Maybe they just thought out all the possible scenarios with a Kursk invasion and concluded that, like you say, would be an effective PR stunt and they could always withdraw. The right move, IMHO, was for Putin to pull troops and get Ukraine out. But he followed sane logic which is that Russia doesn't need Kursk and shouldn't get distracted, keep with its game plan (which is generally good). So he remained focused on the Donbas.
Now Ukraine is digging into Kursk. You're right that they can't just leave now. However, why would they want to? Buying cannon fodder from North Korea has been a nice unintended consequence for Ukraine. It forces South Korea to get involved. It forces the West to recalculate much of its geopolitical map.
Kursk is 100% proof that the Russian are overextended. That they can't mobile to protect the motherland. It's a warning to Moldova, etc. In short, I tip my hat on this one ;)
I know this sounds horrible but Ukraine is better off slowly losing ground in the Donbas. It gives the Trump Administration something to fix. The only reason they were against helping Ukraine was becomes the Democrats owned it. Now that the Democrats are out the Republicans will want to prove they know how to run a war better. Sure, Ukraine shouldn't need the U.S. but, hey, we have to face facts--they can't do it on their own. Anyway, I expect the West to re-group and do what it takes to push Russia back a bit but that will take months, perhaps a year.
In the meantime, Kursk is a thorn in Putin's side. It's a reminder to the oligarchs that Ukraine will exploit any weakness in Russia. I don't have the answers. But that's my argument why I believe the Donbas is only one piece in a very complex puzzle.
South Korea will get involved or not based on what Russia provides NK, not the other way. They are trying to deter Russia from providing NK better ballistic tech, and will hold back help to Ukraine in exchange for Russian promise not to do that. NK wasting military resources to fight someone else is good for them. Roughly.
And another thing. Russians are never negotiating in good faith, their idea of compromise is "you give me something, I stop stabbing you", so their reaction to Kursk can be viewed in those terms. Moving troops or getting it back by returning some Ukrainian territory is not something that crosses their minds. I don't know if I managed to explain it clearly, but it's their template, they do not act according to normal give-and-take logic.
Your analysis of mechanics about SK better, but I think my point stands, it geopolitically complicates things in Ukraine's favor? I don't see that any superpower thinks give-and-take--especially the U.S.. I wish they did ;)
The North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un, has ordered the “mass production” of attack drones, state media reported on Friday, as concerns mount over the Kim regime’s deepening military cooperation with Russia.
There are certain things Putin is never going to sell - no matter to whom. The 'most' North Koreans can expect is to get incomplete Su-57s and 'licence', or stuff like Lancets.
Dear Tom, a few things I would like to mention additionally.
First of you know that major P. is a huge formalist. This probably connected not so much to his legal education, as to his gang experience. As consistency and determination,disregarding the resources, is important factor in itself.
So basically he can not start "peace" negotiations, without liberating Kursk. Even if he wants it desperately. And to start negotiations on a high ground, he would need to maintain overall pressure until then, disregarding the resources.
Secondly, if it was agreed and discussed with HUR. I think the first time Budanov mentioned "Sumy invasion" was at least couple of months before. And he was the only one, and did it several times quite convicingly. So either he was doing info support of operation on order, or much more likely on his own full support of it.
The third fact I do not understand, the units were very quickly rotated in and out, often delivered from remote fronts in expedited manner. What this was, a drill?
Hi Tom. Thanks for your work. The most logical explanation for the Ukrainian invasion of the Kursk region that I have seen in the media (although by definition war and politics are concepts incompatible with logic) is to reverse the established opinion in the West that the war has turned into a continuous streak of success for Russia and that helping Ukraine is a senseless waste of resources.
Sobering write up. Thank you Tom. Makes a lot of sense to me. I also remember quite clearly alot of experts outside Ukraine wondering why Bakhmut was being held on too much despite there being other arguably more strategic locations like the Zaporizhzhia front. There were still some positive outcomes of holding onto Bakhmut for a long time like the implosion of Wagner but possibly Ukraine lost out on more strategically important. With Syrski micromanaging the front, it really doesnt sound like a good thing. I wonder what the outcome will be in all this and if there will be a change to maybe a Divisional Structure and keep Syrskyi away from micromanaging Battalions. But the whole thing is really tough, I still commend Zelensky and his group for the good they have done and hope somehow they see their mistakes and fix them. But thats hard.
I think the Kursk incursion was and still is a brilliant move. It clearly took Russia by surprise, and more recently, forced them to bring in allied troops to help. The increased contact line length has over stretched Russia's infantry based military.
I'm watching videos of them unable to assualt/counter or exploit any where except US politics.
Kursk offensive is something like a proof for stab-in-back story which is/will be circulated by Zelenski.
He can show that Ukraine could actually defeat Russia if only NATO has offered full support plus nukes plus some divisions. He can sign any peace now because the bad NATO has betrayed the ultra-capable Ukrainian Army.
The irony of this is that nobody in the West cares. Ukraine has already been drained of most of the "valuable" people. Honestly, nobody cares that the remaining 2/3 of the population will turn Zelensky into a dictator. If you can fail in almost every way and still convince a nation you're great, then that nation deserves nothing.
The Kursk offensive may go down in history as a waste of time. However it has thrown Russia off balance and taken some of the control of the war away from them. The narrative is different now and Ukraine has more agency. The offensive certainly satisfied Clausewitz’s principles of Surprise and Maneuver. Objective is of course what we are discussing now but I think it possible the objective is fluid and more like ‘let’s see what develops’. It’s a chess move and the game has many moves to go.
War and politics are admixed according to Clausewitz. Regarding, Kursk, war and a public relations stunt are admixed? This is crazy. A nation with limited military resources compared with its attacking enemy in my perception should devote its scarce military resources to where the action is taking place, i.e., a defensive strategy that trades land on its own initiative and timing (not by losing land to meat waves), and bleeding the enemy dry if possible. I admit, as I have stated in my previous comments, that I am not a land warfare expert, but I do not see how a diversion of forces to Kursk, however apparently successful in the beginning, can contribute significantly to termination of war on terms favorable to Ukraine.
If one wants an effective public relations "exercise," given that Russia has been in the process of destroying Ukraine's electrical and heating energy grid, Ukraine perhaps should devote maximum efforts to degrade the Russian electrical system around Moscow and St. Petersburg with the coming of winter. If a bully punches you in the face and you manage to recover in short order, even though injured and in pain, you then kick him in the balls. When he bends over in pain, you then kick him in the head. If this war truly is a war of annihilation of Ukraine militarily, politically, and cuturally, then this is no time to mess around and act like a bunch of pussies. Hit Russia where it really hurts its population that in my perception is living in denial if one has the ability to do so, or at least try to do so.
You have to be properly equipped for a counteroffensive. How well equipped is the Ukrainian military to do this? And for what duration? Also, given that your strategy is defensive, this doesn't mean that you don't take offensive action. In such circumstances, an offensive attack serves one's defensive strategy. E.g., Gen. Robert E. Lee went on the strategic defense post Gettysburg because he had no other choice. This didn't stop him from employing offensive tactics when the need arose.
Dear Tom, thanks for your update. Judging by what your Russian contacts tell you, do they have a strategic plan on how to win the war, some sort of an endgame vision (regardless of whether it's realistic or not); or do they just try to keep on going from day to day, hoping something will happen along the way that will change the game (like West giving up on Ukraine)?
Thanks! That doesn't sound like a plan, more like either a full delusion or just trying to cope with a bad situation without a solution is sight. In either way, it's scary the world leaders have less capability of planning than my cat when he wants to steal a piece of sausage from my plate.
A bit of dissagreement from me. I think the 50000 russian troops in Kursk would be somewhere else, probably in Donbas if they where not held up in Kursk.
When it comes to the President of Ukraine, i tryed to follow his moves for one week. He was in Finland?, a meeting with the nordic countrys on Island, and having som high roller on visit in Kyiv, no way he have the time to micromanage things. He might have bad advisors and generals tho...
Moving around to keep the media, in supporting countrys awake, i think is an important role in this war, bacause this will inflict on the ammount of support Ukraine can get. If we, the woters, forget about this war, then the support will drain out.
Not claiming to be an expert on this, and not trying to offend. Just my humble oppinion.
Russia employs about 5-6 brigades/ regiments în Kursk. That's about 30k maximum troops. 50k would make a high tempo offensive like în Bakhmut. În Kursk there are many operational pauses of 2-3 weeks.
1) I still regard the Kursk offensive a good idea by itself.
2) Even without driving all the way to Kursk itself Ukraine still had the clear chance to create and eliminate 2 cauldrons, but wasted both opportunities.
3) No matter how capable Syrsky is or isn't (I loved the term noisy brat) micromanagement of the Ukrainian forces will never work. It is just a 100% guarantee of later disaster.
4) 2025 will be the year of decision, which will show in which direction the dice will fall at the end.
Reality in this universe has no place for wishful thinking and doesn't follow the script of a usual
In September 2022, Putin had it written into the Russian constitution that selected Ukrainian regions are part of the Russian Federation. If he fails to reach the administrative borders of Donetsk and Luhansk, it will be evident that the goal has not been achieved. Putin cannot end such a costly war without being able to declare that the objectives have been met. Otherwise, it could mean his personal downfall, along with that of his close circle, similar to what happened when Stalin died.
Putin cannot afford to show that anything could have been achieved through negotiation. He must continually demonstrate that war was the only solution and that it achieved the stated goals.
If there were a change in leadership in Russia, the new leadership might declare that the war was a tragic mistake of Putin and his circle, opening the door for negotiations.
Ukraine’s leadership has further ensured this by capturing a small piece of Russian territory. In Donetsk and Kursk, there is only one issue at stake – the end of Putin.
I agree mostly to your conclusions with the exception that the situation with Stalin was different, thanks to 'Beria Stalin's First Lieutenant' by Amy Knight.
Maybe they just thought out all the possible scenarios with a Kursk invasion and concluded that, like you say, would be an effective PR stunt and they could always withdraw. The right move, IMHO, was for Putin to pull troops and get Ukraine out. But he followed sane logic which is that Russia doesn't need Kursk and shouldn't get distracted, keep with its game plan (which is generally good). So he remained focused on the Donbas.
Now Ukraine is digging into Kursk. You're right that they can't just leave now. However, why would they want to? Buying cannon fodder from North Korea has been a nice unintended consequence for Ukraine. It forces South Korea to get involved. It forces the West to recalculate much of its geopolitical map.
Kursk is 100% proof that the Russian are overextended. That they can't mobile to protect the motherland. It's a warning to Moldova, etc. In short, I tip my hat on this one ;)
Why would you want to withdraw or at least move some of your best units back to the Donbas?
So UKRA can counter attack Russian offensives and stop them from holding the ground they gain on each meat assault.
I know this sounds horrible but Ukraine is better off slowly losing ground in the Donbas. It gives the Trump Administration something to fix. The only reason they were against helping Ukraine was becomes the Democrats owned it. Now that the Democrats are out the Republicans will want to prove they know how to run a war better. Sure, Ukraine shouldn't need the U.S. but, hey, we have to face facts--they can't do it on their own. Anyway, I expect the West to re-group and do what it takes to push Russia back a bit but that will take months, perhaps a year.
In the meantime, Kursk is a thorn in Putin's side. It's a reminder to the oligarchs that Ukraine will exploit any weakness in Russia. I don't have the answers. But that's my argument why I believe the Donbas is only one piece in a very complex puzzle.
A few notes.
South Korea will get involved or not based on what Russia provides NK, not the other way. They are trying to deter Russia from providing NK better ballistic tech, and will hold back help to Ukraine in exchange for Russian promise not to do that. NK wasting military resources to fight someone else is good for them. Roughly.
And another thing. Russians are never negotiating in good faith, their idea of compromise is "you give me something, I stop stabbing you", so their reaction to Kursk can be viewed in those terms. Moving troops or getting it back by returning some Ukrainian territory is not something that crosses their minds. I don't know if I managed to explain it clearly, but it's their template, they do not act according to normal give-and-take logic.
Your analysis of mechanics about SK better, but I think my point stands, it geopolitically complicates things in Ukraine's favor? I don't see that any superpower thinks give-and-take--especially the U.S.. I wish they did ;)
I overall agree with your points, just wanted to add a few tweaks.
Much needed tweaks too ! :)
Seoul is making ‘diplomatic efforts’ with Russia over North Korean troops
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1167640.html
SK doesnt rush to help Ukraine but starts talking to Russia. Russians do know how to play geopolitics, the c**ts.
The North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un, has ordered the “mass production” of attack drones, state media reported on Friday, as concerns mount over the Kim regime’s deepening military cooperation with Russia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/15/ukraine-war-briefing-eu-cements-first-ever-joint-arms-purchases-in-boost-for-ukraine
"I stop stabbing you - until I start again"
Or: I take something from you, if you want it back, I can give you half of it in exchange for something else I want.
Or: we made a deal, you did you part, now if you want me do even half of my part here's another thing you need to do.
And even those deals change in again in the process, just like you described.
...but I will only give you that half later (maybe).
>> Russians are never negotiating in good faith,
Thank you. That's bringing it to the point.
There are certain things Putin is never going to sell - no matter to whom. The 'most' North Koreans can expect is to get incomplete Su-57s and 'licence', or stuff like Lancets.
Dear Tom, a few things I would like to mention additionally.
First of you know that major P. is a huge formalist. This probably connected not so much to his legal education, as to his gang experience. As consistency and determination,disregarding the resources, is important factor in itself.
So basically he can not start "peace" negotiations, without liberating Kursk. Even if he wants it desperately. And to start negotiations on a high ground, he would need to maintain overall pressure until then, disregarding the resources.
Secondly, if it was agreed and discussed with HUR. I think the first time Budanov mentioned "Sumy invasion" was at least couple of months before. And he was the only one, and did it several times quite convicingly. So either he was doing info support of operation on order, or much more likely on his own full support of it.
The third fact I do not understand, the units were very quickly rotated in and out, often delivered from remote fronts in expedited manner. What this was, a drill?
Anyway, thanks for anslysis.
Maybe they have to decide between: let the brigades gradually wear out in defensive battle with KABs and meat assaults or try to change game...
Thanks Tom . . I hope that the digital version of the war in Ukraine Vol6 comes out soon
The purpose of Kursk was to challenge the peace narrative that land that had been seized by Russia they could keep.
Now Ukraine could keep Kursk right?
But the "value" of that is only a value if west give it value, which I suspect they will not do.
Johan No.1
Hi Tom. Thanks for your work. The most logical explanation for the Ukrainian invasion of the Kursk region that I have seen in the media (although by definition war and politics are concepts incompatible with logic) is to reverse the established opinion in the West that the war has turned into a continuous streak of success for Russia and that helping Ukraine is a senseless waste of resources.
вас уже разоблачили как путинского агента :)
Sobering write up. Thank you Tom. Makes a lot of sense to me. I also remember quite clearly alot of experts outside Ukraine wondering why Bakhmut was being held on too much despite there being other arguably more strategic locations like the Zaporizhzhia front. There were still some positive outcomes of holding onto Bakhmut for a long time like the implosion of Wagner but possibly Ukraine lost out on more strategically important. With Syrski micromanaging the front, it really doesnt sound like a good thing. I wonder what the outcome will be in all this and if there will be a change to maybe a Divisional Structure and keep Syrskyi away from micromanaging Battalions. But the whole thing is really tough, I still commend Zelensky and his group for the good they have done and hope somehow they see their mistakes and fix them. But thats hard.
I think the Kursk incursion was and still is a brilliant move. It clearly took Russia by surprise, and more recently, forced them to bring in allied troops to help. The increased contact line length has over stretched Russia's infantry based military.
I'm watching videos of them unable to assualt/counter or exploit any where except US politics.
Kursk offensive is something like a proof for stab-in-back story which is/will be circulated by Zelenski.
He can show that Ukraine could actually defeat Russia if only NATO has offered full support plus nukes plus some divisions. He can sign any peace now because the bad NATO has betrayed the ultra-capable Ukrainian Army.
The irony of this is that nobody in the West cares. Ukraine has already been drained of most of the "valuable" people. Honestly, nobody cares that the remaining 2/3 of the population will turn Zelensky into a dictator. If you can fail in almost every way and still convince a nation you're great, then that nation deserves nothing.
The Kursk offensive may go down in history as a waste of time. However it has thrown Russia off balance and taken some of the control of the war away from them. The narrative is different now and Ukraine has more agency. The offensive certainly satisfied Clausewitz’s principles of Surprise and Maneuver. Objective is of course what we are discussing now but I think it possible the objective is fluid and more like ‘let’s see what develops’. It’s a chess move and the game has many moves to go.
War and politics are admixed according to Clausewitz. Regarding, Kursk, war and a public relations stunt are admixed? This is crazy. A nation with limited military resources compared with its attacking enemy in my perception should devote its scarce military resources to where the action is taking place, i.e., a defensive strategy that trades land on its own initiative and timing (not by losing land to meat waves), and bleeding the enemy dry if possible. I admit, as I have stated in my previous comments, that I am not a land warfare expert, but I do not see how a diversion of forces to Kursk, however apparently successful in the beginning, can contribute significantly to termination of war on terms favorable to Ukraine.
If one wants an effective public relations "exercise," given that Russia has been in the process of destroying Ukraine's electrical and heating energy grid, Ukraine perhaps should devote maximum efforts to degrade the Russian electrical system around Moscow and St. Petersburg with the coming of winter. If a bully punches you in the face and you manage to recover in short order, even though injured and in pain, you then kick him in the balls. When he bends over in pain, you then kick him in the head. If this war truly is a war of annihilation of Ukraine militarily, politically, and cuturally, then this is no time to mess around and act like a bunch of pussies. Hit Russia where it really hurts its population that in my perception is living in denial if one has the ability to do so, or at least try to do so.
Quick note on your defense strategy paragraph... I'll quote one of the user comments from last week: The best defense strategy is the counteroffensive
You have to be properly equipped for a counteroffensive. How well equipped is the Ukrainian military to do this? And for what duration? Also, given that your strategy is defensive, this doesn't mean that you don't take offensive action. In such circumstances, an offensive attack serves one's defensive strategy. E.g., Gen. Robert E. Lee went on the strategic defense post Gettysburg because he had no other choice. This didn't stop him from employing offensive tactics when the need arose.
Nonetheless, you made a good point!
Dear Tom, thanks for your update. Judging by what your Russian contacts tell you, do they have a strategic plan on how to win the war, some sort of an endgame vision (regardless of whether it's realistic or not); or do they just try to keep on going from day to day, hoping something will happen along the way that will change the game (like West giving up on Ukraine)?
Nope, never heard anything past the usual 'conquer Kyiv, Berlin...and London, too'.
Thanks! That doesn't sound like a plan, more like either a full delusion or just trying to cope with a bad situation without a solution is sight. In either way, it's scary the world leaders have less capability of planning than my cat when he wants to steal a piece of sausage from my plate.
A bit of dissagreement from me. I think the 50000 russian troops in Kursk would be somewhere else, probably in Donbas if they where not held up in Kursk.
When it comes to the President of Ukraine, i tryed to follow his moves for one week. He was in Finland?, a meeting with the nordic countrys on Island, and having som high roller on visit in Kyiv, no way he have the time to micromanage things. He might have bad advisors and generals tho...
Moving around to keep the media, in supporting countrys awake, i think is an important role in this war, bacause this will inflict on the ammount of support Ukraine can get. If we, the woters, forget about this war, then the support will drain out.
Not claiming to be an expert on this, and not trying to offend. Just my humble oppinion.
Russia employs about 5-6 brigades/ regiments în Kursk. That's about 30k maximum troops. 50k would make a high tempo offensive like în Bakhmut. În Kursk there are many operational pauses of 2-3 weeks.
In Bakmuth the Ukrainians was up against wagner. In Kursk they are facing something else. You can not compare these two elements.
VDV and Marines vs Wagner is pretty balanced.
To throw just my 5 cents into the round:
1) I still regard the Kursk offensive a good idea by itself.
2) Even without driving all the way to Kursk itself Ukraine still had the clear chance to create and eliminate 2 cauldrons, but wasted both opportunities.
3) No matter how capable Syrsky is or isn't (I loved the term noisy brat) micromanagement of the Ukrainian forces will never work. It is just a 100% guarantee of later disaster.
4) 2025 will be the year of decision, which will show in which direction the dice will fall at the end.
Reality in this universe has no place for wishful thinking and doesn't follow the script of a usual
hollywood movie (i.e. the good always win).
Despite heavy daily losses for weeks now, orcs magically always have 50k troops, i do hope they can be depleted to 45k at least this year! :(
Yup. I find that part amusing, too.
In September 2022, Putin had it written into the Russian constitution that selected Ukrainian regions are part of the Russian Federation. If he fails to reach the administrative borders of Donetsk and Luhansk, it will be evident that the goal has not been achieved. Putin cannot end such a costly war without being able to declare that the objectives have been met. Otherwise, it could mean his personal downfall, along with that of his close circle, similar to what happened when Stalin died.
Putin cannot afford to show that anything could have been achieved through negotiation. He must continually demonstrate that war was the only solution and that it achieved the stated goals.
If there were a change in leadership in Russia, the new leadership might declare that the war was a tragic mistake of Putin and his circle, opening the door for negotiations.
Ukraine’s leadership has further ensured this by capturing a small piece of Russian territory. In Donetsk and Kursk, there is only one issue at stake – the end of Putin.
I agree mostly to your conclusions with the exception that the situation with Stalin was different, thanks to 'Beria Stalin's First Lieutenant' by Amy Knight.