On Aug. 7, Ukrainian troops crossed the border and advanced into the Kursk region of Russia, where they engaged in a fierce battle with Russian soldiers. While they have attempted several similar attacks before, none have been as high-profile as this one. The advance, which appears to have been carefully considered, comes with a series of risks.
The war may escalate
Ukraine’s counterattack into Russian territory may turn the primary concern of Western allies into reality — that is, the conflict may escalate into a broader war between Western countries and Russia. A primary reason is that Ukrainian troops are expected to use Western weapons frequently in further attacks on Russian targets after the Biden administration in May conditionally agreed to Ukraine’s use of U.S.-made weapons for such attacks. Later, Germany followed suit and made a similar stipulation for the weapons it provides. These developments lift certain restrictions on Ukrainian troops.
The United States and its NATO allies played a key role in Ukraine’s strike into Russia. Although Washington has denied coordinating with Ukraine and claims that it was not informed of the combat plan in advance, the U.S. Department of Defense stated that it did not violate U.S. policy for Ukrainian soldiers to use U.S. weapons in attacks on Russian territory. In this context, a Russian scholar claimed in official media that the United States was behind what it called “terrorist attacks” in the Kursk region.
Russian President Vladimir Putin did not publicly accuse the United States and its NATO allies but rather called Ukraine’s incursion into Russia a large-scale provocation. However, given Ukraine’s frequent attacks on Russian sites and the upcoming U.S. election, the space for covert competition between the United States and Russia may diminish, potentially increasing the risk of escalation.
Ukraine’s serious troop shortage
In an official report, the chief of Russia’s general staff, Valery Gerasimov, stated that Russian troops had stalled the Ukrainian advance and predicated that Ukraine’s operation in the Kursk region would end up in failure. This advance has indeed been a blow to the Russian government and military. At the same time, it has allowed Ukrainian troops to gain combat experience for potential future attacks on other areas of Russia.
However, Ukraine's limited military strength and logistics mean that while the advance has drawn some Russian forces away and eased pressure in eastern Ukraine, it has increased the risk of a breach in its eastern defense line. As Russia’s strategy of “trading space for time” begins to take effect, Russian troops may gradually reverse the current chaotic state. For Ukraine, the challenge is that if the northern region also becomes a war zone, it will face the burden of fighting on both the northern and eastern fronts, which will be a huge test for its military deployment.
The true purpose of Ukraine’s advance into Russia remains unclear. Assuming that the incursion achieves its intended goals, Ukraine may be able to reverse its current passive conditions on the battlefield to a certain extent and even turn the tide.
However, various indications suggest that it still faces high risks. Even though more than 76,000 Kursk residents have fled their homes, Russia is still increasing its troop deployment in the region, likely to avoid early engagement and prevent unnecessary casualities. Of course, the advance into Russia will force the Kremlin to deal with the resettlement of Kursk residents who have fled their homes.
Peace process complexity grows
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed his willingness to invite Russia to participate in the peace summit scheduled for November, suggesting a softening of Ukraine’s stance on the “land for peace” proposal. This move could be a strategic last resort for Ukraine, because recent election results in Western countries are more favorable to the proposal. Ukraine’s advance into Russia may be an attempt to explore another possibility: By spreading the flames of war to Russian territory, it could achieve the goal of “land for land” in future negotiations. If this is the case, then the existing peace principles on the Ukraine issue will be undermined. Russia will be less inclined to resolve the crisis through dialogue and negotiation when part of its territory is occupied.
Even if conditions for a land-for-land agreement are created, Ukraine’s peace plan still faces many variables. Given the unpredictable nature of U.S. and European support, Ukraine needs to coordinate its military, economic, diplomatic and other elements to serve its peace plan. For example, by launching offensives and causing heavy Russian military casualties, it hopes to arouse dissatisfaction among residents in Russia’s border areas and ultimately force the Kremlin to accept its peace plan.
Most wars end through negotiations, but it is important to remember a simple fact: As long as any party believes it can win, it is impossible to end the war. Peace negotiations become possible only when one of the warring parties is exhausted.
