Ukraine’s Bold Penetration Into Russia: a Necessary Move Against the Paper Tiger

In a daring and unprecedented action, the Ukrainian army penetrated deep into Russian territory, attacking the heart of the Kursk region. This action, which would have been unthinkable before February 2022, represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. It sends a clear message to Moscow and the world: Ukraine is not afraid of Russian aggression, and the Kremlin’s military power is not as it presents it to be. Instead, this bold and brazen move exposes the fragility of Vladimir Putin’s regime and shatters the myth of Russian invincibility.

Ukraine’s decision to attack inside Russian borders is not just an act of defiance but a calculated strategy that can change the dynamics of the conflict. Russia has been bombing Ukrainian cities for months, destroying civilian infrastructure without consequence. The West has largely condemned these actions but has also urged Ukraine to exercise restraint, especially when it comes to retaliating by using the same measures on Russian soil. However, this restraint did not repel Russian aggression but rather encouraged it.

By transferring the fight to Russian territory, Ukraine is introducing geographical and psychological changes to the battlefield. This forces the Kremlin to confront reality and acknowledge that it is not immune to the consequences of its actions. More importantly, it opens the eyes of the Russian people, long bombarded with propaganda, saying that their government is not as invulnerable as it claims to be. The penetration into the Kursk region challenges the narrative of Russian superiority and demonstrates that Ukraine is more than just surviving; it is capable of striking back effectively.

Other Topics of Interest

French Policy Playing Into Iranian and Russian Hands

France has not only not delivered on promises to Ukraine, it imports more Russian LNG – fueling Russia’s war machine and sends weapons needed by Ukraine to Lebanon – which go to Hezbollah.

The Kremlin’s limited response to the Ukrainian incursion speaks volumes about the current state of the Russian leadership. In previous years, any incursion into Russian territory would have been met with swift and decisive action, backed by a barrage of threats and a military response. However, Putin’s response – or lack thereof – points to a leader who is increasingly becoming disconnected from reality on the ground and is merely trying to hang on to power.

This silence from Moscow is not a sign of strategic patience or calculated restraint; it is an admission of vulnerability. Once believed to be an almost invincible force, the Russian military has lost itself in a game of attrition in Ukraine, revealing its weaknesses to the world. The failure to respond decisively to Ukrainian forces operating within Russian borders highlights Russian military capabilities’ shortcomings. This suggests that Putin is more concerned with maintaining the illusion of strength than dealing with very real threats to his regime.

Historically, the metaphor of  a "paper tiger" has been used to describe a force that appears powerful but is actually weak and ineffective. This metaphor, applied by Mao Zedong to describe “Western imperialism,” is now applicable to Russia under Putin. The Ukrainian incursion into Kursk exposed the facade of Russian military courage. The Russian bear is more like paper than steel when faced with a determined and capable opponent.

Attacks within Russian territory, according to opponents of Ukraine’s activities, run the risk of intensifying the conflict and possibly ending Western support. With this attitude, they ignore the moral and strategic motives that explain Ukraine’s decision. For more than a year, Ukraine has been on the defensive, absorbing the burden of Russia’s indiscriminate attacks on its cities and civilians. The international community has provided support, but often with delay and a pronounced reluctance to engage directly with the root cause of the conflict: Russian aggression.

Ukraine’s incursion into the Kursk region is a justified response to Russian war crimes. It serves as a warning that Ukraine will not passively watch its destruction. Calls from the West for restraint, while well-intentioned, fail to recognize the existential threat Ukraine faces. In war, as in all other human endeavors, there comes a point when action is the only way to survive, and stopping the bully becomes a duty.

Moreover, Ukraine’s actions are not unprecedented. Throughout history, nations faced with an existential threat fought against aggressors. During World War II, the Allied bombing campaigns against Germany were not only punitive but also strategically designed to weaken the Nazi war machine. Ukrainian attacks on Russia aim to disrupt Russian logistics, instill fear in the Russian population, and compel the Kremlin to redirect resources away from the Ukrainian front.

This strategy is not only about hurting the Russian military but also about securing a stronger negotiating position for Ukraine. Any successful operation within Russia dispels the Kremlin’s illusion of invincibility, bringing Ukraine closer to negotiating from a position of strength rather than desperation. The West needs to understand that by attacking within Russia, Ukraine is not endangering peace but rather laying the groundwork for a fair and long-lasting resolution to the conflict.

The Ukrainian penetration into Kursk will undoubtedly have significant repercussions, both on the battlefield and in the halls of power in Moscow. This may embolden parts of Ukraine that believe the only way to end the war is to move the battlefield to Russia. This sentiment, although controversial, reflects growing frustration with the status quo and recognition that traditional defensive strategies have not brought Ukraine closer to victory.

For Russia, the incursion represents a major challenge. Putin’s regime is built on the assumption of power and control. The inability to defend Russian territory from Ukrainian forces undermines this assumption and may have a destabilizing effect within Russia itself. The Russian people, who were largely isolated from the realities of war, are now faced with the undeniable truth that their government is not as powerful as it claims. This could lead to increased dissent in the country and pressure on Putin to escalate the conflict – a move fraught with risk and uncertainty.

In a broader geopolitical context, Ukraine’s actions may force a reevaluation of Western policy towards the conflict. Western calls for restraint are based on fears of escalation, but Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk suggests that the war has already escalated in ways that cannot be ignored. The question now is whether the West will continue to call for restraint or whether it will recognize that Ukraine’s survival depends on its ability to fight back against its aggressor.

The concept of offensive defense is not new. In the history of warfare, many successful campaigns have involved fighting the enemy, even when it seemed impossible. One of the most significant examples is the Allied invasion of Normandy in World War II. The decision to invade German-occupied France was risky, but it was a necessary step to break the stalemate and bring the war to an end. Similarly, Ukraine’s incursion into Russia, while risky, is a bold move aimed at breaking the deadlock and forcing a solution.

Another historical parallel can be drawn from the American Civil War, where General William Tecumseh Sherman’s “March to the Sea" was a strategic offensive aimed at destroying the Confederate will to fight. By carrying the war deep into Confederate territory, Sherman’s forces not only crippled the South’s warfighting capacity but also broke its morale. Ukraine’s actions in Kursk serve a similar purpose – they are designed to weaken Russia's ability to wage war and to undermine the resolve of the Russian government and people.

The West must support Ukraine’s right to defend itself, even if it means fighting on Russian soil. Encouraging restraint in the face of such Russian aggression is not a call for peace, but rather an approval of submission.

As we consider the possible consequences of Ukraine’s actions, it is worth recalling the words of the philosopher John Stuart Mill: “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.” Ukraine showed that some things are worth fighting for, and thus revealed the true nature of its adversary – a paper tiger, roaring behind the facade of strength, but trembling at the sight of real courage.