Kursk operation is a turning point in the war

CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 11–17 August 2024

Six publications (The Economist, The National Interest, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Global News, and Globe and Mail) 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

China is in denial about Russia’s war against Ukraine. Jude Blanchette (Foreign Affairs) argues that Chinese thinkers underestimate the cost of their country’s complicity in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Unlike members of the Chinese Communist Party, in the first few months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine representatives of the academic community and think tanks were more negative about the war and Beijing’s role in it. They were convinced that the war would damage China’s relations with Europe and the US, further divide the world economy, and reduce the wealth and power of Russia, China’s most important partner. Two years later, their views became more optimistic: “The Russian and Chinese economies…have largely avoided crippling harm from Western sanctions. Russia is reconstituting its defense industrial base and has avoided the extreme diplomatic isolation.” Some of their predictions turned out to be correct, “for instance, that the United States’ domestic consensus in favor of arming Kyiv would falter.” However, Chinese public debate lacks a genuine acknowledgement of the price Beijing has paid for supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine: “China has, in fact, incurred costs as a result of Putin’s war and Beijing’s economic and diplomatic support for it. Europe has not completely turned its back on China, but the country’s deepening relationship with Russia has caused a significant deterioration in its relations with many European countries that cannot easily be reversed. And the symmetry between Putin’s lust to seize Ukrainian territory and Beijing’s long-standing appetite to absorb Taiwan has provoked the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific to harden their defenses.” According to Blanchette, “These blind spots matter because in China, the war in Ukraine is serving as both an observatory and a laboratory as the country prepares for heightened geopolitical conflict with the United States.”

Ukraine’s efforts solve global problems. Andreas Umland (National Interest) is convinced that Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression, if successful, could reignite worldwide democratization and help speed along political transitions in other nations. Russia’s war against Ukraine is a manifestation of broader “regressive developments,” and its outcome will determine future prospects for the world order. Localizing this military-political conflict to the level of an Eastern European problem is a mistake. According to the author, “The Russian-Ukrainian War is a grand battle about the future of Europe and the principle of inviolability of borders.” Any sort of partial victory for Moscow in Ukraine would destroy the system of international law and provoke armed conflicts in other parts of the world. By the same token, Kyiv’s victory will have “far-reaching beneficial effects on worldwide security, democracy, and prosperity in three ways.” First, a Ukrainian victory would stabilize the rules-based UN order. Second, it would revive “an international democratization, which has halted since the early twenty-first century and needs a boost to start anew.” Third, Ukraine’s ongoing national defence and state-building are fuelling global innovation and revitalization in various fields, from dual-use technology to public administration. Umland opines, “the ‘Ukraine Crisis’ is not the cause of democracy’s current problems…Moreover, the war is about Ukraine’s right to exist as a regular UN member state.”

Ukraine should build on the success of its incursion into Russia. The editorial board of the Economist suggests that there are three possible developments regarding the Ukrainian invasion of Russia. Kyiv can dig in, pull back, or use the occupied territories as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The Armed Forces of Ukraine have achieved a stunning result: “In seven days the Ukrainians have seized almost as much territory as Russia has managed, at huge cost, to take from them since the start of the year (1,175 square kilometres).” By invading Russia, Ukraine gains a number of tactical advantages: (1) Kyiv is demonstrating Vladimir Putin’s personal weakness; (2) the Armed Forces of Ukraine have reminded us of their capabilities; (3) Kyiv maintained tight security and was able to surprise the enemy; (4) Ukraine showed that the front line of the conflict is not frozen but fluid, which could potentially change Russia’s and the West’s calculations in any future negotiations; and (5) Kyiv has raised the morale of Ukrainians and Western partners. The key question now is whether Ukraine can turn short-term gains into a long-term strategic advantage. First, Kyiv could “try to hold the territory it has seized—or even push further—in order to draw more Russian troops from Ukraine and provide a bargaining chip in any future negotiations.” Second, Kyiv can “pull back to the border in good order, preserving troops and equipment for attempts to reclaim Ukrainian territory next year.” Third, Kyiv could partially withdraw “to a more defensible position nearer the Ukrainian border which would require fewer troops and be better supported by artillery and logistics.” According to the Economist, “[President Zelensky’s] challenge is now to translate the success of the past week into something enduring.”

Kursk operation is a turning point in the war. Carl Bildt (Foreign Policy) declares that the Kursk offensive is a turning point in the war. It destroyed the Kremlin narrative of Russia’s inevitable victory in its war against Ukraine. The operation also demonstrated “significant weakness in Russia’s border defenses, set off confusion in Moscow’s chain of command, and proved Ukraine’s continued talent for surprising moves.” After the failed Ukrainian counter-offensive in 2023, Russia made great efforts to convince Ukraine and the world that its victory was inevitable. Moscow believed that promoting this narrative would break the will to resist in Kyiv and the resilience of its Western allies. To a certain extent, this strategy was successful, and Russia’s small, costly victories on the battlefield reinforced the narrative. However, the Kursk operation has become a turning point: “Morale and determination have surged in the [Ukrainians], and doubts and uncertainties have increased in the [Russians]. And Western capitals are waking up to a new reality in the war.” Western countries should seize this opportunity and step up their support for Ukraine on its path to victory. According to Bildt, “War is certainly about what happens on the battlefield, but as the Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz taught us, it is ultimately a battle of political will. There is little doubt that Putin still sees no alternative to winning his war, but after Ukraine’s Kursk operation, many others are beginning to lose conviction in his belief. Now it’s a question of accelerating that process—in order to shorten the war and lead to a more benign outcome.”

Ukraine’s Kursk operation — a strategic gamble with high stakes. Mark MacKinnon (Globe and Mail) highlights how Ukraine’s surprising counteroffensive in the Kursk region marked the first foreign incursion into Russia since World War II. Ukrainian forces, having noticed the reduction of Russian troops in northeastern parts of Ukraine (namely Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts, where Moscow conducted a new offensive on May 10 and managed to advance as far as 10 kilometres (6 miles) before Ukraine halted the advance at the first line of defence), launched a daring raid into Russian territory, capturing significant ground and sending a clear message to Moscow. The operation, while symbolic, demonstrates Ukraine’s ability to turn the tide of the war, at least temporarily, Mackinnon argues, by shifting focus and forcing Russia to reassess its strategy. President Volodymyr Zelensky and military leadership are using this success to bolster public morale and to distract Russian forces from the main battlefront in Ukraine’s Donbas. However, the operation brings several potential risks, such as overextending Ukrainian forces and provoking a severe Russian retaliation. Military analyst Konrad Muzyka said that Ukraine would need to carry out a “massive mobilization drive” if it wanted to be able to defend both Kursk and towns in Donetsk Oblast still under Ukraine’s control.

Ukraine expands Kursk offensive, aims to boost negotiation leverage. Sean Boynton (Global News) argues that Kyiv’s immediate objective in its ongoing Kursk operation is to establish a “buffer zone” to protect against Russian missile strikes from the border regions. However, experts suggest that Ukraine’s broader strategy may involve demonstrating to Western allies its capability to challenge Russia on its own soil, despite being outnumbered and outgunned. As Andrew Rasiulis from the Canadian Global Affairs Institute notes, while Ukraine’s military power is insufficient to alter the overall course of the war, the operation could “improve their bargaining position” in talks with Russia. Ukrainian forces have now advanced 28–35 kilometres (18–21 miles) into Russia’s Kursk region and taken control of 93 settlements, Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi reported on Aug. 20. Despite the initial success, analysts who spoke to Boynton caution that Ukraine might struggle to maintain its gains, as Russia has the advantage of larger reserves and can deploy additional troops to the area without weakening its main front in the Donbas. The operation is also seen as a morale boost for Ukraine, demonstrating its military capabilities after 900 days of the all-out war. However, the long-term impact remains uncertain, with potential for a brutal Russian counteroffensive. “We don’t know how long they can hold on,” said Joseph Varner, deputy director of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, raising questions about the sustainability of Ukraine’s strategic surprise.

Germany’s warrant points to Ukraine in Nord Stream sabotage, but questions remain. Eric Reguli (Globe and Mail) examines the ongoing mystery surrounding the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosions, emphasizing the recent German arrest warrant for a Ukrainian citizen as a suspect. The Nord Stream explosions in September 2022, which destroyed vital gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea, marked one of the most significant acts of industrial sabotage since World War II. The pipelines, crucial for supplying Russian gas to Germany, were rendered inoperable, sparking widespread speculation about who was responsible. The explosions occurred in the Swedish and Danish exclusive economic zones and were described as sabotage by various authorities, including those in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden. Investigations have not conclusively identified those responsible. Suspicion fell initially on Russia and later on the US. Recent developments point to Ukraine and suggest that the operation may have been approved by President Zelensky before being called off (too late). The author points out inconsistencies in this theory and the lack of conclusive evidence. Reguli critiques the plausibility of a small sailboat being used for such a complex deep-water operation, especially in the heavily monitored Baltic Sea. He also says: “The bigger question is why Germany keeps supporting Ukraine with financial aid and weapons if it thinks Ukrainian operatives were behind the plot to destroy the German economy’s most important piece of energy infrastructure?” Despite the arrest warrant, the author suggests that the true story may never be revealed, especially with ongoing uncertainties and apparent disinterest of key players like the US, Sweden, and Denmark in fully uncovering the truth.

Ukraine’s incursion into the Kursk region probes Russia’s weak spots. Amy Mackinnon and Jack Detsch (Foreign Policy) suggest that Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region on Aug. 6 has left Western officials as well as the Kremlin stunned. Ukrainian forces, facing little resistance, seized dozens of settlements, catching Russian security forces off guard. The operation, described as one of Ukraine’s most sophisticated military moves to date, has significantly boosted morale in Ukraine. Officials have remained tight-lipped about the objectives of the incursion, with President Zelensky saying only that it is a matter of Ukrainian security, given Russia’s use of the Kursk region to launch strikes against Ukraine. Analysts interviewed by the authors suggest that the incursion has complicated the Biden Administration’s efforts to contain the situation, as the US was not notified in advance and now faces the delicate task of publicly supporting Ukraine while managing its own strategic interests. Former Defense Department official Jim Townsend noted that Russia assumes Western involvement in the planning of such operations, adding that while the US doesn’t need to celebrate the incursion, it does “have to be supportive of this and see where it goes.”