The Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk region on August 6, 2024, marks a potential turning point in the ongoing war. After nearly two and a half years of Ukraine’s failure to launch a successful counteroffensive in the main theater of war in Donbas, the conflict has now shifted into Russian territory. Kyiv is betting that this development will strengthen its negotiating position with Moscow, particularly if former U.S. President Donald Trump returns to the White House and decides to change U.S. policy towards a settlement and ending the war.
From Ukraine’s perspective, advancing further into Russian territory while retaining control of captured areas and expanding into others would allow it to bargain over Russian land in exchange for Donbas. However, this vision faces several challenges, including the extent to which Western powers will allow Ukraine to use their weapons on Russian soil, continued military support, and the challenges posed by Russia’s response on the battlefield.
In general, understanding the context of this development, its repercussions, and future possibilities involves several considerations, which will be examined in this analysis.
A New Equation:
Traditionally, the dynamics of any war involve both defense and offense. Since the beginning of the current conflict, Ukraine has struggled to mount an effective offensive against Russia that could exert enough pressure to force Moscow to withdraw or negotiate. Despite repeated attempts, Kyiv has not been able to mount such an offensive and has remained largely on the defensive, citing Western restrictions on the supply and use of strategic offensive weapons.
NATO provided Ukraine with training and arms programs designed to transform it into a Western-style military force after exhausting its stock of Soviet-era weaponry in the first two years of the war. This restructuring effort also included building local military production capabilities, amid rising Western demand for defense essentials and the limitations of strategic reserves, while avoiding legal responsibility and Russian retaliation if Western weapons were used directly.
While Western media reports suggest that Ukraine could not have achieved this surprise incursion without Western approval—given its reliance on weapons such as the Storm Shadow, ATACMS, and F-16 fighter jets—official Western positions deny this to avoid angering Russia.
At the same time, Western powers have not strongly upheld the “red line” that prohibits Ukraine from using these weapons in Russian territory, with the exception of Germany, which has been more firm in demanding Kyiv refrain from using Taurus missiles. This is understandable, given that the German missile, with a range of up to 500 kilometers, poses a greater threat to Russia, and Berlin cannot predict Moscow’s reaction if it were used.
Kyiv’s Gamble:
Ukraine justifies its offensive into Russian territory as a preemptive move to thwart Moscow’s plan to capture Sumy and Kharkiv in the east. Advancing from the northeastern geography could also allow Belarusian forces to join the Russian military, posing a threat to Kyiv. Therefore, Ukraine insists it is engaged in a defensive operation first and foremost.
Tactically, Ukraine is betting on a strategy of land-for-land exchange. It has seized a large swath of Russian territory and extended its range of fire from Kursk into deeper parts of Russia, threatening critical areas. However, this theory may not work in Ukraine’s favor, as it now controls about 1,300 kilometers of Russian land, while Russian forces hold at least 65 times more territory in Donbas, not counting Crimea.
On a practical level, other factors come into play, such as Russia’s perception of this sudden development and its internal ramifications, as well as the actual threat Ukraine poses to Russia’s infrastructure and logistics. The American Institute for the Study of War mapped up to 250 military sites within Ukrainian missile range, up to 300 kilometers, without using medium- or long-range missiles.
Kyiv has announced that it sent a delegation to Washington in late August to discuss these developments, its defense needs, and, more importantly, strategic requests for permission to use Western weapons more broadly, not just American ones, as most Western arms include American components. The U.S. stance is seen as decisive, not only for the battlefield but also for Russia.
Ultimately, any Ukrainian gamble depends on U.S. calculations. This is a complex issue, as there is a contradiction between arms deals and their use justifications. For example, defense estimates suggest the possibility of launching the ATACMS missile from a HIMARS platform. If true, the matter is not only about using the weapons without approval but also about transferring them from deep within Ukrainian territory to the eastern front lines, which emphasizes the need for prior approval. But will Washington go further down this path with Kyiv?
This raises many questions that are hard to answer definitively, such as whether Washington wanted to move the situation in a different direction to halt Russian advances in Ukraine, especially as Russia’s territorial gains in the first half of this year were the fastest since the war began, according to control maps.
Western media suggests that the Biden administration might be trying to use the time it has left before a new administration takes over, which may either continue the current trajectory or reverse it and start a new one.
Moscow’s Response:
It appears that Russia has absorbed the Kursk surprise, and within two weeks of the Ukrainian incursion, it began counter-tactical moves both militarily and politically, in a simultaneous and interconnected manner. This can be seen in the following:
Moscow shifted its military focus to Donetsk, seizing the strategically important Pokrovsk, which is considered the gateway to the region and a key supply line for Ukraine. Ukrainian forces gradually withdrew from Pokrovsk. While Kyiv downplays its strategic importance, seeing it as inevitable given Russia’s control, the real reason may be that Ukraine has concentrated its main military effort on advancing into Russian territory and may also be aware that Russia is using Pokrovsk to distract and fragment its forces.
Russia did not underestimate Ukraine’s surprise attack. Its response included rapid civilian evacuations, the clearing of bases that could be exposed, and a slow counteroffensive. While some interpret this slowness as a sign of Russia processing the shock, military analysts suggest it is a deliberate tactic aimed at undermining Ukraine’s defensive justification and allowing Russia to retaliate deeper into Ukraine, particularly targeting the western region’s infrastructure, such as power, fuel, and water stations, in response to Kyiv’s actions on Russian soil.
Moscow played the nuclear threat card, highlighting the risks the Ukrainian incursion posed to the Kursk nuclear plant after a drone crashed near the site, for which Kyiv was blamed. Russian officials and analysts also revisited discussions on nuclear doctrine, noting that while past revisions allowed Russia to use nuclear weapons if it faced an existential threat, what happens when the battle moves into Russian territory itself? While it is unlikely that Moscow would resort to nuclear weapons, this remains a deterrent to counter more severe NATO and Western challenges.
Future Paths:
The main Western strategy seems to involve moving the war to Russia’s front to force Moscow to either halt its advance in Donbas or come to the negotiating table. However, Russia rejects this approach, often referred to as “Zelensky’s peace,” reflecting the Ukrainian president’s objectives. The most likely scenario is that Ukraine’s incursion will be temporary, and Kyiv may have to turn back to defend its rear lines rather than rushing forward without sufficient guarantees or allied support. This will become clearer following the Ukrainian military delegation’s visit to Washington at the end of August.
Western powers are aware of the costs of Ukraine’s continued incursion into Russia. While there is no unified Western stance on attacking Russian territory—France has been more supportive, followed by the UK, while Germany has sought to restrain this approach—Western powers worry that Ukraine’s operation could turn into a reckless gamble.
Although Ukraine’s focus on advancing into Russia could achieve some tactical gains, the challenges of sustaining these gains, restrictions on weapon supplies, and Russia’s counteraction could backfire. Ukraine cannot pursue this path alone, nor can it replace Western weaponry with domestic production, despite talks of equivalent capabilities such as the Grom missile. Furthermore, with only limited ATACMS missiles, Ukraine will need more F-16 fighters as platforms to launch other air-deployed systems, assuming it even gets the green light to use them in the first place.
Meanwhile, Russia also faces massive costs, particularly as it turns to high-power weapons like the Kinzhal and Iskander missiles, which it uses sparingly. Additionally, Russia has had to mobilize large numbers of troops across multiple fronts. However, Russia feels it ultimately holds the upper hand, as it is transforming the reality in Donbas, whereas Ukraine’s incursions remain confined to recoverable positions. With the balance of territorial control favoring Russia, Moscow feels no pressure to make significant concessions or engage in land swaps with Kyiv.
In conclusion, while both sides are trying to recalibrate the rules of the war in their favor, there are no guarantees in war. Mistakes could open the door to worse scenarios, especially as the conflict flirts with the specter of World War III—a nuclear war—even though the current situation has not yet deteriorated to that extent.
