US, Kiev’s biggest arms supplier, is heading to elections in November. Washington had put its security assistance to Kiev on hold for months, as Congress was divided on the issue and Republicans were opposed to providing further aid to Ukraine. In June, US President Joe Biden even publicly apologised to Mr Zelensky for the months-long delay.
On the other hand, Republican candidate and former US President Donald Trump pledged in July to end the war by negotiating a deal with Kiev and Moscow. Mr Trump has always presented himself as a man who can end the war quickly, even though he has not made clear how he wants to achieve it. Meanwhile, his running mate JD Vance is among the group of Republicans who advocate cutting off military aid to Kiev. With Mr Biden out of the presidential race and Mr Trump likely to win, Kiev knows that aid from the US may not be guaranteed after November. Germany, Europe’s main supplier of aid to Kiev, has also recently announced that it will cut aid in 2025. With so many such uncertainties, Kiev has been forced to cut the grass while the sun shines.
Whether or not this offensive is strategically successful, by bringing the war directly into Russian territory Kiev has shown the world that Moscow’s battlefield is not impenetrable. It has sent a message to its arms suppliers and the rest of the world that Moscow has its own vulnerabilities, just as the Prigozhin rebellion or the Wagner Group revolt last year exposed.
Russian response
After initial attempts to downplay the Kursk offensive, Moscow’s response has not been direct on the situation. Instead of redeploying its troops from the east to stop the incursion at Kursk, it has moved into areas where there was already momentum and where it was advancing.
Since the Kursk incursion, Moscow has achieved significant success in its effort to lay siege to the city of Pokrovsk, a vital logistics hub linking the front lines east to Kiev. In fact, it has claimed to have already captured the city of Neu-York, another vital logistics hub that lies just 40 miles from Pokrovsk. If Pokrovsk falls, it could further boost Moscow’s efforts to gain full control of the Donetsk region, which it has declared will be annexed in 2022. For Putin, it would help to quell the nationalist backlash and compensate for the losses at Kursk. The Russian military command has also strengthened the defence at Kursk by redeploying some forces from Kharkiv.
what lies ahead?
While Kiev has changed the narrative of the war through the surprise attack, it remains to be seen how the move will benefit it in the long term. Whether the situation of diplomatic instability will give it leverage in negotiations or Russia’s counter-attack will shift the balance again is yet unknown.