Ukraine’s offensive in Kursk is looking increasingly ill advised, and as its prospects dwindle, it becomes ever more urgent that an end is brought to this war, argues Chris Bambery

For weeks, we have been told by the British political leadership and the established media that Ukraine’s attack in Russia, in the Kursk region, is a gamechanger which can bring about a Ukrainian victory, or at least impose on Russia a peace favourable to Kyiv. As the Western media celebrates a supposed major Ukrainian victory, behind the propaganda, Russian forces are relentlessly advancing westwards on the main front.

Russia has made significant gains in the key eastern front, with its forces just a few kilometres from the Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk, a crucial supply and reinforcement point for Ukraine’s troops on the eastern front line. Critics in Kyiv of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, and there are growing numbers of these, point out this was what they warned of when he stripped crucial units to take part in the Kursk incursion, leaving Pokrovsk and other important Ukrainian towns exposed, they say.

Last week, after the Russians took the Ukrainian town of Novohrodivka, Ukrainian MP Mariana Bezuhla wrote on Facebook: ‘The trenches in front of Novohrodivka were empty. There was practically no Ukrainian army in the once 20,000-strong city.’ Ukrainian sources who support Zelensky’s attack on Kursk argue the aim was to draw off Russian forces from the eastern front. That has not happened. Ukrainian gains in the Kursk region fall far short of those of Russia in the east.

In reality, Ukraine’s decision to invade Russia in the area of Kursk was a gamble to try to turn the tide of war it was losing. It represents a dangerous escalation of the war, particularly with the direct use of Western-supplied weaponry, the involvement of US and European intelligence and, likely, personnel to operate the weaponry.

We are constantly told the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, wants to overrun Ukraine as a step towards conquering Eastern Europe, in order to emulate Stalin’s 1945 achievements. In reality, he wants to take over Donbas and the Russian-populated areas of eastern Ukrainian, and is steadily achieving that, despite what happens in Kursk. Occupying western Ukraine is beyond Russia’s capacity and could drag it into the sort of guerilla war it lost in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The problem for Ukraine is that the Kursk incursion looks set to lead to greater Ukrainian than Russian losses, which is not sustainable for Kyiv. Ukraine is struggling to replace its much depleted forces on the crucial eastern front. Even with US and European weaponry, it cannot retake the Donbas or Crimea.

The Kursk offensive has stripped the eastern front of Ukraine’s best units, but it is operating there on extended and vulnerable supply lines. There are two dangers; first Ukrainian forces could be cut off, secondly, they are caught in another meat grinder of a battle wearing down Ukrainian forces who cannot be replaced, both in numbers and quality. Russia is far stronger in artillery and air power.

US doubts

From the Wilson Center in Washington comes this warning: ‘it is not clear that Ukraine will be able to hold what it has captured. Once Ukraine goes firm and starts digging in, Russia will bring up its artillery, electronic warfare complexes, air defense, glide bombs, and operational-tactical missile complexes, to place Ukraine in the same difficulties it is encountering elsewhere, only with fewer reserves. The Kursk operation will not offer leverage in negotiations if President Vladimir Putin believes he can drive back the incursion over the course of talks.’

The Ukrainian president Zelensky knows peace talks are in the offing to resolve a war Ukraine cannot win. Those will have to wait on the November US presidential election; if Trump wins, he has made it clear he wants to pull the plug on this war, if Harris wins, she will be tempted to bite the bullet at the start of her term in office to put the unpleasant reality behind her early on.

So, the attack on Kursk is seen as providing a bargaining chip in such talks. But, writing in Foreign Affairs, Stephen M. Walt points out: ‘According to published reports, Ukraine has now seized about 400 square miles of Russian territory and forced roughly 200,000 Russians to evacuate these areas. These figures amount to 0.0064 percent of Russia’s total land area and 0.138 percent of its population. By contrast, Russia now controls roughly 20 percent of Ukraine, and the war has reportedly forced nearly 35 percent of Ukraine’s population to flee their homes. Even if Kyiv can hang on to the territory it has recently seized, it won’t provide much of a bargaining chip.’

Putin knows he can keep his gains in the largely Russian-speaking Donbas. Zelensky knows he will never maintain control of any territory in the Kursk region. Putin may not be an ideal dinner guest, but he is no fool, nor is he the new Hitler the Western media tries to paint him. He has not retaliated against attacks on Russian territory by Western supplied missiles and other weapons thus far. Thank goodness for small mercies.

Washington did not sanction Ukraine’s attack on Kursk. Instead, it had been urging Kyiv to dig in for a long-term war of attrition in the, distant, hope it could wear down Russian resolve. Thus, there is a more realistic discussion in the USA over what is going on. Here’s Jasen J. Castillo, Co-Director, Albritton Center for Grand Strategy, George H.W. Bush School of Government, Texas A&M University: ‘In a war of attrition, manpower and equipment are essential. Ukraine’s attack reminds me of Germany’s audacious Western offensive in 1944 that surprised the Allies, made gains, and ended with a defeat at the Battle of the Bulge, which then wasted manpower and equipment it needed months later on the Eastern Front.’

Ivan Eland, Director of the Independent Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty, points out in the same piece: ‘… is it worth it for Ukraine to divert forces from already thin defense lines to go on a risky offensive with only nebulous benefits? Russia’s offensive is already making headway, and because Russia outnumbers and outguns Ukraine, it may not need to denude its attack forces in Ukraine to defend Russian territory. Ukraine indeed may desire to occupy Russian territory to eventually trade Ukrainian-occupied Russian territory for Russian-occupied Ukrainian land in any truce negotiations, but Ukraine risks being surrounded by superior forces.’

Ukraine falters

The Ukrainian president’s visit to Washington last month was not a great success: ‘Zelensky’s meetings at the White House and the Pentagon delayed him by more than an hour, and when he finally arrived to begin his speech at 6:41 p.m. [at the National Archives]], he looked distant and agitated. He relied on his wife, First Lady Olena Zelenska, to carry his message of resilience on the stage beside him, while his own delivery felt stilted, as though he wanted to get it over with. At one point, while handing out medals after the speech, he urged the organizer to hurry things along.’

Zelensky blamed tiredness and the strain of the war, but he has also become disillusioned with the West. After the visit, U.S. officials conceded privately that ‘Ukraine likely only has until the end of the year or shortly thereafter before more urgent discussions about peace negotiations should begin.’ After his visit, a poll found only 41% of Americans want Congress to provide more weapons to Kyiv, down from 65% in June.

Time magazine returned with Zelensky to Kyiv to report on the mood there, reporting: ‘“We’re not moving forward,” says one of Zelensky’s close aides. Some front-line commanders, he continues, have begun refusing orders to advance, even when they came directly from the office of the President. “They just want to sit in the trenches and hold the line,’ he says. ‘But we can’t win a war that way” … One of Zelensky’s close aides tells me that even if the U.S. and its allies come through with all the weapons they have pledged, “we don’t have the men to use them”.’ Washington has called for a widespread purge of the Ukrainian leadership to deal with corruption, but the Time report quotes a top presidential adviser as saying, ‘people are stealing like there’s no tomorrow’.

Since Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine, and the failure of his initial offensive to take Kyiv, this war has become a battle of attrition. Despite its underwhelming military performance so far, the advantages still lie with Russia, with its far greater population, larger economy and its ability to produce basic weapons such as artillery shells on a scale the West cannot match.

Nato and Washington have urged Ukraine to fight on, even when it had reached a deal with Moscow. What for? The Kursk incursion will change little. More Ukrainians and Russians will die or be mutilated, but Kyiv cannot replace its losses. The very dogs on the streets are saying this will end at the negotiating table. Sooner, it is to be hoped, rather than later.