The surprise incursion by Ukrainian troops into Russian territory is not only extraordinary but risky. This is the biggest attack by a foreign army on Russian soil since the second world war. Two and a half years after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of its neighbour – and 10 years after it annexed Crimea – Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced that “war is coming home to Putin”. Kyiv says it has captured 1,000 sq km; Russia has acknowledged that its enemy’s forces have seized a smaller but still significant area. At least 130,000 residents in the Kursk and Belgorod regions have been evacuated and, a week after the offensive began, the humiliated Russian military is still struggling to repel it.
The smartness of the tactics is striking. Ukraine appears to have identified and capitalised on a weak spot, acting so swiftly and secretly that one fighter described driving into a Russian unit as they sat drinking coffee. The strategy is less clear. Mr Zelenskiy said that he wanted to stop cross-border shelling. That sounded like a justification for western allies, though there may have been concerns that Russia would attempt to cross the border the other way, into Sumy. Kyiv also says that the advance has “complicated” Russian logistics. Vladimir Putin has suggested that Ukraine wants leverage ahead of ceasefire talks. Kyiv denies any interest in the long-term occupation of Kursk. But diverting Russian forces from eastern Ukraine, where they have been relentlessly grinding down its defenders, has obvious advantages.
Critically, Kyiv’s military and political aims in the conflict have always been interlinked. It has understood from the first that mood is critical to maintaining the fight and the flow of arms needed for it. The startling incursion appears to have raised flagging spirits in Ukraine.
It has created a renewed sense of momentum, which is helpful in bolstering western support: it counters suggestions that Ukraine is steadily sliding to defeat. Kyiv said that it launched this assault without warning the US and other key backers, but the Biden administration announced another aid package of $125m worth of arms on Friday, suggesting it is not greatly concerned. The Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal and the Republican senator Lindsey Graham, visiting Ukraine, pressed the case that Washington should further loosen restrictions on how Kyiv uses the arms it is sent.
The attack may also have some effect in Russia, despite the vast war propaganda machine, undercutting Mr Putin’s strongman image and prompting doubts among the elite – and perhaps encouraging squabbling over who is to blame for this embarrassment. The final judgment on Kyiv’s bet, however, will depend on what happens in the next few weeks.
How Mr Putin responds to this “provocation” will be one factor in determining how the political and psychological boost from the attack is balanced by its military and perhaps humanitarian cost. Holding this territory would be tough. But even if Ukraine withdraws sooner rather than later, it could pay a significant price in arms and personnel – when it is already struggling to replenish its ranks. There are also suggestions that while Russia has diverted some troops from around Kharkiv, it has not yet moved significant numbers from the Donbas region. If Ukraine loses territory at home, having dispatched troops into Russia, its move may look reckless rather than gutsy. Taking the enemy by surprise is a short-term win. But the consequences of this bold gamble are still playing out.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
