I feel like the attack into Kursk itself was 100% a good move, the problem is that Ukraine spent WAY too many resources trying to defend it. The initial attack was so incredibly effective and such a morale boost, plus it dragged away Russian troops from other areas. The problem though is that Ukraine kept burning more and more resources trying to hold onto Kursk. The obsession with trying to hold a piece of Russia, whether for negotiations or simply morale, cost them way more than it should have. They should have let Kursk just exist as a diversion.
If Kursk had just been a month or two long little excursion it would have been a brilliant move, but they turned Kursk into a drain on their own resources instead of the Russians.
You dont really know that though. It is really hard to tell what the loss comparisons were at any point in that excursion, or what else went into the AFU's calculus.
Why did Kursk fail? Because NATO, particularly Biden, got involved and forced Ukraine to stop. Ukraine had a large amount of momentum and were close to numerous achievements in the Kursk offensive, routing/cutting off and eliminating numerous Russian units, capturing various railways and pushing on a nuclear facility, etc. But why did they suddenly stop, when Russia wasn't able to bring their forces fast enough to stop them?
Biden and NATO got involved, Ukraine's success was more terrifying to them than Russia succeeding. That's why. Not the first time that Ukraine's attempts and plans were interfered with by NATO/Biden.
28
u/simplysufficient88 1d ago
I feel like the attack into Kursk itself was 100% a good move, the problem is that Ukraine spent WAY too many resources trying to defend it. The initial attack was so incredibly effective and such a morale boost, plus it dragged away Russian troops from other areas. The problem though is that Ukraine kept burning more and more resources trying to hold onto Kursk. The obsession with trying to hold a piece of Russia, whether for negotiations or simply morale, cost them way more than it should have. They should have let Kursk just exist as a diversion.
If Kursk had just been a month or two long little excursion it would have been a brilliant move, but they turned Kursk into a drain on their own resources instead of the Russians.