Ukraine’s attack on Kursk has surprised the Russians, and some of Ukraine’s allies, who were caught unprepared for such a move. Not less surprising is the Russian response, instead of shifting troops from other missions to stop the rapid expansion of the territory captured by the Ukrainians, continued to focus on the Donetsk front. They advanced, albeit at a very low speed, toward the city of Kharkiv and eventually took over the entire region while stepping up their aerial attacks on Kyiv and major energy facilities across Ukraine. Thus, as noted in Forbes, the Kursk invasion has failed to divert the Russian thrust in Eastern Ukraine.   

In addition to reducing the pressure on the Ukrainian forces that defend the Kharkiv region, the bold excursion into Kursk had at least three more goals. 

First, to force the Russians into a ceasefire that they have been resisting ever since the war started in 2022, or at least be in a better position when such talks begin. However, Russia’s response was that the Kursk invasion had ended any possibility of peace talks. 

Second, to convince Ukraine’s Western allies that their ongoing military aid is not in vain. This might work if the Democrats win the U.S. elections in November. If Trump wins these elections, he’s likely to cut off the military aid to Ukraine regardless of how deep their hold over Russian territories will be at that time. So, the last move may even become a “boomerang.”

Third, to provide much-needed enthusiasm and hope to the Ukrainian people who are quite exhausted after two-and-a-half years of war with no end in sight. Indeed, reports from Ukraine show that the public mood has improved during August but it’s difficult to gauge how long will it last, especially as the winter is coming and with it the grim prediction of widespread electricity outages.    

Conversely, the fact that Ukrainian troops now occupy more than 1,000 kilometers of Russian territory and are within 40 km of the Kursk nuclear power plant serves three important objectives of the Russian regime. 

First, it helps them boost the patriotic feelings of their people by invoking the memories of World War II in which Nazi Germany, aided by a collaborative government in Kyiv, invaded Russia. 

Second, it gives them yet another opportunity to pull the nuclear “ace card” out of their dwindling deck of military capability cards and wave it in front of Western eyes. 

Third, it spreads the limited Ukraine forces far more than they probably planned.   

While many in the West yearn to see the Russians being defeated in Ukraine and forced to withdraw from all the territories they have taken since February 2022, perhaps even including the Crimea peninsula which they had taken in 2014, it is not a likely scenario. A scenario in which Russia is about to lose the war in Ukraine, including losing some of its territory, is extremely dangerous to Europe and the rest of the world as it may lead Putin closer to “pushing the red button” that will signal the beginning of World War III, whose impact on humanity may be worse than any of its predecessor conflicts.   

So, should Ukraine just give up and let the Russian dictator fulfill his thirst for power and control over its territory as well as other parts of Eastern Europe in which he has an interest, or maybe the last Ukraine move will change the war course? 

History tells us that there is some hope, but it will not be materialized only through external pressure over Russia. Changing the course in Russia can only occur if some internal forces succeed in carrying out a revolution that will topple the current regime and replace it with a drastically different government that will seek to build friendly relations with the West rather than confront it. 

Russia pulled out of World War I after the 1917 revolution, and it pulled out of its war in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1989. So far, there are no signs that such a revolution is brewing. Putin has been quite effective in crushing his political rivals, gaining total control over the media, and blocking any attempt to create civil disorder. Still, one should not rule out a surprise uprise, especially in case Mr. Putin suddenly leaves the scene, either naturally or through other means.

About the Authors: 

Lt. Colonel (res.) Boaz Golany is a Professor at the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology where he has served as a Dean, VP for External Relations & Resource Development, and Executive VP & Director General.  His research interests cover diverse areas of applied operations research.  He also serves as a member of the Board and as a consultant to some companies and organizations.      

Brigadier General (res.) Jacob Nagel is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a visiting professor at the Technion. He previously served as Prime Minister Netanyahu’s national security advisor and the head of Israel National Security Council (acting).  

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.