WHY IS UKRAINE INVADING RUSSIA'S KURSK OBLAST

16 August 2024

WHY IS UKRAINE INVADING RUSSIA'S KURSK OBLAST

Ukraine destroys a bridge in Kursk province

This operation aligns with longstanding Western strategies, as outlined in RAND reports and geopolitical theories from Halford Mackinder's on, aimed at extending and stressing Russia to destabilise its leadership, fragment its vast territories and exploit its mineral food and energy resources by pushing it to the brink—much like a pack of predators slowly wears down its prey. Understanding this context is crucial to making sense of the otherwise perplexing tactical actions in regions like Kursk.

But this is a Western perspective. We need to understand the Ukrainian mentality, which is nearer to the Russians to make real sense of this incursion.

Strategy and tactics behind this incursion

All the comment I have seen misunderstands the purpose of this invasion. Trying to make strategic sense of this "special military operation" by American or NATO in Russia, they all scratch their heads and search around for understanding: 

- Maybe it's going for the nuclear power station and advantage at the negotiating table? But it would have to hold the territory for a pretty long time and Putin has said that he will never negotiate under these circumstances where his country has been invaded. 

- Maybe to break Russia's supply line, funnelling supplies into Belgorod and thence fanning out to Ukraine? This seems likely to me as three bridges in Cusk have been bombed but this is a limited objective as there are plenty of other supply lines open to Russia

- To provoke Russia in to using tactical nuclear weapons, which would mean it would lose Russia would lose the support of its friends and give NATO the excuse to invade

- Perhaps to divert Russian effort away from the Donbas, far more significant and where Ukraine is suffering heavy defeat? If this is the objective it hasn't worked as Russia has not transferred troops from Don Beth into Cusk negotiations,  try Ukraine has shifted its best men in to course in what looks like a very risky venture. 

- Demoralise the Russian army and people, the psychology of propaganda, win albeit temporarily the PR war and thus support from the sponsors?

- Simply to stymie any chance of  negotiations, as was done on previous attempts back in April of 2022 and the Minsk agreement of 2015? 

- Alternatively, to force the Russians into negotiations, with Ukraine having something to offer in exchange. 

RAND Report 2019 - stressing Russia

"Fear of Direct Attack on Russian Territory" 

"While many Westerners consider the idea of a direct military attack on Russia as not credible in light of the country’s massive nuclear arsenal, the Kremlin’s military procurement demonstrates that its fear of such an assault is very real. 

Russia originally developed its formidable air defense systems, such as the S-400, to defend its own heartland from attack by a major military power, presumably the United States. In contrast to the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation does not maintain a massive land army in readiness to invade Western Europe. Land forces are arrayed in depth and can quickly be concentrated as demonstrated in regular snap exercises. 

Russian officials and military thinkers continue to express anxiety about attacks against their territory. While Russian leaders might not necessarily believe all of  their own propaganda about U.S. military threats to their nation, they likely would still be willing to increase defense spending in response to a perceived intensification of the threat to their mainland or the  survivability of their nuclear forces. 

However, this reaction might have  deleterious effects on the security of the United States and its allies. It is clear that the Russian leadership’s fears of regime change, loss of great-power status, and even military attack, however exaggerated, offer points of vulnerability that may, with care, be exploited either to drive unnecessary expenditures or to  encourage better behavior." It is clear that this war was provoked some time before Putin entered Ukraine in February 2022

That is quoted from RAND_RR3063.pdf, page 72, published back in April 2019 in its report commissioned by the American Department of Defense. Rand was asked to provide a number of strategies for extending or stressing Russia to the point where its people turned against its leadership, its vast lands could be broken up into ethnic states and where the West, America, would be free to walk in and exploit its almost unlimited resources in food minerals and energy. 

To put it extremely simply and cynically, if the West could lay its hands on Russia's wealth, it could solve its number one problem of fiscal indebtedness and balance of payments deficit and extend the shelf life of its informal empire by possibly another hundred years. The stakes are enormous. Fundamentally, wars are driven by economic greed and the need to protect one's territories from ravenous enemies and America's leadership is absolutely ruthless, callous and calculating in its drive to preserve its hegemony.

So while all those reasons above may be true, the real American reasoning is just this running dog idea of extending Russia until it is so weakened it can be taken over, and the invasion of Kursk is just another strand In the strategy. Will it work? Doubtful. 

But Ukraine is Russian and the Russian attitude toward is really quite different watsonski is trying to achieve as he has said many times in recent months is to make Russia "feel" the war, thus to increase the weakness of Russia and push for negotiations this would be in line with Clausewitz thinking.

So we understand the strategic object even if the operational objective is not clear to us perhaps it was the power plant perhaps something else.

As such, no wonder everyone is scratching their head, because on its own, it doesn't make much sense and can only be understood as part of this overall running dog strategy of weakening Russia, as laid out very clearly in the Rand report of 2019.

Human Nature has ever been thus

I remember one of those wildlife films where there's a pack of a dozen or more dogs running alongside this zebra and eventually through exhaustion the zebra trips, breaks a hoof, falls and is eaten alive by the dogs.

Halford Mackinder's Heartland

The geopolitical reason for this war is contained in Halford Mackinder's treatise of 1904, amended in 1919, as recounted in a previous post.

America's strategy for dealing with the "geographic pivot of history" is containment. Mackinder was writing over 100 years ago, but his explanation is of the greatest contemporary importance and explains for example the trouble currently in Bangladesh, which is being used to contain India, pressure Russia and stop China from supplying arms to its ruskie ally.

How do the Russian elites view this? 

I would imagine their minds are cast back to the last time Russia was invaded, well it was the Soviet Union at the time and that was 1945. 

They must also think about 1812 when half a million men under Napoleon invaded because revolutionary France saw Russia as part of the ancien regime. They were not entirely French, there were soldiers from many European countries, looking for booty and glory, including many Poles, and in this sense 2024, with Nato plans and arms, resembles 1812. 

Strategies amongst many of Interest here used by the Russians to defeat Napoleon One was Simply Setting fire to the fields and destroying the forage so that the invading men and their horses had No food The second was that Alexander three transformed His people into a national army and this was a novelty at the time. So that might give some hint of Russia's response today For example while the incursion is being portrayed as a humiliation for Putin It may turn out Incur such Roth from the Russian people That NATO is pushed all the way back Out of Russia and out of Ukraine too. 

We have talked about Russia's need for security and it's need to plug the gaps in its natural defenses given that it has been invaded over 50 times and here is a further example of the rationale for Russia's defensive stance. I would imagine that Putin is livid - and he is by nature extremely calm cold and calculating, a former top KGBagent - so it is not surprising that he has stopped all negotiations and I guess that he will now move on Kiev. 

If you combine this invasion into Cusk with the continued attempts on the Crimean Bridge and the continued shelling of the evaporizia power station then the Russians must view this as an increasingly desperate Kiev turning to terrorism as a last Resort combine that with the fact that according to Moscow zielinsky no longer has a mandate to govern and you can understand why the Russians would finally say that they will not negotiate. 

What will happen next

I would imagine that as Russia has three times the number of men at arms than Ukraine and these men are trained and experienced, and with Russia having a free flow of arms and supplies (despite three Bridges being blown up) and Ukraine being resources being limited, I would imagine that this incursion will turn into what is called a fire bag for Ukraine.

If Ukraine tries expanding the territory it has so far captured, it will just be thinning out its troops and making it even more difficult for them to hold this area of Kursk region.

So I would guess that as this incursion was a surprise to the Russians, they will need a week or two to organise their counter attack, but that within the near future they will expel the the ukrainian invaders from their territory, "with heavy Ukrainian losses".

Meanwhile, if it is true that Ukraine has moved a part of its best forces from the Donbas to Kursk, while Russian resources in the Donbas remain unchanged, then I would guess that Russia will press forward even faster in rhe Donbas than it was doing before the Kursk incursion began.

In terms of what has been achieved, Ukraine has failed to take the power station, Ukraine has failed to deflect Russian attention in the Donbas, Ukraine has failed to discourage the Russian army or people. 

All we can see is that Kursk is turning into a firebag for the Ukrainians and providing Russia with an opportunity to progress with less resistance its frontline in the Donbas.

If you combine all of the above then it becomes clear that Russia will not negotiate with an increasingly terrorist regime in Kev but will instead take the east and subreddue the remainder of Ukraine probably including Odessa and Transnistria. 

Thus before leaving West Ukraine, Russia will have destroyed its infrastructure. Ukraine will be left as a stone age landlocked rump state with a government in hock to Moscow and looking to the EU and its taxpayers for rebuilding. 

Detailed analysis