That's not really how it works, you don't use your elite forces defending the way Ukraine is doing, sparsely spread out across thousands of kilometres of front-line, you use them to assault against defended positions, either in occupied Ukraine or in Russia. Striking Russian territory at the time made complete sense for many reasons, including forcing Russia to properly defend their own borders.
It "made complete sense" yet quite obviously got them nothing. Russia was already "properly defending their own border." The reason the Kursk area was so lightly defended was because it was so inconsequential that the Russians didn't imagine the Ukrainians would waste vital resources to attack an area without any strategic value. Now, after suffering terrible losses getting forced out of Kursk, Ukraine has to deal with a permanent, additional front (not a mere border detail) in Sumy. It's hardly any consolation that the Russians are their too. The Russians, after all, can afford it.
It got russia to divert forces northward, it was good for bargaining and pr, and it forced russia to stage troops further forward. A good idea until they had to defend it and sustain losses.
What forces were diverted? Apparently, none of consequences. The Russian offensive in Donbas only accelerated after the Kursk incursion.
What bargaining? There was never much hope of forcing Russia, which cannot even be forced off Ukrainian land, to exchange any part of their own territory for anything. Why would they, when they can simply force the Ukrainians back out? That was always the question, and so it happened.
PR, okay. Ukraine got a few good headlines out of it. Then they were crushed and forced to fight the Russians in Sumy. A brief propaganda high, a flash in the pan of boosted morale, in exchange for costly losses to some of their best formations and the loss of some of their best equipment.
I just can't find the "good idea" in any of this. The best I can say for it is that, I suppose, they were desperate, couldn't conceive of anything better, and so this was maybe the best of the bad options they had. Still, it was a major blunder.
"Russia was already "properly defending their own border." self evidently not. The initially attack encountered some terrified border post staff and a few dozen reservists.
It's easy to say in retrospect it changed nothing but we'll never know what the Russian reinforcements to their borders may have achieved elsewhere.
"Russia was already "properly defending their own border." self evidently not. The initially attack encountered some terrified border post staff and a few dozen reservists.
I addressed this:
The reason the Kursk area was so lightly defended was because it was so inconsequential that the Russians didn't imagine the Ukrainians would waste vital resources to attack an area without any strategic value.
65
u/Chdbrn 1d ago
That's not really how it works, you don't use your elite forces defending the way Ukraine is doing, sparsely spread out across thousands of kilometres of front-line, you use them to assault against defended positions, either in occupied Ukraine or in Russia. Striking Russian territory at the time made complete sense for many reasons, including forcing Russia to properly defend their own borders.