Ukraine’s current military strategy reflects the dual nature of modern conflict, where wars occur on both physical and political fronts. Ukraine faces a two-front challenge: fighting Russia while also securing sustained Western support. In other words, Ukraine is navigating both a kinetic conflict and an alliance management challenge—two theaters where success is interdependent.
The August 2024 Kursk offensive was a calculated incursion into Russian territory to reshape the narrative of the war and demonstrate Ukraine’s capacity to challenge Russia on its own soil. Since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has pursued a diversified strategy in the ongoing conflict. This approach is a deliberate gamble intended to reveal Russia's vulnerabilities and destabilize its domestic situation. (1)
Historically, such tactics have been employed to weaken a state's legitimacy by exposing its inability to protect its citizens. This mirrors Edward III's incursions during the Hundred Years’ War, where his campaigns undermined French state legitimacy by exposing its military vulnerabilities. (2) Ukraine's offensive similarly seeks to erode Russia’s social contract under President Vladimir Putin, which promises security in exchange for political acquiescence. The psychological impact of this incursion was immediate—capturing prisoners and Russian territory provided a significant morale boost to Ukrainian forces while embarrassing Moscow on the global stage.
The Kursk offensive, while primarily a military operation, was also an information war designed to capture the West's attention and reinforce the perception that Ukraine is still capable of dealing significant blows to Russian forces. (3) Despite its boldness, the Kursk offensive is not without strategic constraints. Ukraine's capacity to translate battlefield successes into strategic gains is limited by its coalition partners, particularly the United States. The U.S. has imposed restrictions on the use of long-range missile systems to avoid provoking direct conflict with Russia. This echoes the challenges of coalition warfare seen throughout history, where the divergent political goals of allies often limit the ability to fully capitalize on military achievements. For Ukraine, this means that its objectives in the war may not always align with the broader geopolitical calculations of its Western allies, creating friction in strategy.
Ukraine's reliance on Western military and financial support highlights another dimension of coalition warfare: the potential for political divergence. While Kyiv seeks decisive victories on the battlefield to strengthen its negotiating position, Western allies like the U.S. and Europe are more cautious about escalation, preferring to avoid actions that might provoke a broader conflict. This divergence of goals constrains Ukraine's ability to fully exploit its operational successes, as seen in the Kursk offensive. A critical issue facing Ukraine in the aftermath of the Kursk offensive is the risk of military overextension. While Ukrainian forces managed to capture approximately 60 square kilometers of Russian territory, the operation has stretched Ukraine’s military resources thin. (4) At the same time, Russian forces have continued to make gains around Donetsk, posing a serious threat to Ukrainian defensive positions in the east. By pursuing operations in Kursk while defending the eastern front, Ukraine risks overextending its forces—a dangerous gamble in a war of attrition where manpower and resources are already strained.
The strain on resources is another key concern for Ukraine. Since the beginning of the war, Ukraine has relied heavily on Western-supplied precision weaponry, intelligence and financial aid. However, these resources are finite. Western stockpiles of ammunition, particularly artillery shells, are dwindling, while U.S. aid packages are becoming increasingly politically contentious. The risk for Ukraine is that continued operations like the Kursk offensive could deplete its military supplies and manpower faster than they can be replenished, especially if Western support begins to wane.
On the diplomatic front, the Kursk offensive has delivered mixed results. On the one hand, moving the battlefield onto Russian soil has embarrassed the Kremlin, potentially putting pressure on President Putin to reconsider his strategy. Ukraine hopes this could force Russia to negotiate from a position of weakness, especially as domestic discontent grows in the face of military failures. However, the reality is more complex. Despite the symbolic victory in Kursk, Russia remains entrenched in eastern Ukraine and its military-industrial complex, while strained, continues to function. (5) Thus, while the offensive may have rattled Moscow, it has not fundamentally altered the broader strategic picture of the war.
The operation also risks alienating some of Ukraine’s key Western supporters. European nations like Germany and France have consistently advocated for diplomacy and a ceasefire, fearing the escalation of the conflict into Russian territory. These nations have made it clear that their support for Ukraine is conditioned on defensive operations rather than offensive incursions into Russia. If the war is perceived as expanding beyond Ukraine's borders, Kyiv could lose key diplomatic support, further limiting its options on the battlefield. Looking ahead, Ukraine faces a critical strategic choice. While the Kursk offensive has provided short-term morale boosts and headlines, it has not resulted in a decisive shift in the war's balance. The challenge for Ukraine now is to maintain control of the territory it has captured while avoiding overextension. Holding Kursk as a buffer zone could theoretically provide Ukraine with leverage in future negotiations, but this presupposes that Kyiv has the military strength to maintain control of the region indefinitely—an assumption that appears increasingly tenuous.
The offensive has also raised broader questions about the sustainability of Ukraine’s military strategy. With limited resources and a shifting international environment, Ukraine must align its military operations with realistic diplomatic objectives. This means carefully weighing the risks and benefits of future offensives against the need to maintain Western support and preserve military resources. The Kursk offensive, while impressive in the moment, could evolve into a Pyrrhic victory if Ukraine continues to stretch itself too thin in a war that shows no signs of abating.
The Kursk offensive condenses the broader strategic challenges facing Ukraine in its dual war effort. While the operation successfully demonstrated Ukraine’s offensive capabilities and embarrassed Russia, it has also exposed the limitations of Ukraine’s military and diplomatic strategy. As the conflict enters a critical phase, Ukraine must adopt a more coherent approach that balances military operations with realistic diplomatic goals and resource constraints. The coming months will be pivotal for both Ukraine and its Western allies. The success of Ukraine’s strategy will not be measured by territorial gains alone but by its ability to maintain Western support, manage resources effectively and ultimately secure a sustainable resolution to the conflict.
Endnotes
- Mark Episkopos, “Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion Is a Two-Edged Sword,” The American Conservative September 9, 2024, Accessed on Sep 10, 2024, https://www.theamericanconservative.com/ukraines-kursk-incursion-is-a-two-edged-sword/.
- Lucian Staiano-Daniels, “How the Hundred Years’ War Explains Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia,” Foreign Policy September 2024, Accessed on Sep 6, 2024, https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/09/01/ukraine-russia-war-history-middle-ages-comparison-kursk/
- Ibid
- Michael Kofman and Rob Lee, “Ukraine’s Gamble,” Foreign Affairs September 2, 2024, Accessed on September 6, 2024, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-gamble
- Ibid
Bibliography
- Episkopos. Mark. “Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion Is a Two-Edged Sword.” The American Conservative September 9, 2024. Accessed on Sep 10, 2024, https://www.theamericanconservative.com/ukraines-kursk-incursion-is-a-two-edged-sword/.
- Kofman, Michael and Rob Lee. “Ukraine’s Gamble.” Foreign Affairs September 2, 2024. Accessed on Sep 6, 2024, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-gamble.
- Lucian Staiano-Daniels. “How the Hundred Years’ War Explains Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia.” Foreign Policy September 2024. Accessed on Sep 6, 2024, https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/09/01/ukraine-russia-war-history-middle-ages-comparison-kursk/.