By Ivan Eland
Much media attention has focused on Ukraine’s surprise invasion of the Kursk region in Russia. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has obviously been unsettled by it. But whether it is a good idea for Ukraine is questionable.
Although Ukraine has been tight-lipped about most information concerning its offensive, analysts have speculated that it was trying to relieve the pressure of a slowly advancing Russian offensive on its own territory by making Russia divert attacking forces to defend its own territory. Another postulated Ukrainian objective is to deliver a psychological jolt to Russia and energize flagging support at home and abroad for the war. Finally, it is argued that taking Russian territory might be used as a bargaining chip to get Russia to give up more Ukrainian territory in any potential peace negotiations.
Only if Ukraine is serious about quickly ending the war and negotiating peace with Russia might this invasion be a good idea. Otherwise, it is a risky offensive undertaken merely for psychological effects. Offensive warfare usually incurs more casualties and burns more weapons and equipment than being on the defense, especially if the defensive side is entrenched, has other battlefield fortifications, or can make the most of rivers, high ground, forests, or other terrain advantages. If nothing else, looking strategically at the entire war, Ukraine going on the offensive when it is already outmanned and outgunned and is facing a simultaneous enemy offensive may make this numerical disadvantage worse.
In this case, given Russia’s substantial advantage in battlefield numbers and weapons, the Ukrainian incursion may not even cause Russia to divert troops from its slowly advancing offensive in Ukraine to fortify the Kursk region. Russia may just try to force the Ukrainians out by throwing more conscripts at them rather than taking forces from their own offensive in Ukraine. In fact, reports are that the Ukrainians are transferring forces to their offensive from already thin defensive lines facing Russian pressure.
Furthermore, trying to hold this pocket in Kursk, which is surrounded on three sides by Russians and connected by an ever-lengthening—and thus more vulnerable—supply line is dangerous and might even be catastrophic. It looks as if, at the time of writing, the Ukrainians are digging in to defend their gains in Russia. But if their seemingly precarious supply line is cut, the Ukrainians could be surrounded.
This invasion of Russia when the Russians are advancing in Ukraine illustrates that militaries in general tend to be enamored with the swagger of bold actions to “take the fight to the enemy.” Yet often there are substantial advantages to being on defense, especially when the defensive force can usually pick the terrain on which it will fight. And despite Ukrainian heroics in general in repelling a superior invader from effacing their country, Ukraine has already experienced one failed offensive in the war.
It is to be hoped that Ukrainian leaders will realize that holding this ground in Russia will be too risky and thus convert the operation into one big hit-and-run raid by withdrawing their forces before they are surrounded and trapped. They have already reaped their psychological gains from the surprise operation on enemy soil, making Russia apprehensive that its long border is insecure.
As for U.S. policy, American policymakers were taken off-guard by the Ukrainian move and were forced to inquire about the objective of the invasion, thus implicitly revealing skepticism of the entire venture. This information gap indicates that—as with other allied countries that the United States supplies with weapons, technology, training, and military know-how—American leaders don’t regularly demand sufficient advanced insight into and influence on allies’ intended military actions, strategy, tactics, and goals. This knowledge deficit seems to intentionally result from American leaders wanting to maintain distance from an ally’s military decisions so they can claim that the United States is not pulling the puppet strings, especially when possible escalation exists with a nuclear-armed great power, such as Russia.
If, however, American leaders do not want to turn military and economic support for Ukraine over to the Europeans, who should have a much greater stake in the game than the United States, they should at least monitor Ukraine’s objectives, intentions, strategy, and tactics more closely to keep the country from hurting its own cause. And U.S. policymakers should start preparing the American public and the Ukrainian government and exhausted populace for the likelihood that any settlement of the war will require Ukraine to give up some of its territory to Russia.
However, such a settlement should not be dishonorable to Ukraine. The Ukrainians have fought gallantly to successfully maintain their country’s existence in the face of an invasion by a much greater military, economic, and political power. Even the Finns, who repelled a similar Russian invasion in the Winter War of 1940, had to give up some territory. Yet today, the world remembers Finland as bravely fending off the behemoth next door, as they will the Ukrainians for their brave defense against an aggressive attempt to erase their country from the map.
This article was also published in The American Conservative
https://www.eurasiareview.com/23082024-ukraine-is-playing-with-fire-in-kursk-oped/
“Furthermore, trying to hold this pocket in Kursk, which is surrounded on three sides by Russians and connected by an ever-lengthening—and thus more vulnerable—supply line is dangerous and might even be catastrophic. It looks as if, at the time of writing, the Ukrainians are digging in to defend their gains in Russia. But if their seemingly precarious supply line is cut, the Ukrainians could be surrounded.”
Yet another fucking “expert” talking through his rear end. Maybe this guy should take a look at a map and see who is surrounded, and whose supply lines have been cut.
I agree he is an idiot with a PhD. I dislike these pundits who know absolutely nothing that the general staff has an objective. This guy is probably one of the morons who thought Ukraine would go down in three days. Finally how the fuck do you give land to someone who has and swears to continue with genocide. Maybe he should put his head up his ass and get more brains.
A lot of people thought Ukraine would go down inside a week to a month at the outside. Including people that have been pulling for Ukraine from the beginning.
Ukraine has surprised a lot of people. But combat at the Antonov Airport, and the 40 Km convoy told us that Ukraine a lot a fight in her. After 30 months, I do not see Russia winning. Time is against Putin.
This “Expert”, as usual , is totally ignorant.
Regardless of the out come Ukraine has totally Flipped the Script in this war.
Changed the war from a grinding war of attrition which favored Russia to a maneuver battle that favores the more agile UAF.
That in spite of two and half years of fighting Ukraine is still capable of well coordinated combined arms offensive operations.
They have demonstrated that Russia is a hollow shell.
That all of Putin’s so called “Red Lines” are nothing more than empty threats.
Kremkrapp.
The founders of “The American Conservative” are Pat Buchanan; putinoid snot rag and Taki Theodoracopulos; another veteran putler-rimming bastard.
Contributors to this shitshow include : Scott Ritter; aka chairman of “paedos for putler”, Douglas Macgregor and russian agent Rand Paul.
Taki and Buchanan still contribute.
All of the above named have surely done more than enough to deserve life in a supermax. Or better still; a firing squad in the case of Ritter.
Supposedly (and I emphasize that) Ritter is under investigation for being a Russian agent. If so, then they need to take in Larry Johnson, Mearsheimer, MacGregor, and others. Ritter was caught on the way to Russia for a conference, a conference Johnson was already in Russia for.
Ok let’s take a closer look at this article . The author is Ivan Eland, he’s received an M.B.A. in Applied Economics and a Ph.D. in National Security Policy from George Washington University. He has previously served as Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, as Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, as an investigator dealing with national security and intelligence for the Government Accountability Office, and on a House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Now what you don’t see on this article title is the small print. “The offensive makes sense only if a swift end to the war is in view”
Seems to me this guy has some educational background on the matter and suggests that the offensive is a good idea if it has the means to ending the war. We don’t know exactly what the reason for the offensive is. Was it done to further attack airfields , infrastructure we don’t know exactly.
Just out of curiosity, do any of you have this background?
Where the hell are you ONLYFACTS, chime in here.
Ivan is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, despite his title, bells and whistles. Just to give you a small hint, what worth all of this has that you’ve mentioned, Joseph Goebbels had a doctor title.
David Irving wrote a biography of Goebbels and it was available in pdf for no charge before Irving got sick. Goebbels went to at least 3 different universities before he got his doctorate. Goebbels was a very strange bird.
Yes, he was strange, like all the Nazis. It goes to show you that a title doesn’t make you immune to idiocy.
Having a defeatist attitude is never helpful. I said it last week already; if this offensive ends today, it was worth every effort.
I don’t think he meant it to be a defeatist attitude. Just stating what could possibly happen and that it’s a dangerous maneuver.
So far it’s worked in Ukraines favor, as you would say it, I hope the fascist burn.
To me, this is a defeatist attitude. Concentrating only on the negatives and downplaying the positives is defeatist.
Did putler wrote this article?
Hot Garbage Article. They just ripped into Russia and scooped up a boatload of prisoners to swap. Ruzzians are on back foot and must make hard choices. Excellent work. Losses of material minimal compared to massive gain in buffer and stolen positions.
Best quote: “Offensive warfare usually incurs more casualties and burns more weapons and equipment than being on the defense, especially if the defensive side is entrenched, has other battlefield fortifications, or can make the most of rivers, high ground, forests, or other terrain advantages.” Ukraine took their high ground, trenches, soldiers and weapons and making most as per usual. Ukraine on defense now IN Russia and Russia in the bad position of HAVING TO ATTACK ITS OWN PEOPLES PROPERTY. BRING ON THE CONSCRIPT MEAT!
Hot garbage from “Conservative”. Anything to do with Pat Buchanan is all about Isolationist US Policies.