Ukraine

[Serial_Apologist]

Have we heard yet what thoughts there are on Ukraine's incursion into Russia? I'm not sure that I understand why so much effort is being put into that - is it simply that the Russian defences inside Ukraine are proving just too hard to break down?

What I understood from what I heard the Ukrainian military is supposed to have said about this, the occupation would be expected to draw scarce Russian personnel back across the border to deal with it, thereby taking some pressure off the Donbas. I have to say it does appear to be a bad mistake to think this way - the Russians will deal with the invaders, probably very harshly, and then it will be back to square one.

[Bella Kemp]

Ukraine needs to keep hold of its rightful moral high ground. Making tens of thousands of ordinary people homeless and no doubt killing many can't be the way to win this war. All such actions will do is fire up the patriotism of the Russians so that they really side with Putin - rather than simple support him out of fear, as has been the case until now.

[french frank]

Several ideas on this, trying to see the situation from Ukraine's point of view:

1. The publicity which this has received within in Russia sends a message to Russians that Putin is not winning his 'quick' war
2. The Ukrainian successes will divert Russian troops from elsewhere (no indication that mighty Russia has unlimited supplies of men and weapons)
3. Putin's public comments suggest the territorial gains will be used as bargaining chips: you give up control of our land and we'll give up control of yours.
4. Also, a story in this morning's Guardian - and even the Guardian could engage in 'western propaganda'! - is that the Ukrainian military success is welcomed by the inhabitants there - though their names sound more Ukrainian than Russian to me. Must reread it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/12/i-felt-euphoria-ukraines-borderland-refugees-praise-incursion-into-russia?utm_term=66bada6ed017b6985d6665fcc200f8dd&utm_campaign

[oddoneout]

Several ideas on this, trying to see the situation from Ukraine's point of view:

1. The publicity which this has received within in Russia sends a message to Russians that Putin is not winning his 'quick' war
2. The Ukrainian successes will divert Russian troops from elsewhere (no indication that mighty Russia has unlimited supplies of men and weapons)
3. Putin's public comments suggest the territorial gains will be used as bargaining chips: you give up control of our land and we'll give up control of yours.
4. Also, a story in this morning's Guardian - and even the Guardian could engage in 'western propaganda'! - is that the Ukrainian military success is welcomed by the inhabitants there - though their names sound more Ukrainian than Russian to me. Must reread it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...d&utm_campaign

Where borders are, or have been historically, fluid then there will be blurring of the demarcation through names, language etc?

[french frank]

Where borders are, or have been historically, fluid then there will be blurring of the demarcation through names, language etc?

It would be a bit of a dilemma for Ukraine if people in the newly controlled area would prefer to be in Ukraine. What about the people in Donbas who want to be in Russia? Not that I think this has necessarily entered the consciousness of Kyiv.

[Historian]

Have we heard yet what thoughts there are on Ukraine's incursion into Russia? I'm not sure that I understand why so much effort is being put into that - is it simply that the Russian defences inside Ukraine are proving just too hard to break down?

Currently Ukraine's land forces are on the defensive, with this one recent exception. Last summer's major offensive was a failure, indeed Russia has recaptured much of the limited gains made then. Since then, Ukraine has concentrated on wearing down Russian forces with considerable success e.g. the heavy losses of Russian artillery pieces. Russia has still been able to advance in one or two areas but only relatively slowly and at considerable cost. The renewed incursion towards Kharkiv did not get very far and the Russians are slowly being expelled.

Ukraine may be planning a large offensive this year but this attack toward Kursk is not it. They can't afford another failure like last year when, as you mention, Russian defences proved too strong.

[Historian]

What I understood from what I heard the Ukrainian military is supposed to have said about this, the occupation would be expected to draw scarce Russian personnel back across the border to deal with it, thereby taking some pressure off the Donbas. I have to say it does appear to be a bad mistake to think this way - the Russians will deal with the invaders, probably very harshly, and then it will be back to square one.

I agree that it is, to some extent, a risk. However, it is not possible to avoid taking risks in the position in which Ukraine finds itself. Ukraine might be hoping to reduce the pressure elsewhere but I don't think that will actually happen to any great extent.

Russia is currently making heavy weather in tackling the Ukraine advance which has not attempted to go beyond the limits of Ukrainian artillery support. I imagine that Ukraine will have made very careful calculations about the benefits from attacking the Kursk region and will do their best to avoid the losses you fear.

[Historian]

Ukraine needs to keep hold of its rightful moral high ground. Making tens of thousands of ordinary people homeless and no doubt killing many can't be the way to win this war. All such actions will do is fire up the patriotism of the Russians so that they really side with Putin - rather than simple support him out of fear, as has been the case until now.

You appear to be confusing the two sides.

One side destroys cities, towns and villages by ruthlessly bombarding them into desolation, without regard to civilian casualties. Furthermore, this side has a long and hideous track record of using missiles and aerial bombing to attack non-military civilian targets (in this and other conflicts), including schools, hospitals and supermarkets which lie well beyond the immediate battle zone: this is Russia.

The other side avoids inflicting casualties on Russian civilians as much as possible, sends its long-range drones and missiles against military targets and does not routinely commit war crimes: this is Ukraine.

All the evidence I have seen so far from the attack on the Kursk region has shown Ukraine focusing on attacking Russian military forces and positions. Therefore there is no reason for Ukraine to run any risk of losing the "rightful moral high ground" which you rightly observe it currently holds.

[french frank]

Currently Ukraine's land forces are on the defensive, with this one recent exception. Last summer's major offensive was a failure, indeed Russia has recaptured much of the limited gains made then. Since then, Ukraine has concentrated on wearing down Russian forces with considerable success e.g. the heavy losses of Russian artillery pieces. Russia has still been able to advance in one or two areas but only relatively slowly and at considerable cost. The renewed incursion towards Kharkiv did not get very far and the Russians are slowly being expelled.

Ukraine may be planning a large offensive this year but this attack toward Kursk is not it. They can't afford another failure like last year when, as you mention, Russian defences proved too strong.

Thank you for your comments. Good to have a knowledgeable take on the situation.

[richardfinegold]

Thank you for your comments. Good to have a knowledgeable take on the situation.

I suspect the main goal is to acquire an asset to bargain with. The recent hostage/prisoner swap suggests that Putin tends to be motivated by what he can show what he gets in return

[Petrushka]

You appear to be confusing the two sides.

One side destroys cities, towns and villages by ruthlessly bombarding them into desolation, without regard to civilian casualties. Furthermore, this side has a long and hideous track record of using missiles and aerial bombing to attack non-military civilian targets (in this and other conflicts), including schools, hospitals and supermarkets which lie well beyond the immediate battle zone: this is Russia.

The other side avoids inflicting casualties on Russian civilians as much as possible, sends its long-range drones and missiles against military targets and does not routinely commit war crimes: this is Ukraine.

All the evidence I have seen so far from the attack on the Kursk region has shown Ukraine focusing on attacking Russian military forces and positions. Therefore there is no reason for Ukraine to run any risk of losing the "rightful moral high ground" which you rightly observe it currently holds.

Surprised to note that we've had nothing yet from Sir Lawrence Freedman on his Substack blog.

[french frank]

Surprised to note that we've had nothing yet from Sir Lawrence Freedman on his Substack blog.

Indeed. I checked there first for anything new before I posted. No doubt it's in preparation.

[Bella Kemp]

You appear to be confusing the two sides.

One side destroys cities, towns and villages by ruthlessly bombarding them into desolation, without regard to civilian casualties. Furthermore, this side has a long and hideous track record of using missiles and aerial bombing to attack non-military civilian targets (in this and other conflicts), including schools, hospitals and supermarkets which lie well beyond the immediate battle zone: this is Russia.

The other side avoids inflicting casualties on Russian civilians as much as possible, sends its long-range drones and missiles against military targets and does not routinely commit war crimes: this is Ukraine.

All the evidence I have seen so far from the attack on the Kursk region has shown Ukraine focusing on attacking Russian military forces and positions. Therefore there is no reason for Ukraine to run any risk of losing the "rightful moral high ground" which you rightly observe it currently holds.

I do hope you're right.

[Historian]

I do hope you're right.

So do I. You are quite right that Ukraine does not want to do anything which will let observers question its status as the victim rather than the perpetrator.

[Bella Kemp]

So do I. You are quite right that Ukraine does not want to do anything which will let observers question its status as the victim rather than the perpetrator.

And thank you, by the way, for your thoughtful response and your insightful remarks in general on this terrible and so unnecessary conflict. It's a dreadful thing that Mr Putin has started.