The Kursk Offensive: Ukraine’s Gamble for Diplomatic Leverage
On the morning of August 6, 2024, an estimated 1,000 Ukrainian forces, supported by armored vehicles, pushed into Russia’s Kursk Oblast. Since the attack, Ukrainian authorities claim that they have captured over 1,000 square kilometers of Russian land and have taken hundreds of prisoners. Thousands of Russian civilians have been forced to evacuate the region as Russia scrambles to mount a sturdy defence against the surprise attack. This is not the first attack of its kind since the start of the war in February of 2022, but it appears to be the first solely composed of Ukrainian troops, and the first that involves a “sustained seizure of [Russian] territory.”
The offensive comes at a decisive moment in the war. The spring and summer of the war’s third year have been marked by costly yet steady Russian advances, reversing many of the gains made by Ukraine in last summer’s counteroffensive. Moreover, America’s complicated political circumstances and imminent election threaten to transform American foreign policy, leaving prospective Ukrainian aid hanging in the balance.
Amid these complicated conditions, Ukraine’s decision to launch the Kursk offensive appears intuitive. Though they have not been explicit about their objectives, it seems that Ukraine has three main aims with the incursion into the Kursk Oblast. Materially, Ukraine seeks to draw Russian resources away from the front line. Rhetorically, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky hopes to boost Ukrainian morale while weakening that of Russia. Diplomatically, and perhaps most consequentially, Kyiv aims to bolster their negotiating position against Russia, all while signaling to their allies that the war is winnable. In shifting the international public’s view that the war is a stalemate, Ukraine hopes to secure further aid from the US and its allies.
To what extent are these objectives genuinely attainable? If they are, does the invasion of Kursk represent the most efficient use of Ukrainian war materials? Critics have already labeled the assault as a waste of vital resources, especially American-made equipment. I will argue that the attack is an attempt by Ukrainian officials, who see the opportunity for an outright victory slipping away, to position themselves for a favorable peace deal.
Ukraine’s goal of shifting the war to Moscow’s back yard has been nominally effective at drawing Russian resources away from the front line thus far. Russia has redeployed a “small” number of troops from the front line in the south of Ukraine. Russian has initiated attacks simultaneously to their troop withdrawals, however, indicating that they may have a limited impact on the overall course of the war. In the Kursk Oblast, the bulk of Russia’s defensive forces have been fresh reserves and security forces. These troops have already slowed Ukrainian advances, indicating that Russia can stop the bleeding in the Kursk region – and gain ground elsewhere – without expending enormous frontline resources. Indeed, separate analyses from Reuters and The Hill indicate that Russia will muster enough resources to combat the attack without facing significant setbacks further south.
But Ukrainian officials seem to be aware of that. They have already clarified that they do not intend to occupy Russian land. With Ukraine’s short-term goal of shaking up the front line only marginally successful, we will likely observe Zelensky capitalizing on victories in Kursk to achieve diplomatic and morale advantages in the coming months. In a war of margins, Kyiv hopes that these advantages will shift their position at the negotiating table and on the ground, potentially pushing them towards a diplomatic victory.
Many in Ukraine have felt that Russia, who brought the war to their doorstep in 2022, should face the consequences of the conflict. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an address on August 8, 2024 that Russia should “feel what it has done”. And it has. Nearly 200,000 people have been forced to evacuate the Kursk and Belgorod Regions since the start of the offensive. Ukraine likely sees this as a boost to their morale, as their citizens observe Ukraine’s ability to “fight for its sovereignty and territorial integrity”. Russians, meanwhile, are now bearing the consequences of a war that has largely failed to impact their everyday lives thus far. The hope, for Kyiv, is that Russia’s citizens will nudge their leaders towards peace, threatened by an emboldened Ukrainian populace. Some evidence suggests that this has been successful, as negative online comments towards Russian President Vladamir Putin have increased since the incursion. This plan has the potential to backfire, however, as Russia seeks to use the attack to villainize Ukraine. For this reason, analysts have indicated that the invasion may encourage Russians to “rally around the flag”.
Still, Ukraine hopes that advancing into Russian territory may be to bring Moscow closer to the negotiating table. Playing defence rarely results in diplomatic success. Conversely, offensive military victories can often translate into diplomatic ones. The enormous cost of a modern war fought on home soil is glaring for Ukraine, and the nation is burdened still by the daunting military, economic, and geographical superiority of their long-hostile neighbor. With the possibility of an outright victory for Ukraine increasingly remote, the Kursk attack seems to suggest that Kyiv is aiming to strengthen their negotiating power in a hypothetical diplomatic end to the war.
Meanwhile, by altering the international perception that the war is unwinnable for Ukraine, Kyiv hopes to draw on victories in Kursk to secure more international aid, something that, as a consequence of shifting political landscapes, could become increasingly difficult to procure. This could conceivably translate to success on the battlefield, putting more pressure on Russia to come to an agreement.
But is it worth the cost? The invasion has come at a steep material price, especially given Ukraine’s finite resources. Ukrainian officials and some experts seem to be suggesting that the invasion is worth the cost. I believe it is too early to say so. Achieved short-term military advantages for Ukraine have been minimal, and any victories they do attain will be difficult to quantify. By launching this attack at this moment in the war, officials in Kyiv seem to be indicating that they are willing to surrender their limited resources for largely unquantifiable diplomatic and rhetorical ends. This tactic, though not wholly misguided, suggests that Ukrainian officials believe that the war is unwinnable in its current state. Thus, the Kursk offensive appears to be Ukraine’s attempt to spark a stark shift in the war’s trajectory, grasping for a diplomatic conclusion.
Edited by Allison Dera
Featured Image: “President Joseph Biden hosted Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on December 12–13, 2023 – 1,” by the US Embassy in Kyiv is licensed under public domain.
