The Dual Fronts of the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine appears to unfold in two parallel dimensions, with both sides claiming military successes in distinct regions. In the western Russian territory of Kursk, Ukrainian forces are steadily advancing, while Russian troops are making headway in the Donbas region, having recently captured the town of Niu-York and are now pushing towards the crucial transport hub of Pokrovsk.

In Kursk, Ukrainian troops are focused on seizing Korenovo. The fall of this city would not only bolster their defenses within Russian territory but also help establish a coherent “buffer zone” designed to protect Kharkiv and other northern cities. This buffer zone, as emphasized by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is a primary objective of the Ukrainian incursion and would represent a significant operational triumph for Ukraine.

The differing objectives of both sides have led to contrasting metrics of success. Ukrainian officials are closely monitoring the area of Russian territory under their control, while Russian forces aim to dismantle the fortified defenses the Ukrainians have constructed in the Donbas since 2014. Moreover, both offensives are progressing at different paces: Ukraine’s advance in Kursk is currently outstripping Russia’s efforts in the Donbas. Although Ukraine may face the necessity to withdraw from the southeastern front, it has already inflicted damage on critical transport infrastructures, which could impede Russia’s advance.

Political and Diplomatic Leverage

Ukraine’s unexpected offensive in Kursk has captured global attention, leaving many to ponder its true intentions. Some experts speculate that Kyiv may have timed this operation with the upcoming U.S. elections in mind. According to Joni Askola, a Finnish military analyst from Charles University in Prague, “One of the explanations for this operation by the Ukrainians is to gain leverage because elections in the U.S. are approaching. Many of Ukraine’s partners and allies may begin advocating for negotiations, and Ukraine wants to maintain control over that process to avoid being forced into unfavorable terms.”

By capturing territory within Russia, Ukraine seeks to retain influence over the negotiation process, making it less likely that they will be cornered into negotiations that do not align with their interests. As the U.S. presidential election nears, its outcome will significantly impact the Western response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

In the event that Western allies exert pressure for negotiations, having a strategic advantage would provide Ukraine with a strong bargaining chip. Another objective of the Kursk incursion is to divert Russian military resources away from the southeastern front. However, analysts have noted that Moscow has not substantially reduced its military presence in the Donbas, and Kyiv has had to order civilian evacuations in Pokrovsk, which appears to be Russia’s next target.

Raising the Stakes?

Given its relative success in Kursk, Ukraine might be tempted to escalate its efforts by opening a new front in the south, particularly by the sea. Ukraine’s special forces have demonstrated proficiency in maritime operations, causing significant damage to the Russian naval fleet and coastal facilities, especially in Crimea. Additionally, Ukraine’s allies have strengthened its amphibious capabilities, with countries like Sweden and Finland supplying weaponry and speedboats.

However, opening a front in Crimea could be logistically complicated, requiring considerable manpower, pontoons, and other costly materials. Askola points out, “Crossing the Dnipro River in the Kherson area could also be an option, but it would demand substantial resources.” Regardless of its future tactical moves, Ukraine has already established control over Russian territory, marking the first significant violation of Russian soil by a foreign army since 1941. This act could leave a lasting impression on both Ukraine’s allies and the Russian populace, even if Kyiv is eventually compelled to retreat.

President Zelenskyy has asserted that the incursion into Kursk demonstrates that the Kremlin’s alleged red lines for retaliation are mere bluffs. He noted that Ukraine would not have needed to invade Russian territory if its allies had not restricted them from using their weaponry to strike Russian targets from a distance.

Experts suggest that Ukraine likely utilized Western-supplied guided bombs, dropped by Soviet-made aircraft, to destroy critical infrastructure such as the Seym bridges in Kursk. Askola speculates, “While it is improbable that the recently delivered F-16s were employed directly against the bridges, they may have been utilized to protect the operations of MiG-29s and Sukhoi-27s from Russian interceptors.”

Moreover, Ukraine’s offensive has reportedly been bolstered by the Free Russia Legion, a paramilitary unit comprised of Russian citizens opposing President Vladimir Putin’s regime and its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

As military operations like the Kursk incursion unfold, they expose the challenges facing the Russian regime. According to Askola, “These events, along with last year’s coup attempt by Prigozhin, illustrate the difficulty Russia has in maintaining control, revealing that Putin’s regime is not as stable as it tries to project to the world and its own population.”

Thus far, the Kremlin has been gradually ramping up defenses against Ukraine’s incursions, but significant retaliatory actions have yet to materialize. Nevertheless, many analysts caution against underestimating the potential for a renewed and stronger Russian response, which could involve another round of military mobilization.

Askola concludes, “Russia could mobilize up to 300,000 additional troops, which would undoubtedly have a significant impact. In the short term, this would pose serious challenges for Ukraine, but in the long term, it could accelerate Putin’s potential downfall in Russia.”