Anyone glancing at reports of Ukraine’s surprise incursion into the Kursk region might suppose that Volodymyr Zelensky has scored an astonishing goal against Vladimir Putin. Ukraine has succeeded in capturing roughly 1150km2 of Russian territory and dozens of Russian settlements in a major cross-border offensive. The media have been quick to emphasise the landmark nature of this campaign, repeatedly wheeling out the fact that this comprises the first Russian territory lost to a foreign power since WW2 – ironically when many Ukrainian troops helped the Red Army resist Nazism on the Eastern Front.
As the initial phase of this campaign continues to unfold, many analysts have characterised the development as a masterstroke that has shifted the momentum of the war. Specifically, they have highlighted how Ukraine has now regained the initiative, employing a “new style of warfare” using American, British and German weapons to create a “security zone” that will protect the Ukrainian border from attacks. Many believe the territory gained will strengthen Ukraine’s position in the event of negotiating a peace deal with Russia.
There is some credibility to this perspective. The floundering and frustrated response from Russia spells a clear psychological victory for Ukraine. The emergency measures and the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of civilians are indicative of the alarm that the raid has caused, the mass surrender of Russian soldiers and the lack of resistance from local civilians indicative of disintegration. This is not a good look for “Mr Security”, as the Russian leader styles himself, and is a huge embarrassment for the Kremlin. By contrast, Ukrainian drone attacks on the Nizhny Novgorod region – around 450km east of Moscow – attests to the burgeoning confidence of Ukrainian forces.
However, as football commentators are often so quick to point out, teams are most vulnerable just after they have scored. Indeed, one should not be oblivious to the acute vulnerabilities that this offensive has exposed in Ukraine’s own defences. To mount this raid, Ukraine had to divert essential forces away from the central section of the Donbas that is under extreme pressure from the Russian invaders. As such, the risk of overextension is now high. It is likely that Ukraine’s raid was partly motivated by a desire to force Russia into splitting their forces by diverting troops away from Donetsk. Russia has, however, not done this. Indeed, the only sign of movement has involved “select elements of Russian irregular units”. This steadfastness is significant. In contrast to the largely militarily insignificant nature of the territory claimed by Ukraine, the Russians have been steadily advancing through the Donbas, now only 10km from the city of Pokrovsk and the major roads that act as key supply routes for Ukrainian forces in the area. If Pokrovsk were to fall, momentum would shift back in Russia’s favour.
So far, Russia’s response has been muted. For some, this suggests that concerns about nuclear escalation in the event of crossing Russian “redlines” are misplaced. However, this optimistic view may yet be proved wrong. Putin’s response in June to a question regarding the potential use of strategic nuclear weapons certainly seemed more than sabre-rattling: “if someone’s actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it possible to use all means at our disposal”. Is it too far-fetched to now conclude that Putin will argue that Russia’s sovereignty and integrity have been threatened? In that case, it is inconceivable that he would let this affront go unpunished.
What also of the rhetoric? Whilst the Ukrainian ministry has professed that it is not interested in annexing Russian territory permanently, Putin has taken full advantage of the opportunity to validate his longstanding argument that Russia is fighting a “self-defensive” war against Ukraine. Consider his characterisation of Ukraine using “indiscriminate” violence against “civilian buildings, houses and ambulances” and the Russian Foreign Ministry’s description of the incursion as “terrorist activity” by a “criminal Kiev regime” intent on “intimidating the peaceful population of Russia”. Given the inflammatory tone of these claims, it would not be absurd to suggest that a potentially devastating counter-offensive is imminent.
Whilst Zelensky has gloated of “bringing war home to Russia”, he has not achieved an outright victory in the war of words. By suggesting that Ukraine has crossed a line, Putin is now able to promise a “worthy response”, while the Chair of the Security Council of Russia can argue that the emergency necessitates an “unconditional victory” over Ukraine. This is the ideological high ground that Russia has been seeking all along. The notion that Ukraine’s incursion establishes a negotiating position therefore seems irrelevant. At least for the immediate future, there will be no negotiation process. Putin has said as much: “What can we even talk about with them?” Furthermore, the notion that the Ukrainian border will be protected begs serious questions. Once the Russians regain composure, they will begin advancing towards it faster than ever – and its future is uncertain to say the least.
Ukraine has undeniably scored an impressive goal in their battle with Russia. However, only time will tell whether this proves to be a match-winner or a disastrous incursion into their own net.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/President of Ukraine
No image changes made.
Comments