OPINION: First Things First

President Zelensky, in his strategic decision to deploy Ukraine’s Armed Forces into Kursk, has achieved several important objectives and demonstrated his readiness to “think outside the box” in military tactics. This foresight is a reassuring sign of his leadership, as wars have been won (or lost) by taking strategic risks that enemy forces had not anticipated.

However, with every such risk, care must be taken to ensure the enemy is deprived of any opportunity to turn the table and take advantage of openings from such unanticipated troop deployments. The annals of war are filled with textbook examples of military leaders winning territory but losing wars. Napoleon’s, Hitler’s, and Sweden’s Charles XII’s invasions of Russia are prime examples of Russian territorial “concessions” in allowing the enemy to move with little resistance across Russia until the distance and the frigid weather significantly weakened and destroyed their armies, causing irreplaceable losses and leading to ultimate defeat.

Russia can afford temporary concessions and even occupation of some small part of its vast land if such concessions increase its chances of defeating Ukrainian forces. However, Ukraine cannot afford such concessions. It lacks the great distances and frigid weather that could entrap its enemies, and it cannot enforce a “scorched earth” strategy to starve enemy forces. Although any tactical or strategic move that throws Russia off balance must be applauded, retaining adequate forces for the defense of the homeland must remain Ukraine’s first and highest priority, underscoring the urgency of the situation. 

Other Topics of Interest

Harshest Winter Yet: Will Ukraine Withstand New Russian Attacks on Its Energy Sector?

A challenging winter awaits Ukraine due to limited air defense and increased cooperation between Russia and its allies. What is Ukraine doing about it?

Ukraine’s leaders, especially its generals, would have taken all this into consideration before deploying several thousands of its experienced troops to Kusk. There were compelling reasons to invade Kursk, not least of which was the creation of a sanitized buffer zone, undermining trust in Putin’s government, and debunking the myth of Russia’s inviolability. This incursion into Kursk, with its potential to relieve pressure on Ukraine’s hard-pressed defense line, especially in the areas of Pokrovsk, Chasiv Yar, Avdiivka, and Kramatorsk, where Russians outgun Ukrainians by as much as five to one, offers much hope in the ongoing conflict.

The news from these areas is not encouraging. Russians appear to have focused entirely on breaking through Ukrainian defenses and only secondarily scraping together new forces for Kursk from other parts of the Russian Federation. They see no urgency in “liberating” Kursk and have redeployed few – if any – troops from Ukraine. For Putin, the temporary loss of 100 villages in Kursk is worth less than capturing a vital transport and logistics hub like Pokrovsk with its 38,000 residents, including nearly 2,000 children.

Unless Ukraine’s leaders are confident that their defense line will hold long enough for reinforcements to arrive, they should be prepared to explain why they think Kursk is worth several important military centers and the well-being of thousands of Ukrainian residents. The integrity of Ukraine’s defensive line – in terms of personnel and fortifications – is paramount, and any breach could have severe consequences.

It is time for Ukraine to recognize that no temporary occupation of Russian territory is worth the permanent loss of even a tiny sliver of Ukraine. The loss of that sliver and more is not only possible but also probable if Ukraine fails to find the resources needed to halt further Russian advances. Despite all the brave words about staying in Kursk “indefinitely,” we all know that, sooner or later, Ukraine will leave all Russian territory, and its enemies know it. Instead of deploying troops away from their offensive in Ukraine, Putin may hope that Ukraine commits more of its resources to Kursk.

Although the incursion into Kursk may have met all its other objectives, it has thus far failed to slow Russian advances in Donetsk. Perhaps it would be wise for the President, in light of these developments, to review the military situation in the most vulnerable and hard-pressed sections of Ukraine’s defensive line and determine what forces can be redeployed to reinforce them, including the urgent recall of some of his troops from Kursk. This strategic review – not only of personnel and logistics but (of equally great importance) the adequacy of defensive fortifications – could provide valuable insight into the current defensive line and potential measures to halt enemy advances. They may even disclose and open up to intensive aerial bombardment areas of heaviest enemy troop concentrations.

The potential loss of cities like Pokrovsk should be a stark reminder of the high stakes at play. If Ukraine were to lose any of these cities, the euphoria built up in Kursk would quickly be replaced by scorn and seen by much of the world, including Ukraine’s allies, as a significant defeat for Ukraine and a strategic victory for Russia.

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.