How Russia’s recapture of Kursk will weaken Ukraine’s stakes in war – Firstpost

Kursk has been the strategic Waterloo for many aggressors and traditionally has been a turning point for Russia in its recapture and beyond. The story is the same with Ukraine, which could neither create leverage nor divert the Russian offensive. It proved to be a strategic miscalculation by Ukraine, which could weaken its leverage on the peace negotiating table and expose it to further exploitation. It also exposed the Western reluctance and loss of war material in this graveyard.

The recent recapture of Sudzha by Russian forces marks a pivotal moment in ejecting Ukrainian forces, who lost precious lives with no tangible gains. This development not only signifies a shift in territorial control but also raises critical questions about the potential future trajectory. Kursk will be remembered as Ukraine’s symbolic gain yet a strategic blow militarily, psychologically, diplomatically and politically.

The Kursk Offensive: Bold But Foolhardy

In August of 2024, Ukraine made a bold move, launching an attack on Russia’s Kursk region. This was the first time Russian soil had been invaded since World War II. The offensive resulted in Ukraine taking control of an area spanning roughly 1,376 square kilometres, including about 100 towns and villages, with Sudzha being the largest.

Ukraine had several goals in mind with this operation: to weaken the Russian military, to energise support from Western nations, to push Russian artillery farther away from Ukrainian territory, to interfere with Russian supply lines, and to draw Russian troops away from the fighting in the Donbas region. Additionally, Ukraine aimed to pressure the Russian government into engaging in equitable peace negotiations.

None of the objectives have been achieved. Ukraine is now withdrawing, giving an advantage to Russia for the future. The US and Europe have already given up Kursk, and no attempt to stall it by supporting Ukraine is visible.

The initial success of the offensive trapped Ukraine with a false sense of victory and a psychological ascendancy. The operation resulted in the overextension of Ukrainian forces beyond their culmination point, weakening their defence against the Russian offensive momentum in Donbas.

The Ukrainian misadventure may have showcased tactical brilliance, but in effect, it was a Russian trap which compromised Ukraine’s defensive posture. Kursk was a strategic tragedy played with operational comedy and resulted in dire consequences at the national level for Ukraine.

Russia’s Counteroffensive and Restoration Operations

While Kursk was contained, Russia achieved its objectives in the weakened state before the counteroffensive aimed at reclaiming the lost territories in the Kursk region. By March 2025, Russian forces had systematically recaptured 90 per cent of the territory, including the most important objective of Sudzha. This was a classical restoration of adverse situation manoeuvre that encircled the Ukrainian forces, leaving them little option but to perish or surrender. It highlighted the Russian strategic focus, operational agility and tactical brilliance, including the tunnel raid.

The Russian harassing fires and drone attacks have weakened the morale of Ukrainian forces. The demand by President Vladimir Putin that troops create a “buffer zone” close to the border suggests a Russian offensive pushing back into Ukraine may be on the cards before the peace negotiations take shape.

Strategic Importance of the Kursk Region

Historically, Kursk has been a strategic military hub, notably as the site of the largest tank battle during World War II. Geographically, the capture of Kursk has the advantage of operating in the interior lines with force optimisation emanating from a central point. Exterior lines have the disadvantage of covering greater distances to concentrate forces at strategically decisive points. Yet exterior lines of operation also facilitate an envelopment manoeuvre.

For Ukraine, the incursion into Kursk was an attempt to exploit interior lines of operation, a strategy where forces operate on shorter, more secure supply and communication routes emanating from a central point. This approach aimed to disrupt Russian logistics and command structures, thereby weakening their operational capabilities. Ironically, the Russians exploited the exterior lines to envelop Ukrainian forces in Kursk.

For Russia, maintaining control over the Kursk region is vital to safeguard its western territories and ensure the security of critical infrastructure. The region serves as a buffer zone, and its loss could have exposed Russian territories to potential threats. Therefore, the recapture of Sudzha and surrounding areas is a strategic victory for Russia, reinforcing its defensive posture and deterring future incursions.

Implications for the Conflict’s Future Trajectory

The miscalculations of the Ukraine offensive have profound psychological and political implications and will have both an impact on the peace negotiations and also the survivability of the Volodymyr Zelenskyy regime.

Putin’s surprise visit to Kursk, during which he donned combat fatigues, has sent a signal of the Russian military prowess to the West and clarity of the goal to eject the Ukrainian forces before any peace negotiation. The recapture of Sudzha by Russian forces thus has several military and political implications for the future.

Spurt in Military Momentum: Russia’s successful counteroffensive in the Kursk region could lead to a spurt in operations for a favourable conflict termination profile. This could further weaken the Ukrainian forces and expose territories beyond the border in areas such as Sumy. This possible spurt in momentum would further weaken the Ukrainian military and embarrass its political leadership. The Russia-Ukraine war has certainly shown Russia coming out better despite the Western narrative information war.

Impact on Peace Negotiations: Ukraine’s presence in the Kursk region was perceived as a leverage point in potential peace negotiations. With the loss of this territory, Ukraine’s bargaining position will be weakened for any future peace negotiations on its terms, particularly territory.

Russia, on the other hand, may feel emboldened to extend till the entire Kursk region falls and pursue further military objectives before negotiations. With the Donald Trump administration reportedly urging Putin to consider a 30-day ceasefire, Kursk’s recapture could influence Moscow’s willingness or reluctance to engage in substantive peace discussions.

The Psychological and Political Impact: The loss of Kursk territory could deal a significant blow to Ukrainian morale. Military personnel who fought for months to hold the region may feel disheartened by the withdrawal, potentially affecting combat effectiveness on other fronts. Additionally, it may be a setback for Zelenskyy, who is already facing political pressure, and he may lose confidence and credibility, putting his regime under clout.

Conclusion

The Kursk offensive by Ukraine was bold but lacked strategic direction, thereby creating an operational imbalance on the overall front. Russia did not fall into the trap and continued to exploit this operational imbalance with a clear intent to take back Kursk at the time and place of choosing. It highlights that in war territory will be lost and gained, but territorial integrity is the key. Besides, the importance of ensuring overall operational balance and interplay of strategic forces must be weighed before any misadventure. A lesson for militaries, including the Indian Army.

While Ukraine’s loss of Kursk territory presents new challenges, the broader war is far from over. The question remains: will Russia’s success in Kursk be a turning point leading to further expansion, or will it be a short-term victory in a prolonged and unpredictable war? Will Russia extend the timeline to complete the Kursk counteroffensive and beyond before accepting a peace plan or use the present gains and future threats to draw mileage for its bargaining chip? Certainly, Russia is calling the shots.

The author is former Director General, Mechanised Forces. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.