Ukrainian soldiers have been fighting in the Russian border region of Kursk since Tuesday. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) estimates that Ukrainian forces have managed to overcome two Russian defensive lines and at least one military base. Drone footage shows that Western tanks are being used. Here are some of the comments by international analysts.
Kyiv's dual strategy
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
Retired colonel Hannes Toomsalu explains in Estonia’s Postimees:
“It is certainly not the Ukrainians' objective to occupy and capture the old Cossack settlement area. The goal is to force the Russians to bring units from the eastern front to the north. But it's also about creating discontent among Russian citizens and undermining Putin's government.”
A call for help
Greece’s Naftemporiki analyses:
“The Russians are not in danger militarily, their only problem is to preserve their image. On the other hand, Ukrainian President Zelensky, who is facing great difficulties both politically and, on the battlefield, has gone on the offensive to show public opinion and his supporters that Ukraine still has the potential to cause the Russians problems. And there is another way of looking at it. With Iran poised to attack Israel, Ukraine could fall out of the international public eye. And Zelensky wanted to remain the focus of the West's attention in this war in Ukraine.”
A risky maneuver
Bringing the Loyalists Back – Trump’s Next Security Policy Team
This offensive could backfire, Germany’s Handelsblatt fears:
“On the one hand, the advance widens the front, which can hardly be held anyway. It also ties up Russian forces, at least temporarily. But the Ukrainian soldiers who are now fighting in Russia are absent from sections of the front that threaten to become porous. ... However, the advance is also risky for a second reason. The West has authorized the use of weapons it has supplied against military targets in the Russian border region. But should German Leopard tanks fall into the hands of the Russians during the attack, Vladimir Putin would happily use them as evidence for his narrative that NATO is actually waging war against Russia.”
Putin completely miscalculated
The Ukrainian offensive in Kursk above all highlights the weakness of the Russian aggressor, Romania’s Spotmedia concludes:
“In a war in which Putin had calculated that it would take no more than two weeks to topple the regime in Kyiv, two and a half years later the Ukrainians are still holding out and are now conducting a military offensive in Russia. That says everything about the Kremlin leader's strategic errors.”
The Kremlin is still not talking of war
Kyiv political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko explains the Kremlin's restrained response in Ukraine’s NV:
“Putin described this as a 'large-scale Ukrainian provocation', but did not officially declare war on Ukraine, although he was called upon to do so on Russian social networks and Telegram channels. Moreover, there is no talk of using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine. ... Clearly Putin does not want to further fuel the current war or increase its intensity and severity. Because that could lead to uncontrollable negative consequences both for Russia's future relations with the West and for the development of the domestic political situation.”
Moscow facing a tough decision
In a Facebook post, Russian commentator Vladislav Inozemtsev reflects on the perilous implications for Russia:
“The incursion of units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine into the Kursk region faces the country's leadership with a very difficult choice regarding how to assess the latest events and respond to them. ... They could be labeled a declaration of war on Russia, but that is dangerous. ... If this is admitted, martial law will have to be declared in the country and it may come to a general mobilization. That in turn could lead to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and ultimately to a request for assistance to the member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization.”
A strategic goal already achieved
Russian journalist Yulia Latynina analyses the strategy behind the move in Echo:
“As far as the Kursk nuclear power plant is concerned, it's hard to say for sure, but the obvious target has already been brought under control: the Sudzha gas measuring station, which is of enormous importance to Putin because gas flows to Europe through it. ... Given the meager Russian reserves, Putin will probably be forced to quickly withdraw troops from the Donbass, where holding the front is difficult, and move them to the Kursk region instead. That's what all this was done for.”
A risky undertaking
Italy’s La Stampa takes stock:
“In view of the complicated situation of the Ukrainians on the eastern front of Donetsk on the one hand, and the debate over the use of Western weapons in Russia on the other, which, although redundant among all key NATO allies (with the exception of Italy, which continues to oppose the use of Western weapons on Russian territory), could be reignited to Kyiv's disadvantage, the Ukrainian action might seem rash, or even foolish. ... It could turn out to be either a gigantic flop or a brilliant maneuver that rebalances the political, military and, who knows, perhaps even diplomatic dynamics.”
Violence backfiring
Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung finds it simply grotesque that Putin is now ranting about a "large-scale provocation" by Ukraine:
“What is going on in the Kursk region is dreadful for the civilian population living there. However, the responsibility for this lies entirely with the man in charge in the Kremlin. If he had not invaded Ukraine, the Russians in the villages on the southwest border could continue to lead a quiet and peaceful life. From the beginning of his rule, Putin has opted for violence: against Chechens, Georgians, Syrians and Ukrainians. Now this violence is coming back to the Russians.”
Not a provocation, just showing initiative
Russian political scientist Abbas Galliamov is amused that Putin is calling this a provocation, and comments on Facebook:
“Why a 'provocation'? There is a war going on, in the course of which a military operation has been carried out. That's a standard narrative, isn't it? It's bad that people are dying, but why call it a 'provocation'? Because you didn't expect it? You didn't expect the enemy to show initiative? ... Didn't they teach you that in your academies? Well, if that's the case, then yes, this is indeed a 'provocation'.”
See the original here.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
