Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Ukraine’s surprise counter-incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, the biggest advance by either side since Kyiv’s rapid liberation of Russian-occupied territory in Kharkiv in late 2022, is nothing if not bold. It is also a huge gamble. Diverting some of Ukraine’s best troops away from defending its eastern front may seem foolhardy. Provided Kyiv can avoid it turning into an excessively costly endeavour, however, the rewards potentially outweigh the risks.
Ukraine’s 30km-plus advance beyond its own border — the first time Russia has been invaded by foreign troops since the second world war — began last Tuesday. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed it only on Saturday, and has said little about its aims. But attempting to turn the tables on an aggressor or break military deadlock with a shock advance into an adversary’s lands is a tactic with a long pedigree. In this case it could pull some Russian forces away from Donbas, where Moscow has made steady if costly gains this year, easing some of the pressure on Ukraine’s defences.
It also exposes and exploits Russia’s biggest vulnerability: its own vast borders. It may compel Moscow to redeploy some troops and equipment that could otherwise be used in Ukraine to defend its frontiers against similar incursions elsewhere. A clearly irked President Vladimir Putin will not want to allow this to happen again.
Indeed, perhaps the biggest impact of Ukraine’s advance is psychological. For Ukrainians worn down by nearly two and a half years of war, who polling suggests have become more open to peace talks, it provides a demonstration that their army is still capable of positive shocks. In Russia, it punctures the narrative of invincibility that the Kremlin has worked hard to maintain. Some local media reports suggest fear and confusion in Kursk and the neighbouring Belgorod region, with thousands evacuated from border areas.
Ukraine has learned, too, that success on the battlefield is the best way to persuade its international allies to step up supplies of military aid and equipment. By executing what appears to be a highly mobile attack utilising western-supplied armoured vehicles and air defences, Kyiv sends a message to western capitals that such support is not in vain. And, while there are big questions over whether it has the manpower and equipment to maintain its gains long-term, holding some Russian territory could strengthen its hand in any negotiations with Moscow.
One big risk of Ukraine’s gambit is that it could not only be forcibly driven out of Kursk but will lose troops and equipment in such quantities that it will harm its ability to hold back the Russians elsewhere. Another is that Russia, claiming its territorial integrity is in peril, will threaten to move up the ladder of escalation. Putin needs little excuse to rattle the nuclear sabre.
Yet for all its propaganda worth to Kyiv, seizing part of one Russian region is hardly, in reality, an existential threat for Russia. And there is deterrent value in western supporters displaying their readiness to back decisive action by Kyiv. Western capitals, seemingly caught unawares by the Ukrainian offensive, have rightly signalled implicit approval in their public remarks. They have defended Kyiv’s right to use western-supplied weapons in its Kursk operations — noting that international law says a country defending itself against foreign attack can also do so on the attacker’s territory.
Ukraine’s advance into Russia may yet turn out to be a turning point, a strategic blunder, or neither. But achieving military success, or sufficient military gains to support effective diplomacy, sometimes requires bold throws of the dice. Not for the first time, Ukraine’s president has just made one.
