Ukrainian forces continue to advance their operations deep within Russian territory. By mid-August 2024, they have penetrated approximately 10 km, capturing around 1,000 square kilometers, and taking control of 28 settlements within the Kursk region. Additionally, they have bombed and destroyed two critical bridges in the Russian supply network.
The Ukrainian incursion into Russian territory on August 6th was unexpected. It was launched by approximately 1,000 soldiers, supported by American Bradley armored vehicles, German Leopard tanks, HIMARS and Howitzer systems for striking Russian positions and disrupting logistics. Turkish Bayraktar drones were also used, along with American Javelin anti-tank guided missiles.
At the outset of the invasion, Ukrainian authorities remained silent, likely considering several factors. First, they may have been waiting for Russia’s response to the incursion, leaving room to withdraw if the Russian retaliation was overwhelming. Second, they likely awaited the success of the invasion before announcing it, fearing failure and the embarrassment it would bring to Kyiv. Third, they were cautious in informing Western allies, waiting to ensure Russia’s compliance with the new reality. Western allies had been opposed to using their weapons in military incursions into Russian territory, seeing it as crossing a red line that could provoke Russia into expanding the war beyond Ukraine’s borders or breaking the current rules of engagement.
Once it became clear that Russia was yielding to the new reality and the initial stages of the operation were successful, Ukrainian authorities began to officially adopt the invasion. They justified it as a means to disrupt the Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine, framing it within a broader strategic perspective: the invasion could shake confidence in the Russian leadership domestically, force Russia into a defensive stance, encourage more support from allies, and bolster their faith in Ukraine’s ability to win the war.
In this new context, Russia now faces uncertainty, as its territory is exposed along a stretch of the shared border with Ukraine spanning between 1,600 and 1,700 km, where a repeat of what happened in Kursk is possible. As a result, Russian forces will have to redistribute their troops to focus on defense, though they are unsure where the next Ukrainian attack might occur.
The Russian Trap and the Ukrainian Surprise
Before the invasion of the Kursk region, Ukrainian forces were on the defensive, constantly anticipating incoming Russian strikes. They had become unable to breach the frontlines after Russian forces established a strong defensive network of barriers and trenches in the east and south, complemented by extensive artillery formations. This allowed Russian forces to focus on the offensive and safely move their troops between various fronts, creating confusion among Ukrainian forces and diminishing their ability to predict the direction of the next Russian attack. This attack could come from one of three main fronts: the eastern front in Donbas, extending for 500 km; the northern front in Kharkiv, stretching 300 km; and the southern front in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, which border the Black Sea and Crimea, spanning 400 km. Additionally, Kyiv had to protect the capital and monitor the border with Belarus, fearing its involvement in the war on Russia’s side.
These multiple fronts placed the Ukrainian army in a dilemma of anticipating Russian military movements over long distances. On the other hand, the Russian army did not suffer from this issue, having secured its borders with a defensive network that restricted Ukrainian forces. This ongoing stalemate led Western allies to begin doubting the effectiveness of continuing their support for the Ukrainian war effort. Voices began rising, urging Ukrainian leadership to consider a political settlement with Russia before Ukraine lost more of its territory.
The Ukrainian leadership faced a choice: accept a political settlement that would cede part of its territory or continue to fight without a clear outcome. However, Ukrainian leadership surprised both its Russian enemy and its Western allies once again, much like it did at the beginning of the war with its fierce resistance when Russian leadership assumed that taking Kyiv would be easy and that Ukrainian leadership would quickly collapse, leading President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to flee. This assessment was also shared by the American leadership at the start of the war, as they urged Zelenskyy to leave the country, offering to ensure his safe passage. But he surprised them with his response: “I don’t need a ride, I need ammunition.” It later became clear that the Russian and Western leaderships had miscalculated. Similarly, it seems that this time, the Russian leadership believed that Ukrainian leadership would not dare to invade its territory out of fear of Russian wrath. Western leadership had consistently refused to participate directly or provide their equipment for attacks on Russian territory to avoid provoking Russian leadership into a larger war. But the Ukrainian leadership decided otherwise, resulting in a new surprise that may be the second strategic surprise of the war. Thus, Ukraine gained several advantages, including easing the pressure on its forces on the eastern front. Due to this invasion, Russia was forced to move troops back into the country to counter the advancing Ukrainian forces. Secondly, the Russian leadership was compelled to reprioritize, giving precedence to securing its borders over seizing Ukrainian territory. Thirdly, a political and strategic gain emerged, with Ukraine potentially using the Russian territories it controls as a bargaining chip in negotiations for its own lands under Russian control.
There is no doubt that the Russian leadership did not anticipate the Ukrainian invasion and was unprepared to deal with it. Initially, they resorted to air forces to stop the Ukrainian advance, but they failed. They then began organizing combat forces for that purpose, but the operation was marked by confusion and slowness due to the centralization of decision-making within the Russian military leadership. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces, characterized by their decentralized nature, continued to advance, entrench themselves, cut off Russian supply lines, and control supply routes. They successfully hindered the movement of about 3,000 Russian soldiers south of the Sem River. Russian forces are still attempting to establish floating platforms to maintain supply flows and evacuate troops. Putin ordered the elimination of the Ukrainian invasion by early October 2024 without reducing the number of Russian troops fighting in eastern Ukraine.
At this stage, it is difficult to know whether Russian forces will be able to achieve this. After several weeks of launching a counteroffensive on August 8th, they still have not achieved clear successes, especially since Ukrainian leadership does not seem to want this invasion to be a mere temporary attack but rather the opening of a continuous confrontation front. Ukrainian forces sent elite reinforcements within days of the attack’s beginning, indicating a long-term bet on invading Russian territory to achieve a strategic breakthrough that would provide them with better options to strengthen their negotiating position.
A Battle of Wills and the Dilemma of Attrition
Future scenarios depend on the potential outcomes for both warring parties. Ukrainian leadership may succeed in regaining the initiative by invading Russian territory, thereby imposing a negotiating position that grants them additional leverage. Alternatively, Russian leadership may absorb the invasion and restore the previous situation, draining Ukrainian forces in the process. Both sides may exhaust each other to the point where neither can continue the fight, leading to a cessation without the need for an agreement. A “gray swan” event could also occur, such as Trump winning the election, halting U.S. support for Ukraine, and forcing it to cede parts of its territory to Russia in exchange for peace.
– Invading More Russian Territories
The Ukrainian leadership may conclude from the invasion of Russia’s Kursk region that the benefits outweigh the costs and that the Russian response remained conventional. They could convince their allies that their fears are misplaced and that invading other Russian regions is the new strategic direction, as it would shatter the Russian deterrence equation, shake the Russian leadership’s reputation, and expose its inability to protect its territory and citizens. If Ukrainian forces manage to hold onto the territories they have captured for extended periods, they could push many residents to flee or control large numbers of them to serve as human shields, preventing Russian forces from using airstrikes, missile attacks, or artillery. Displaced groups would put pressure on the Russian leadership, spread panic among the rest of the population, and require reception, resettlement, and reintegration structures. If Ukrainian forces capture the Kursk nuclear power plant, which supplies electricity to many areas in western Russia, as well as metallurgical, chemical, and food industries, they could put the Russian leadership in a serious predicament. On one hand, Russia would be unable to bomb the Ukrainian forces entrenched in the plant for fear of nuclear radiation leaks. On the other hand, they would hesitate to escalate, fearing that Ukrainian forces would disable the plant, halting life in the areas and facilities connected to the nuclear power station.
Ukrainian leadership could also repeat the invasion in Belgorod, a region containing significant military and logistical infrastructure, launching attacks from there to disrupt supply lines. They might also invade Bryansk, a strategic region with major roads connecting Moscow to southwestern Russia, disrupting vital transportation routes for Russian forces. Additionally, this region has historical and cultural ties to Ukraine, potentially offering additional support for the invasion. Ukrainian forces could also invade Rostov, near the eastern Ukrainian border, a logistical hub for Russian military operations, especially for supplies coming from southern Russia and the Caucasus. If Ukrainian forces launched attacks on this hub, it would severely disrupt these supplies and deeply impact Russian military performance. Ukrainian forces might also invade Crimea, under Russian control since 2014, launching surprise attacks on military installations, particularly airbases and ammunition depots, severely disrupting Russian operations in Ukraine.
This strategy requires Ukrainian leadership to establish long and secure supply lines connecting them to their bases within Ukraine. It also requires anticipating the evolution of the Russian response, which may escalate if they feel they are losing control over their territory and population.
If Ukraine pursues this scenario, it would engage large sectors of Russian forces, forcing them to abandon their positions inside Ukrainian territory and retreat into Russia, giving Ukrainian forces the freedom to move again and launch major
counteroffensives in the east and south.
However, this scenario carries serious risks. It may provoke a Russian nuclear response or lead to a political and military reaction from Russia’s allies, potentially dragging Belarus into the war or intensifying Russian support for forces challenging NATO in other parts of the world.
– Absorbing the Invasion and Neutralizing It
If Russian forces absorb the Ukrainian invasion of the Kursk region, they could hold off Ukrainian forces, preventing them from progressing further, and depleting them until they are forced to retreat. Russia has a deep strategic depth, allowing its leadership to offer temporary sacrifices to buy time for troop mobilization and reorganization.
Under this scenario, Russian forces could contain the situation, preventing Ukrainian forces from advancing further or even encircling them, isolating them from their support lines, and either annihilating them or capturing them in a major military and propaganda victory. This would strengthen the Russian leadership’s position domestically and internationally, demonstrating their strength and resilience.
The Russian leadership could also use the Ukrainian invasion to justify intensifying their military operations in eastern Ukraine, claiming that Kyiv’s leadership is no longer committed to the current rules of engagement. This would allow Moscow to gain more international support for its military efforts and potentially weaken Western resolve.
However, this scenario would require significant resources and time, and it is uncertain whether Russia has the capacity to fully absorb the invasion. The longer the conflict drags on, the more likely it is that both sides will exhaust their resources without achieving a decisive victory.
– Mutual Attrition
In this scenario, both sides continue to fight without achieving a decisive victory, leading to a prolonged stalemate. Ukrainian forces would remain entrenched in Russian territory, while Russian forces would continue their counteroffensives without fully dislodging the Ukrainians. Over time, both sides would suffer heavy losses, leading to a war of attrition that neither can sustain indefinitely.
This scenario could result in a prolonged and bloody conflict, with both sides locked in a grinding struggle that drains their resources and morale. It could also lead to a situation where neither side can achieve a clear victory, forcing them to eventually seek a negotiated settlement.
– The Gray Swan Event
This scenario envisions an unexpected event, such as a significant change in U.S. leadership, that dramatically alters the course of the conflict. If Trump were to win the U.S. election and withdraw support for Ukraine, it could force Kyiv to negotiate with Russia from a position of weakness, potentially leading to territorial concessions.
This scenario would depend on a variety of unpredictable factors, such as changes in global political dynamics or the emergence of new international crises that shift attention away from Ukraine.
In conclusion, the outcome of the current phase of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict remains uncertain, with multiple potential scenarios playing out over the coming months. The situation is fluid, and both sides are likely to continue seeking opportunities to gain the upper hand, making it difficult to predict the eventual resolution of the conflict.
