Summary and Key Points: One week into Ukraine's Kursk operation, its objectives remain unclear, underscoring Ukraine's exceptional operational security and strategic planning. The operation has flipped the narrative of Russian superiority, revealing significant Russian military failures and strengthening Ukraine's negotiation position.

-With approximately 1,000 square kilometers liberated and Russian forces in disarray, Ukraine has not only bolstered its defense but also gained moral and strategic advantages.

-The operation justifies continued Western support, as its success could lead to a new strategic situation globally, further weakening Russia's position and challenging Putin's narrative of victory.

The Strategic Brilliance Behind Ukraine's Mysterious Kursk Operation​

One week into Ukraine’s Kursk operation we still have no idea as to what its objectives are. This fact actually underscores the brilliance of the operation because our ignorance reveals the quality of Ukrainian operational security (OPSEC) and intelligence preparation of this battlefield (IPB). Indeed, the success of this operation to date, like any successful operation, now creates many more potential objectives than might have been previously imagined by Ukrainian planners.

Undoubtedly this action strengthens Kyiv’s hands if a negotiation comes about, and it certainly puts the lie to an unending stream of media reports claiming that Ukraine is steadily being ground down through Russian attrition. That outlook, after all, represents Putin’s articulated theory of victory, perhaps the only open left to him to validate his ongoing aggression against Ukraine.  Thus, this operation flips the script of Russian superiority even as it shows just how resourcefully Ukraine is defending its territory against Russian aggression. Indeed, perhaps the most telling outcome of this operation is that it strips away the brutal façade of Russia’s aggression. As of this writing, Ukraine has liberated about 1000sqKM of Russian territory, hundreds if not thousands of Russian forces have surrendered, Ukraine now controls 74 settlements, and 133,00 people have been evacuated from these territories and no credible military response is yet in sight.

These figures highlight glaring Russian failures in leadership, command and control, intelligence, morale, training, etc. Indeed Chief of the General Staff , General Gerasimov either lied to Putin or was himself deceived when he briefed Putin that only 1000 troops crossed the border and were then killed.  Thus, two years after the war began, the Russian army has poorly if at all addressed the sources of its disarray. All this continues to underscore the ongoing failures of Russia’s unprovoked aggression and the quality of Ukraine’s defense of its territory.

This context frames the discussion surrounding Ukraine’s objectives in this operation. Whatever they may be; this action has overturned Russia’s supposed negotiation posture as Putin now virtually screams that Ukraine in flipping Russian aggression back on Moscow is merely doing its Wester masters’ bidding.  Since nobody but he and his toadies believes this canard, it is no surprise that he also angrily declared that Russia cannot negotiate with people who commit such atrocities as invading foreign countries, taking prisoners, forcing evacuations, etc.  Of course, this screed merely repeats Ukraine’s reasons for not negotiating with Putin as long as he occupies parts of Ukraine and undermines his previous insistence that talks are only possible if Ukraine first recognizes Russia’s conquests. It is, perhaps, no surprise therefore, that Putin’s Western claque has gone silent since August 6 when this operation began, as all their rhetoric has been exposed as useful idiocy for Putin.  

But beyond torpedoing the myths of Russia’s looming victory unraveling Putin’s complacent theory of victory this operation, as noted above, has now generated numerous options for Ukraine to the point where in conversations with other analysts they raise the question whether this is the beginning of the end, either for the war or for Putin.  While we cannot succumb to wishful thinking; there is no question that to date this operation has enormously strengthened Ukraine’s morale, negotiation posture, and probably persuaded more Western onlookers that Ukraine actually can and should win this war.  It has also highlighted the continuing insufficiency of Russian military learning that clearly has not been enough, and the glaring deficiencies cited above.

This offensive also fully justifies the past, present, and future shipment of weapons, money, training, and political support. Ukraine remains the unprovoked victim of aggression even though Putin, having long since bet the farm on his aggression seems to know no reply other than doubling down on failure and threatening escalation. Thus, it seems unlikely that negotiations will occur anytime soon. For Putin negotiations in the absence of victory puts his domestic position at risk or so he appears to think, perhaps, because as we can now see, genuine negotiations not only undermine his narrative but also vindicate President Zelensky’s and Ukraine’s resistance to Putin.

Regardless of how this operation ultimately plays out, it has already inflicted serious damage upon Russia and is likely to harm it even more, not least because it has also exposed the disorganization and disarray inherent in Russia’s campaign.  Consequently, the gains that now redound to Ukraine from that operation go beyond the front to justify increasing Western support for the results of that support are ever more evident here. And thus, those gains now accruing to Ukraine and the losses accumulating on the Russian side can, if this operation keeps succeeding, bring about a wholly new strategic situation on the ground and in world affairs. The ramifications of this war have long been recognized to be global. Hence, if this operation, as appears to be the case now, continues to succeed, then its repercussions will be global too. But they will be to Ukraine’s benefit and to Russia’s deserved ignominy.

About the Author: 

Dr. Stephen J. Blank is a Senior Fellow at Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is an internationally renowned expert on Russian and Chinese defense policy. He is the author of "Light from the East: Russia's Quest for Great Power Status in Asia" (Taylor & Francis, 2023). He was a Professor of National Security Studies at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.

This article was first published by RealClearDefense.