Kursk offensive upending assumptions

CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 25–31 August 2024

Nine publications (The National Interest, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Washington Post, Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The Hill, CBC, and Global News) were selected to prepare this report on how Ukraine has been portrayed in the North American press during the past week. The sample was compiled based on their impact on public opinion as well as on their professional reputation, popularity among the readership, and topical relevance. These publications represent centrist viewpoints on the political spectrum.

This MMS report covers only the most-read and relevant articles about Ukraine, as ranked by the respective North American publications themselves in the past week. Its scope covers promoted articles on home pages and articles from special sections on Ukraine, with the hashtag #Ukraine, from the paper editions of the publications, and about Ukraine from opinion columns and editorials.

MMS summaries

Should we expect a turnaround in Ukraine’s Kursk invasion of Russia? Stavros Atlamazoglou (National Interest) suggests that Moscow may soon have to reconsider its actions in responding to Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk oblast. So far, the Kremlin has tried to refrain from a large-scale redeployment of troops and continues to exert pressure in eastern Ukraine. In the author’s opinion, Ukraine’s increased pressure in the Kursk region will force the Russian command to move additional forces from Ukraine back to Russia: “It is all about the operational initiative. All summer long, the Russian military held the initiative and launched repeated offensives along the contact line. But with this foray into Russia, the Ukrainian military has wrestled back the operational initiative, even if briefly, and is now dictating the pace of the war to some extent.” Russia’s huge losses on the battlefield will only contribute to this: “Over the past 24 hours, the Russian military, volunteer units, and pro-Russian separatist forces lost approximately 1,140 men killed, wounded, or captured. They also lost 80 tactical vehicles and fuel trucks; 48 artillery guns and multiple launch rocket systems; 39 unmanned aerial systems; 17 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers; 13 pieces of special equipment; 4 main battle tanks; and 1 air defense weapon.”

What could be changed by deep strikes into Russia? Stephen Biddle (Foreign Affairs) argues that before lifting the restrictions imposed by Washington on strikes against remote targets deep in Russia, it is worth determining whether this would change the balance in Ukraine’s favour. Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine, Washington has imposed many such restrictions. This position is controversial: “Both Ukrainian officials and outside critics argue that the Biden administration exaggerates the risk of Russian escalation, needlessly denying Kyiv critical military capabilities.” In fact, “From a strictly military perspective, restrictions never help.” However, according to the author, lifting the restrictions is “unlikely to be decisive. To achieve a game-changing effect, Ukraine would need to combine these strikes with tightly coordinated ground manoeuvres on a scale that its forces have been unable to master so far in this war. Otherwise, the benefits Ukraine could draw from additional deep strike capability would probably not be enough to turn the tide.”

Kursk offensive affected the course of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Stephen M. Walt (Foreign Policy) suggests that while Ukraine’s Kursk offensive will not necessarily have positive consequences in the long run, in the short term it has brought obvious benefits to Kyiv, giving “Ukrainian morale a much-needed boost and help[ing to] counter concerns that Kyiv was trapped in a war of attrition against a larger adversary that it could neither defeat nor outlast. It put the war back on the front pages and strengthened voices calling for increased Western support. It exposed serious flaws in Russian intelligence and readiness and may have embarrassed Russian President Vladimir Putin.” However, in the author’s opinion, these episodes do not demonstrate Ukraine’s ability to break through the positions of well-trained and well-equipped Russian forces, and therefore are unlikely to significantly affect the prospects of the war: “Ukraine’s fate will be determined primarily by what happens in Ukraine, and not by the Kursk operation. The key factors will be each side’s willingness and ability to keep sacrificing on the battlefield, the level of support Ukraine receives from others, and whether a deal can eventually be struck that leaves the unoccupied parts of Ukraine intact and secure.” Therefore, the US and Europe “should continue supporting Ukraine, but this support should be coupled to a serious and unsentimental effort to negotiate a cease-fire and eventual settlement.”

Kursk offensive upending assumptions. Max Boot (Washington Post) argues that the Kursk operation could be the starting point for Kyiv to seize the initiative on the battlefield. This operation was not a cavalry attack, but a deliberate Ukrainian offensive aimed at “occupying Russian territory indefinitely to create a ‘buffer zone’ against Russian attacks and a bargaining chip for use in any future negotiations.” Moscow is currently unable to cope with this challenge: “There is still no indication that the Russians have assembled a force large enough to retake their territory…the Russians would need at least 20,000 troops for the task.” But even a smaller number of professional soldiers diverted to Kursk would risk collapsing the Russian front in Ukraine. This operation could change the format of the war in Ukraine’s favour—from a positional war in which Kyiv has no advantage against the enemy’s superior resources to a manoeuvrable war in which Ukraine achieves steady success. In the opinion of some experts, “the Kursk attack could force Putin to either accept the occupation of his territory indefinitely or to move even more substantial resources from other sectors to Kursk…And this can play to Ukraine’s advantage.” Therefore, according to Boot, the US should step up its support for Ukraine at this crucial moment: “It’s time for fresh thinking at the White House too — and for the administration to finally deliver the strategy for victory in Ukraine that Congress mandated as part of its last aid package in April.”

Ukraine’s counteroffensive signals a potential turning point for the Putin regime. Marcus Kolga (Toronto Star) opines that Ukraine’s recent counteroffensive, which has liberated 1,500 square kilometres of Russian-occupied territory, is seen as a turning point that could unravel Vladimir Putin’s repressive regime. The success of this military operation has not only boosted Ukrainian morale but also strengthened the confidence of its Western allies, showcasing Ukraine’s effective use of Western support. Kolga declares that “Ukraine’s lightning advance has reinvigorated confidence among Ukraine’s allies,” proving that with the right tools, Ukraine is capable of reclaiming its sovereignty. This development underscores the importance of continued and increased Western support, following Canada’s example of removing geographic restrictions on the use of supplied weapons. Inside Russia, the Kremlin’s failure, much like its response to Evgeniy Prigozhin’s brief uprising in summer 2023, raises doubts about its ability to maintain stability. The author notes that “Russians, long fed a steady diet of state propaganda positioning Putin as their messianic defender, may now begin questioning this myth,” signalling a potential shift in public sentiment. As Russian conscripts retreat, looting and chaos unfold, widening the cracks in Putin’s regime. This moment, in the author’s opinion, presents a critical opportunity for Ukraine and the exiled Russian opposition: “The involvement of free Russian battalions fighting alongside Ukrainian forces on Russian soil could serve as a powerful symbol, reassuring local populations and reinforcing the legitimacy of the idea of liberating Russia from Putin’s totalitarian grip.”

Russia’s escalating brutality highlights urgency of increased Western support. The editorial board of The Globe and Mail reminds readers about Russia’s recent large-scale air assault on Ukraine, aiming over 200 missiles and drones at key infrastructure, including a hydroelectric dam near Kyiv, and resulting in the deaths of at least eight civilians. This attack underscores the ongoing brutality of Russia’s invasion, which has been marked by numerous atrocities since its onset. Despite President Putin’s public refusal to negotiate following Ukraine’s counterattack in Russia’s Kursk region, the authors suggest that diplomacy is still a possible path. The editorial notes that “Mr. Putin has long been looking for a way out of a war that is not going as he planned,” suggesting the importance of continued diplomatic efforts behind the scenes. The authors stress that Ukraine’s allies must recognize the urgency of maintaining and even increasing their financial and military support as the war reaches a critical juncture. With sanctions continuing to hurt Russia and casualties mounting—potentially exceeding 100,000 Russian soldiers—the situation is increasingly dire for Moscow. “Now is the moment for Ukraine’s allies to give it the money and arms it needs to keep making Mr. Putin pay for his aggression.” This support is crucial to ensuring that any future negotiations occur on terms favourable to Ukraine and its allies, rather than allowing Russia to dictate the outcome.

Russians experiencing the war on their soil. Ilan Berman (The Hill) writes that since the beginning of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin has controlled the domestic narrative by promoting a patriotic struggle, enforcing censorship, and criminalizing dissent. This strategy has maintained relatively high support among Russians, despite the war’s prolonged and costly nature. However, Ukraine’s unexpected incursion into Russia’s Kursk oblast in early August has disrupted this narrative, leading to growing dissatisfaction and fear among ordinary Russians. According to a new study by OpenMinds, the raid has caused a “significant decline in positive sentiment” in Russian social media and news outlets, with more grievances directed at the Russian authorities and rising panic about the war (which in Russia is labelled as a “special military operation”). The quoted study also highlights increasing concerns about the possibility of another mobilization, noting that “approximately 39 percent of the publications about mobilization mentioned the Kursk incursion” as a potential trigger for a new draft. This fear has hampered the Kremlin’s usual tactic of rallying the nation, as it “understands the sociopolitical risks of a new wave of mobilization and fears the potential consequences related to it.” While Moscow’s response to the raid has been slow and scattered, the author highlights that “Ukraine has accomplished one of the principal aims of its daring military raid: to bring the conflict home to ordinary Russians and underscore that the war of choice embarked upon by their president carries potentially dire consequences for them personally.”

Kursk incursion disrupts region, fails to shift Russian political landscape. Briar Stewart (CBC) argues that Ukraine’s recent incursion into Kursk oblast has significantly disrupted the region, marking the first time the front line has reached Russian territory. This escalation has led to the evacuation of tens of thousands and intensified fears among residents. According to the Russian officials, just over 150,000 people in border areas needed to be evacuated, and as of Aug. 22, 133,000 had already been moved or left on their own. In contrast, the incursion has not caused substantial political upheaval in Russia. Despite the heightened tension, as noted by Tatiana Stanovaya, a Russian political scientist, “it is unlikely to translate into an anti-Putin movement,” as discontent is more directed at local officials and external factors. “Across the country, people seem to be more anxious about the mobilization drive in the fall of 2022 than this incursion,” according to Stanovaya. Apart from the Kursk region, she says “life in Russia continues, and the attack doesn’t really affect day-to-day life.”

Ukraine unveils Palianytsia missile, touted as game-changer in the war. Sean Boynton (Global News) describes Ukraine’s introduction of a new weapon, the Palianytsia, developed by its defence industry as a response to Western restrictions on long-range missile strikes against Russian territory. The Palianytsia, which Defence Minister Rustem Umerov touts as Ukraine’s “response” to Russian attacks, is purported to be capable of striking hundreds of kilometres inside Russia. This new capability comes as Ukraine has recently faced significant missile and drone attacks from Russia, which targeted Ukraine’s electrical infrastructure. President Zelensky and Umerov emphasized that the new weapon could be a game-changer in the war, potentially allowing Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian-held areas and counterbalance the devastating impact of Russia’s bombings. As Zelensky noted, “The main point of this plan is to force Russia to end the war.” Despite the Palianytsia, Western allies have maintained restrictions on the use of their long-range missiles, limiting strikes to Russian forces attacking from the border rather than mainland Russia. Richard Shimooka, a defence policy expert, highlighted that the Palianytsia might mitigate Western concerns about potential collateral damage from strikes on Russian soil: “This alternative is better for the allies, because you don’t risk that collateral damage of the blowback onto Western countries.”