What are the Objectives of the Ukrainian Surprise Attack Inside Russian Territory?
The Ukrainian surprise attack deep within Russian territory has revealed gaps in Russia’s military strategy for protecting its borders during the ongoing war with Ukraine. Kyiv managed to surprise Russian forces and penetrate several kilometers into Russian land, marking a shift in the course of the conflict, with Russia now also having to defend its own territory. This development could have negative impacts on Russia’s internal front.
Exposure of Vulnerabilities:
The rapid Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk region of Russia is the largest cross-border attack carried out by Kyiv’s forces in the nearly two-and-a-half-year conflict. This incident exposed weaknesses in Russia’s internal front, which the Kremlin has often claimed is stable and unaffected by the war. Previously, all battles were confined to Ukrainian soil, but the Ukrainian attack forced thousands of Russian civilians to flee the region and led to the withdrawal of troops from the frontline, which extends over 620 miles. The following points can be highlighted:
Widespread Participation: Several Ukrainian brigades, consisting of armored vehicles and drones, took part in the attack. Ukrainian forces advanced about 30 kilometers into Russian territory, taking advantage of the low density of Russian troops in the area. The Russian forces, caught off guard by the attack, failed to respond quickly. With most of the Russian army engaged in the eastern Donetsk region of Ukraine, only a few troops were left to defend the border area of Kursk.
Ukrainian Shift from Defense to Offense: The surprise Ukrainian attack was not a random one, especially in terms of timing and location. The timing was critical as Russia had made advances on the frontline, exerting significant pressure on Ukrainian forces in recent months. The choice of Kursk seems to have been informed by Western satellite imagery, which likely identified border areas with low military presence. Reports suggest that Ukrainian forces encountered only a few small military outposts, facilitating their advance tens of kilometers into Russian territory with little resistance.
Western Encouragement: The Western, particularly American and European, reactions were a major factor in Kyiv’s decision to continue the operation and not retreat. Washington did not criticize the situation in Kursk but rather affirmed that the decision to attack and continue deep into Russian territory was up to Ukrainian commanders.
Multiple Motivations:
Several motivations and objectives drove Ukraine to carry out this attack within Russia, the most important of which include:
Securing Continued Western Support: The strategic objective behind Kyiv’s surprise attack on Kursk can be seen as a fear of Donald Trump returning to the White House and halting U.S. military aid. This would leave Kyiv with two main options: continue the war without crucial U.S. support, essential for balancing Ukraine’s power against Russia, or accept negotiations under Russian terms, potentially losing parts of its territory to Russia. Thus, this attack could serve as a new incentive for Western institutions, including American ones, to continue providing military aid and increase confidence in Ukraine’s ability to make gains on the ground.
Improving Negotiating Position: Ukraine’s strategic and international position led it to risk a sudden and fierce attack, likely planned in collaboration with Western countries, hoping to change the situation on the ground or at least ease the pressure on the frontline as Russia continues to make steady advances. In the best-case scenario, the ability to hold on within Russian territory could allow Ukraine to enter negotiations from a much stronger position. However, this gamble risks provoking Russia into escalating its military operations more aggressively in response to the Ukrainian offensive. Additionally, this gamble could serve Putin domestically, as he could use the operation to make Russians feel they are under a real threat of invasion, thereby increasing public support for the war.
Boosting Morale: The intensity of the Kursk attack indicated that the Ukrainian leadership anticipated a fierce Russian response. Ukrainian forces extensively used drones to strike Russian military vehicles, deployed electronic warfare assets to suppress Russian drones, and disrupt military communications, and sent small mobile Ukrainian groups to patrol the area without attempting to reinforce control. Other forces were stationed around the town of Sudzha, about 6 miles from the border, and in some other areas. These measures prevented Russian forces from repelling the surprise attack, signaling that Ukraine plans to stay in Kursk for an extended period, aiming to improve its negotiating position on one hand and boost the morale of its fighters on the other. This is particularly important given reports indicating an increase in Ukrainian youth avoiding military service and a decline in public confidence in the possibility of defeating Russia.
Possible Scenarios:
Several scenarios could unfold in response to the Ukrainian attack on Kursk, the most significant of which are:
Intensification of Russian Military Operations (Most Likely): The attack has embarrassed President Putin and his top aides, making it likely that Russia will attempt to repel the attack and push Ukrainian forces back into Ukraine. However, this may not be sufficient; Russia might also escalate its offensive within Ukraine and increase attacks along the front lines, possibly targeting symbolic sites in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv.
Maintaining the Current Pace of Military Operations: In this case, the Kremlin would focus on expelling Ukrainian forces from Russian territory without making any changes to the existing attack plans along the frontline. Russian forces would continue their slow and steady advance without deviation, possibly limiting their response to some missile strikes on targets within Kyiv.
Reevaluating the Negotiating Position: The attack could prompt the Kremlin to expedite steps to end the war, content with the gains already made on the ground, and negotiate strongly while retaining areas of Ukraine that would secure it a political victory. This consideration stems from the effects of the operation, which showed that Ukraine, especially if it continues to receive unlimited Western support, could pose a significant challenge to the Russian regime and potentially cause multiple crises, as it still possesses the capability to harm Russia.
In Conclusion, the Ukrainian attack on Kursk can be seen as Kyiv’s last attempt to impose its scenario on the course of the war and negotiations on equal terms or, at the very least, to force the Kremlin to divert resources from the eastern Donetsk region, where Russian forces have been pressing in several sectors and making slow but steady gains. Additionally, the attack served as a rejection of the Russian scenario, which aimed for its forces to continue encircling Ukraine until negotiations could begin, giving it the upper hand to end the war according to Russia’s terms.
On the other hand, it is unlikely that Moscow will easily yield to Kyiv’s scenario, but it may respond by expanding its war objectives to seize more Ukrainian territory and increase the pace of its attacks along the frontline, possibly deploying more trained forces to the combat zones, especially considering that Putin and his aides are unlikely to accept failure, particularly in light of the impact of the Ukrainian attack on the Russian internal front.
