In the wake of Ukraine’s unexpected intrusion into Russia more than a fortnight ago, Russia’s military has managed to slow the progress, with an increasingly adamant front line in the Kursk region suggesting the upcoming stage of the conflict that holds significant political implications for both parties.
Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, has committed to a firm retaliation to the first penetration of Russian soil since World War II. Yet, so far, the reaction has concentrated on limiting the invasion, rather than undoing it. This behaviour puts into doubt the extent to which a depleted Russian army is prepared, or is indeed capable, to eject the intruders.
The unanticipated attack on Kursk has revealed persistent intelligence shortcomings within the Russian military, not to mention Russia’s lack of prepared reinforcements for a conflict spread along a 1,200km front. The fast advancements of Ukrainian forces have also upset the international view of Russia’s gradual, if inevitable, triumph in a war of attrition.
Videos of surrendering Russian recruits and border patrol units, as the Ukrainian forces pressed on, have taken many in Russia by surprise, challenging Putin’s claim that the conflict with Ukraine was mainly being fought by determined, compensated volunteers at a safe distance. Nevertheless, the clash on the outskirts of Russia is still in its infancy, while the current rate of the Kursk invasion does allow Putin room to plan his reprisal. According to analysts, rather than undermining Kremlin’s hold on power, the invasion could provoke more Russians to unite in defense of their homeland.
Russian political scientist, Tatiana Stanovaya, opined on social media on Tuesday, that the Kursk invasion “is certainly a dent in the Kremlin’s image”. However, she doesn’t expect it to result in a substantial surge in social or political discontent among the citizens of Russia, nor will it trigger an uprising among the nation’s elite.
From a military standpoint, Ukraine’s strategy has presented the Russian side an opportunity to further weaken Ukraine’s already limited forces and secure advantages elsewhere along the battle line. Noted Russian military experts suggest that what may initially seem like a political win for Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, could eventually morph into a strategic loss. After the Kursk operation was initially praised as an outstanding military manoeuvre, it might prove to be a snare for the Ukrainian army, the analysts pointed out.
“The assault on Kursk has only served to lengthen and widen a battle of attrition that considerably favours Russia in terms of resources,” observes Vasily Kashin, a political sciences scholar based at the government-established Higher School of Economics in Moscow, known for his research on the political consequences of Russia’s conflict.
Russia’s military options, according to specialists, might be to amass a considerable fresh force to overpower Ukraine’s foothold in Kursk, or to use their upper hand in air and artillery power to gradually bombard the opposition into withdrawal. Both strategies could potentially take weeks, perhaps months, to eggect, and potentially divert resources from other frontlines, laying bare the reality of a warfare where neither side has sufficient resources to force the other into surrender.
Putin himself, straddling between the political price of losing Russian soil and the obligation to draft additional troops, has remained rather cryptic regarding his tactics. On Tuesday, he paid a visit to a local confectionary plant, where he inspected packages of sugar-free apple sweets. This peaceful scene was a far cry from the initial stages of the Kursk assault, during which Putin scolded his inferiors and pledged a decisive counter-reaction.
Experts are still evaluating the circumstances that caused Russian forces to be caught off-guard on August 6 as undetected Ukrainian units crossed the borders. The inadequately armed and inexperienced Russian recruits posted to defend that particular front were effortlessly repelled as the Ukrainians penetrated deep into Russian land.
Some experts theorise that the Russian command didn’t deploy substantial forces to this region due to its inconspicuous military significance. Dmitry Kuznets, a military expert from the independent Russian news agency Meduza, which now operates from Latvia following its prohibition by the Kremlin, noted, “The blow struck a void.”
Ruslan Pukhov, another Russian defence specialist, believes that the Russian leadership may have been beguiled into letdown by the conciliatory signals sent out by Ukraine over the summer. Ukraine claimed to have secured nearly 1,000 square kilometres of Russian land and captured hundreds of prisoners following the first week of combat.
Nevertheless, the advancement speed significantly declined during the second week as Ukraine’s supply routes became overstretched, and Russia reinforced its troops. A majority of military experts are of the opinion that Ukraine no longer poses a threat to any strategic landmarks like the nuclear facility in Kursk or the provincial capital.
Based on the assessments by analysts, it appears that Russia has amassed enough forces in Kursk to largely restrain invadors with the style of warfare that has been evident in other war fronts. In order to combat this invasion, Russian leadership has depended on a blend of draftees, volunteers from units that were rallying at the back during the invasion, and select veteran units from relatively serene sections of the front in Ukraine, according to Kuznets.
Units such as Russia’s Black Sea marines have been relocated to Kursk from Ukraine’s Kherson region, where the front line has consistently traced the Dnieper river, which presents a significant challenge to break through, Kuznets informed. Other segments of the initial Kursk reactionary force have originated from the Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv regions of Ukraine, where the front line has been dormant for several weeks, as per Russian military analyst Valery Shiriaev, as reported by independent Russian news agency Newsroom.
Kuznets posited that while Putin has the time to strategize the Kursk counter-action, he cannot afford to leave Russian terrain in adversary hands indefinitely, lest a nationalist protest ensues. The authorities have indirectly signalled that the counterforce against Ukrainians might consume weeks or even months, by suggesting that refugees from the occupied regions of Kursk be presented with monetary assistance to relocate to other regions of Russia.
“If Ukraine anticipated that the suddenness of the attack would cause Russians to despair about the war prospects, they have been proven wrong,” commented Kashin. “It’s more likely to induce anger and the realisation that the war was unavoidable.”
Nevertheless, the Kursk offensive unveiled the inadequacies in Russia’s approach of engaging in a long-term war, largely reliant on volunteers attracted by increasing monetary rewards. This strategy has enabled Russia, for the most part, to substitute its losses in Ukraine without necessitating another round of unpopular conscription. However, this has also resulted in a lack of volunteers to establish strategic reserves capable of addressing a new crisis, like the Kursk incursion.
As they assemble a reactionary force, Russian military command has so far refrained from utilising units from one particular part of the front. No units fighting in Kursk have come from Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine as per analysts, where Russia is leading an offensive.
Following the onset of the Kursk incursion, the momentum of Russian troops towards the key Donetsk fortress of Pokrovsk has only gained speed. Recently, they have also managed to increase control in other regions of eastern Ukraine, which has been the site of the war’s most fierce conflicts.
The Ukrainian authorities have acknowledged that they have relocated some squads from primary battlefields to back the Kursk offensive, potentially simplifying the progression of the Russian troops.
Despite the unspecified long-term consequences of the Kursk incursion, one indisputable fact is that it has extended the conflict zone by approximately an additional 100km for the foreseeable future. This requires both parties to stretch their already strained forces even more.
In the long run, the expansion of the warfare to new territories will, gradually, likely give an advantage to the side with more substantial resources, as indicated by Russian experts. Boasting a population three times bigger and greater industrial strength, Russia appears to have this advantage. This report first featured in The New York Times.