In early August 2024, Ukraine launched one of its most audacious operations since the onset of the conflict. In a bold move, it crossed into Russian territory and seized a clutch of border hamlets in a swift mechanised thrust. On the first day of the offensive, Ukrainian troops captured the strategically important “Sudzha” gas metering station — a crucial part of the remaining Russian pipeline still sending gas to Europe through Ukraine. However, in sympathy with the gas supplies to its EU allies like Hungary and others, Kyiv allowed the gas to flow uninterrupted.
This bold incursion marks a significant shift in the dynamics of the war, presenting profound challenges for both Kyiv and Moscow. As Ukrainian forces hold their positions, the operation raises critical questions about the future of the conflict, the stability of the Russian regime, and the potential for escalation.
Background
Ukraine’s cross-border offensive is more than just a tactical manoeuvre; it is a strategic gambit with significant symbolic implications. After over two years of conflict, Ukraine’s ability to seize and hold territory within Russia sends a powerful message to both Moscow and Kyiv’s Western allies.
According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukrainian forces have advanced in several directions, capturing more than 100 Russian soldiers and securing control over approximately 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory, including 74 towns and villages.
This incursion demonstrates Ukraine’s capacity for complex, combined-arms warfare, integrating tanks, artillery, and air defence systems with remarkable effectiveness. The operation has revived Western confidence in Ukraine’s military capabilities, which waned following the relatively disappointing results of Ukraine’s summer offensive in 2023.
However, Ukraine’s success in Kursk comes with significant challenges. Holding the captured territory could prove more difficult and costly than the initial advance. Ukrainian forces operate deep within enemy territory, where logistical support is tenuous, and the threat of Russian counterattacks looms. The number of Ukrainian troops involved is estimated to be between 6,000 and 18,000—a well-trained force that may be stretched too thin to control such a vast area effectively. The operation’s success hinges on Ukraine’s ability to maintain its foothold and its capacity to sustain supply lines and fend off Russian reinforcements.
One of the greatest risks for Ukrainian forces is the threat of Russian airstrikes. Although Ukraine has reportedly shot down several Russian helicopters and jets, the danger of sustained aerial bombardment remains a serious concern. Despite suffering setbacks, Russia retains significant air superiority, and its military still holds considerable numerical and logistical advantages. The possibility of a prolonged conflict within Russian territory poses a strategic dilemma for Ukraine, as the costs of holding ground could eventually outweigh the benefits.
Moreover, the longer Ukraine holds onto its territorial gains, the greater the risk of infiltration, ambushes, and sabotage by Russian forces. While operating in enemy territory, Ukrainian troops must contend with a hostile environment with minimal local support and unfamiliar terrain.
Putin’s response to the Kursk incursion has been measured, reflecting his desire to avoid panicking the Russian public. He has carefully avoided using the term “invasion,” instead referring to the operation as “the situation in the border area” or dismissing it as a “provocation.” This language is likely intended to downplay the threat and prevent public alarm. However, the reality that Ukrainian soldiers are seizing Russian territory is a stark contrast to the Kremlin’s narrative of security and stability.
Analysis
For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Ukrainian incursion represents a significant challenge to his authority and the narrative he has carefully crafted over two and a half decades in power. Putin has long styled himself as “Mr. Security,” the leader capable of safeguarding Russia’s borders and ensuring the safety of its people. The invasion of Ukraine, which Putin initially framed as a “special military operation” designed to enhance Russia’s national security, is now being called into question as Ukrainian forces occupy Russian territory and NATO’s presence on Russia’s borders expands.
The incursion has exposed vulnerabilities in Russia’s defences and raised questions about the effectiveness of its military strategy. Russian state media has attempted to minimise the situation, focusing on evacuation efforts and portraying the government’s response as competent and controlled. Nevertheless, the sight of Ukrainian troops on Russian soil is a psychological blow that challenges the Kremlin’s portrayal of the war as a distant conflict that does not directly threaten Russian citizens.
Despite these challenges, Putin remains confident in weathering the storm. He has survived several significant crises throughout his tenure, including the sinking of the Moskva flagship, the declaration of partial mobilisation, and the armed mutiny led by the Wagner Group last year. Each event was seen as a potential turning point that could weaken Putin’s grip on power, yet he emerged relatively unscathed.
The Kursk Offensive also significantly affects Ukraine’s relationship with its Western allies. The operation has reinvigorated Western support for Ukraine, demonstrating that Kyiv remains capable of mounting successful large-scale military operations despite the difficulties it faces. Latvia’s Foreign Minister, Baiba Braze, has publicly defended Ukraine’s right to use NATO-supplied weapons in its self-defence, including in cross-border operations. Her remarks underscore the West’s continued commitment to Ukraine, even as the risks of escalation with Russia increase.
The operation’s success for Ukraine could bolster Kyiv’s position in any potential peace talks, providing it with leverage to negotiate favourable terms. However, the risks are equally significant. If Ukraine fails to hold onto its gains, or if the operation leads to a broader escalation of the conflict, the consequences could be severe for Ukraine and the broader region.
One of the most pressing concerns surrounding the Kursk incursion is the potential for escalation, particularly concerning Russia’s nuclear doctrine. Putin has previously described the use of NATO weapons on Russian territory as a “red line,” raising fears that the Kursk offensive could provoke a severe response from the Kremlin.
Nonetheless, the risk of escalation remains. Russia’s continued inability to halt the Ukrainian advance could prompt the Kremlin to take more drastic measures to defend its territory and maintain its strategic position.
Assessment
- As the conflict enters this new phase, the stakes for both sides are higher than ever. The outcome of the Kursk offensive could have far-reaching implications for the future of the war, the stability of the Russian regime, and the broader geopolitical landscape.
- Mr Putin has been rattling the nuclear sabre quite frequently. It is hoped that no serious escalation will occur, which puts the nuclear equilibrium at risk. Despite the heightened rhetoric, it is unlikely that Mr Putin would resort to nuclear weapons in response to the current situation.
- The operation underscores the broader uncertainties facing Ukraine. A shift in U.S. policy could significantly affect Ukraine’s ability to sustain its military operations, particularly if support from other NATO members proves insufficient. On the other hand, such bold moves could well win over even a doubting Mr Trump if he is voted back to power this November,
