Aug 15, 2024
Bogdan Maftei
The Kursk Operation, a major Ukrainian military initiative launched on August 6, 2024, represents a critical moment in the war. This incursion into Russian territory, carried out by the Armed Forces of Ukraine alongside Russian, Georgian, and Chechen units under the command of Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Directorate (GUR), signifies a bold strategic shift that has altered the course of the conflict. Unlike previous Ukrainian counteroffensives, such as those in Kherson and Kyiv, or the raids into Russia’s Belgorod region in 2023 and 2024, the Kursk Operation has been marked by an unprecedented level of operational secrecy. Ukrainian authorities have avoided officially claiming responsibility for the operation, though President Zelenskyy has made indirect references that could be interpreted as tacit acknowledgment. This intentional ambiguity has compelled analysts to rely heavily on Russian sources for information, requiring a careful process of corroboration and validation from multiple sources before drawing any definitive conclusions.
The lack of clearly stated objectives from the Ukrainian high command has not hindered a preliminary analysis of the operation’s progress and impact. One of the most notable outcomes has been a significant shift in the narrative surrounding the war. For nearly ten months leading up to August 6, Russia had maintained the military initiative on the frontlines and regained control of the information space. This control over the flow of ideas, hopes, and beliefs is crucial in shaping public opinion in the West, Russia, and Ukraine, each playing a vital role in decision-making regarding the war. The stark contrast between Ukrainian operational silence and the flood of information from Russian sources underscores the importance of narrative control. Ukraine’s ability to maintain operational security while still generating positive coverage in Western media demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of modern information warfare techniques. This aspect of the conflict is likely to become increasingly important as both sides compete for international support and domestic approval.
The Western response to the Kursk Operation was both swift and supportive. On the third day of the operation, the United States announced a new military aid package for Ukraine, valued at $125 million. This package reportedly includes advanced anti-tank systems, counter-battery radar systems, and sophisticated electronic warfare equipment. When questioned about the return of German-made Leopard 2 tanks to battle near Kursk, the German Defense Minister emphasized that the equipment donated by Germany is now Ukraine’s to use as they see fit. This disruption of the narrative that “Russia will win, regardless of how many people it loses” is crucial, boosting morale among Ukrainian troops and the general population. The operation has created a noticeable surge in energy and motivation among soldiers on the front lines, reflecting the deep impact that morale has in warfare. Throughout history, military theorists and practitioners like Napoleon Bonaparte and Carl von Clausewitz have highlighted the critical role of morale, with Clausewitz devoting significant attention to its psychological aspects in his seminal work “On War.” Similarly, American General George Marshall, who played a key role in the Allied victory
in World War II, consistently stressed the importance of maintaining morale to sustain military effectiveness.
The Kursk Operation has provided a significant morale boost to Ukrainian forces at a critical juncture. This psychological impact extends beyond the military to the broader Ukrainian population, which had been growing increasingly disillusioned, tired, and fragmented in recent months, according to sociological studies conducted in Kyiv. These studies, while not publicly available in full, reportedly indicated a growing war fatigue among civilians and a decrease in confidence in the military leadership. The Kursk Operation has temporarily resolved at least some of these issues, with criticism of Chief of Staff General Oleksandr Syrskyi abruptly ceasing and public support for the operation seemingly strong. On the Russian side, the situation has been markedly different. Panic sparked by information shared by Russian military bloggers on Telegram in the early days of the operation spread rapidly through various social strata. These bloggers, who have gained significant followings since the start of the war, reported on Ukrainian advances and Russian retreats in real-time, often contradicting official statements from the Russian Ministry of Defense. This information disparity led to widespread confusion and anxiety among the Russian public.
Vladimir Putin recently convened an emergency meeting of Russia’s Security Committee, analogous to the United States National Security Council, to address the deteriorating situation in Kursk. During this meeting, Russia’s Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, provided a briefing via video link in which he attempted to put a positive spin on the situation, a portrayal that was largely contradicted by most other battlefield reports. Following this, it was reported by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) that Putin tasked Alexander Bortnikov, Director of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), with taking over the “counter-terrorism operation” in Kursk. However, in a surprising move, Bortnikov was replaced less than a week later by Colonel General Alexey Dyumin, a decision that, while unexpected, seems to have the support of pro-Kremlin bloggers. This rapid succession of command changes underscores the growing tension and dissatisfaction within the Russian leadership regarding the handling of the Kursk operation.
The footage of the Security Committee meeting, broadcast on Russian state television, revealed Putin’s facial expressions betraying anger, despair, and confusion. Body language experts noted his tense posture, clenched jaw, and rapid eye movements, clear signs of extreme stress and agitation. While the estimated impact on political stability in the Kremlin is expected to be relatively minor, it would be unwise to underestimate the Russian elite’s capacity to turn on their leaders in moments of weakness. Historical precedents in Russian politics suggest that military failures can have severe consequences for those in power. For example, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 led to widespread unrest and the Russian Revolution of 1905, significantly weakening Tsar Nicholas II’s grip on power. In the military decision-making sphere, Russian sources report almost unbelievable situations. Bureaucracy within the system and unfair competition between various branches of Russia’s power institutions have led to incidents such as a military convoy from Kursk being stopped by the Russian Military Police for document checks. This lack of cohesion in communication and decision-making may indicate problems at the highest levels of command. Such inefficiencies could be attributed to the complex and often
competitive nature of Russia’s security apparatus, where agencies like the FSB, GRU, and regular military forces often operate with overlapping and sometimes conflicting mandates.
From a military perspective, the Kursk Operation has yielded several notable gains. Territorial advances are evident on maps compiled by Russian, Ukrainian, and Western military analysts. There is consensus that approximately 1000 square kilometers of territory is now under the control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, with an additional 200–300 square kilometers contested. Even if only the conservative estimate of 1000 square kilometers is accurate, this represents the largest territorial gain in the war since early November 2022, when the Kharkiv counteroffensive concluded with the liberation of the regional capital. To put this territorial gain into perspective, it’s important to consider the nature of the terrain and the strategic significance of the area. The Kursk region, known for its rolling hills and vast agricultural lands, presents both opportunities and challenges for military operations. The open fields provide maneuver space for armored and mechanized units, but also leave advancing forces vulnerable to air and artillery attacks. The Ukrainian advance suggests a high level of coordination between ground forces, air defense units, and electronic warfare capabilities to neutralize Russian advantages in these areas.
However, the success of military operations cannot be measured solely by territorial gains. If that were the case, the Germans in World War II might have claimed victory in the Ardennes Offensive, despite its ultimate failure to achieve strategic objectives. Other indicators, such as the number of prisoners taken, must be considered. Based on video clips and images posted publicly by both Ukrainian and Russian sources, it’s estimated that at least 800–1000 Russian soldiers are now in captivity. This figure is equivalent to almost two smaller battalions in Russian military organizational terms. The capture of such a significant number of prisoners has multiple implications. Firstly, it represents a substantial loss of manpower for the Russian forces in the area. Secondly, these prisoners provide a valuable source of intelligence for Ukrainian forces, potentially offering insights into Russian troop dispositions, morale, and operational plans. Lastly, the prisoners represent a significant bargaining chip for future exchanges, potentially allowing Ukraine to secure the return of its own captured soldiers or civilians.
Another indicator of military success is the relatively low loss of equipment and personnel by Ukrainian forces over the past six days. While Russian sources tend to exaggerate their own gains and minimize Ukrainian successes, even under these conditions, the Ukrainians appear to have lost remarkably few assets relative to their territorial gains. This suggests a high level of tactical proficiency and effective use of combined arms tactics by Ukrainian forces. Reports indicate that Ukrainian forces have employed a mix of Western-supplied and domestically produced equipment. Western-supplied assets reportedly include Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Leopard 2 tanks, and HIMARS rocket systems. These have been used in conjunction with Ukrainian-made equipment such as the Stugna-P anti-tank guided missile system and domestically upgraded T-64BV tanks.
The use of advanced electronic warfare (EW) systems has been a notable feature of the operation. Ukrainian forces have reportedly employed systems capable of jamming Russian communications and disrupting their command and control networks. This has been complemented by the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for reconnaissance and targeting,
with some reports suggesting the use of AI-enhanced targeting systems to increase accuracy and reduce response times. It’s important to note that the Kursk Operation is ongoing. The Russian army, though slower to respond, is still moving. While not infinite in terms of equipment and manpower, the Russian military remains significantly larger than Ukraine’s, and quantity can be a quality in itself. The speed of Ukrainian tactical victories in the first days of the operation has slowed, and encountering a better-prepared Russian Army in the coming days will pose challenges for the Ukrainian forces.
The Russian response to the Ukrainian incursion has been hampered by several factors. Firstly, the element of surprise achieved by Ukrainian forces disrupted Russian defensive plans. Secondly, the Russian military’s rigid command structure has struggled to adapt to the fluid situation on the ground. Lastly, there are reports of logistical issues hampering the Russian response, with fuel and ammunition shortages reported in some units. As the operation unfolds, it will become clearer whether this is more than a tactical success. What can be said thus far is that Ukraine has once again surprised military observers and forced a reevaluation of its military capabilities. The coming days and weeks will be crucial in determining the long-term impact of the Kursk Operation on the war.