by Miceál O’Hurley
KURSK — The audacious decision of Ukraine to push deep into Russia’s Kursk region surprised the world, but most importantly, Russia. Despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s boisterous claim that he would use his nuclear arsenal should Russia’s security be at risk, a threat so often amplified by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Russian tactical nuclear devices remain on their launch platforms. The lack of fulfilment of this oft stated threat that has heretofore stayed the hand of the Biden Administration lays bare Russia’s true vulnerability. After years of continuing to restrain Ukraine from using Western supplied weapons to attack Russian territory out of concern that it would lead to nuclear escalation those fears have been allayed. Ukraine’s military triumph in Kursk over the past few weeks is now rebalancing a war now well into its 10th year.
Russia has eschewed modern military tactics and rely on its “meat wave” assaults against Ukrainian positions. What meagre territorial gains Russia has achieved has come at the horrendous cost of tens-of-thousands of casualties, prisoners and equipment losses each month. Russia’s failures to protect its Kursk region betrays their domestic vulnerability and the lack of a trained and battle-ready reserve force capable of assisting in the defense of its “Russian soil”. Open source intelligence has shown battalions of Russian forces being repositioned from Kaliningrad in an attempt to stabilise the situation in the Kursk region.
The Kursk incursion has shown how thoroughly modern Ukraine’s military has become. Freed from the attrition of static, defensive warfare Ukraine’s command and control have mastered the art of modern, mobile warfare tactics in support of a strategy meant to change the dynamics of the war. As a result, Ukraine has gained more territory in the last 2-weeks in Russia’s Kursk region than Russia has been able to gain in Ukraine during the last year. The Kursk incursion has resulted in the capture of some 1,150 square kilometers and 82-settlements of “Russian soil”. While this has been achieved with an unusually high rate of Ukrainian armoured troop carrier and vehicle losses, the casualty rate has been remarkably low in an operation that has returned incredible results. When compared with territory seized rather than equipment and troop losses over a fixed-period, the gains have been exceptional.
Undoubtedly, should Ukraine be able to retain the territory and tie-up Russian assets it will provide relief along the 420 kilometer contact line inside Ukraine. Moreover, it should disrupt Russia’s logistical reliability and diminish strikes against Ukraine’s civilian and critical infrastructure from this Russian military-rich, cross-border region.
It is not Ukraine’s achievement in taking so much Russian territory in Kursk that is most noteworthy – but rather what it portends for the war that is most important. The astounding ground operation was made chiefly possible by two things and people – Ukraine’s superior military intelligence and battlefield assessment capabilities under the authority of Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov; and, the superior military leadership and tactical prowess of Ukraine’s Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi.
Syrskyi, who had been written-off by some in the West as being an inferior choice to lead Ukraine’s military following Valeri Zaluzhnyi’s departure, has shown the bankruptcy of such thinking. Pundits had claimed his foundational education at the Moscow Higher Military Command School tended to limit his ability to think and act advantageously in modern warfare. He had defied such spurious thinking and once again demonstrated how he is by far the superior commander in this brutal war standing head-and-shoulders above his Russian counterparts. Syrskyi’s ability to defend the battlefield in Ukraine following the privation and slow supply of Western weapon over the past 2-years was not only masterful under daunting circumstances but his ability to seize upon the opportunity to exploit Russia’s weaknesses and take the war successfully into Russia will no doubt be a historical lesson studied for years to come.
Unlike their Russian counterparts, Ukraine’s military and intelligence leaders have once again exceeded all expectations by identifying then exploiting a unique opportunity for Ukraine to rebalance the battlefield quickly and effectively. They have done just that with incredible results. By contrast, Russia’s intelligence community seems to have entirely failed to comprehend Ukraine’s combat capabilities and operational staging strategy. Ukraine’s incursion has exposed how Russia’s ill-prepared and deficiently trained forces are inherently incapable of reacting to the modern battlefield to defend their homeland.
The real question remains – ‘Will the West finally realise that Ukraine is capable of winning this war and restoring its 1991 borders if given the unreserved support it deserves’? The answer to that question is not only one of policy but possibly one of personality. U.S. Republican candidate Donald Trump and his running-mate Senator J.D. Vance have repeatedly claimed they will not continue to send “… one more cent” to Ukraine and have plans to end the conflict “immediately”. Trump’s pro-Russian/Pro-Putin world view makes an equitable solution from the Trump-Vance team unlikely and Trump’s tendency towards transactional action may tend to undermine U.S. security interests. For her part, U.S. Democratic Party candidate Vice President Kamala Harris has not yet clearly articulate a policy break with President Joe Biden who has been willing to support Ukraine though not quickly enough and then with significant restrain on arms use against Russian soil targets.
The West’s adherence to the Cold War doctrine of non-escalation for fear of nuclear missile launches has only served to encourage Russian aggression. Putin and Medvedev’s repeated assertions that they are willing to resort to nuclear war to protect Russia’s security (a security defined by them), is now exposed as a bluff. Still, it has been a bluff that has caused the West to tarry in delivering fulsome support for Ukraine the consequence of which has been the cost of countless Ukrainian lives who have been left on the defensive in a static warfare more akin to 1914 than modernity. This has only served to prolong the war for Ukraine’s national defense, security and democratic political system.
This is not to say that the threat of Russia resorting to nuclear war does not remain a possibility. However, the likelihood of a nuclear launch remains as low as ever and the threat of nuclear terrorism from Moscow needs to be reassessed. Putin’s inner circle now understand that any nuclear launch will not be forgotten and an aging Putin’s successor, likely to come from those with current influence and standing, will never be forgiven for any part they might, by acts of commission or omission, should nuclear weapons be used.
Notably for Putin and Russia, Ukraine’s incursion into the Kursk region exposed the weak political support of the local population to defend their homeland. Analysts have often reflected on how through the years Russians have enjoyed sharing in Putin’s triumphalism of aggression. What they have too often failed to articulate that the willingness of the Russian people to engage in patriotic fervor doesn’t necessarily reflect their commitment to suffer for Putin and Russia’s policy of aggression when it carries a domestic cost.
Russia’s patriotic support for their 1980s Invasion of Afghanistan eroded, drip-by-drip, with the unceasing stream of caskets, disfigured soldiers and suffering veterans that returned from that nightmarish escapade. Today’s Russian population and the Kremlin are keenly aware that that war hastened the demise of the Soviet Union. Given the utter rapidity of surrender and lack of resistance by Russians in the Kursk region many Russians must now be wondering if Russia’s attempt to seize Ukraine beginning in 2014 will be the nail in the coffin of Putin and his reign of expanding aggression in the service of his dreams of empire. By now, even the Kremlin realises that only esoteric support exists, at best, for Putin and his goal of creating a new Russian empire with himself as Czar.
With a crumbling economy and now the humiliation of Russian soil being occupied by Ukrainian forces, Putin will continue to struggle to create a narrative with any credibility to sustain his desire to vanquish Ukraine. Despite his bellicose language, Putin has reverted to his usual indecisiveness during a crisis, relying more on the projection of power than power itself.
Last year’s revolt by Yevgeny Prigozhin in which Russian towns and peoples willingly gave themselves over to his Wagner forces until a chastened Putin was forced to embrace Prigozhin was a humiliating act. Now, Ukraine’s success in subduing large parts of the Kursk region so quickly at relatively little cost while maintaining their domestic defenses must have Putin feeling increasingly desperate to find a way out of this morass. It seems only a matter of time before someone proclaims, “The Emperor Has No Clothes”.
Now is the time for the next U.S. President and Western leaders to finally, and fully, support a Ukrainian victory. Just as in World War II when the U.S. and Great Britain needed to strike deep inside the Reich and occupied territories to reduce the threat from V2 rockets and marshalling armour and armies, Ukraine must have the freedom of action to do the same. Static warfare in Ukraine has only served to aid Russia. Trench warfare is a great leveler of skilled and un-skilled soldiers. The dynamic needed to change and mobility was the only way forward for Ukraine, even if limited in theatre of operations.
Ukraine’s willingness, capability and prowess in launching the Kursk incursion demonstrates they are a thoroughly modern and capable military capable of maneuver and objective attainment. Forcing Russia to fight in a way in which they are ill-prepared and tactically incapable of engaging all while diminishing Russia’s capability to strike Ukraine’s civilians and critical infrastructure is crucial to prosecuting this war to its successful conclusion. Russia is already retaliating with missile attacks on Kyiv, but they are no longer doing so from Kursk. Ukraine should not be deprived the very freedom of military action that allowed the allies to prevail against the last century’s bulwark of tyranny.
Ukraine has been defending itself admirably for 10-long years. It’s time to remove the restraints and allow Ukraine to win.
