In early August, Ukraine did something predicted by no one — it ordered significant numbers of troops into Russia. That was enough to have Vladimir Putin and his aides meeting in a crisis session and his generals scrambling to find units to fight on the new front.
What does it signal? Is it a brilliant counterstroke, offering relief to Ukrainian forces forced into a series of retreats in Donbas, or a risky gamble using well-equipped units for little more than public relations bragging rights?
Here’s what can be said with certainty: Ukrainian offensive operations in Kursk Oblast demonstrate a capacity to conduct large-scale, combined arms operations on Russian territory. With great speed, surprise, and violence of action, Ukraine’s ongoing assault has now reportedly created a pocket measuring some 40 miles wide by up to 20 miles deep. Around 100,000 Russian civilians have been evacuated.
The operation involves several well-equipped units, including the 22nd Separate Mechanized Brigade and territorial defense units, supported by artillery, tanks, and drones. Ukrainian sources have said that those involved number in the thousands. The offensive's scale and complexity far exceed previous cross-border incursions, underscoring improved military coordination and logistical capabilities.
Strategically, this incursion into Kursk serves multiple purposes. First, it creates a buffer zone that could protect Ukrainian border regions from Russian artillery strikes, thereby reducing civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. Second, the offensive aims to divert Russian forces from critical fronts in eastern Ukraine, where the UAF continues to resist Russian advances. By forcing Russia to redeploy troops to defend Kursk, Ukraine seeks to alleviate pressure on its own defensive lines and potentially create opportunities for breakthroughs elsewhere. (While Russia is diverting forces to Kursk, there’s no evidence so far that it has weakened its offensive efforts in Donbas.)
But the operation also has significant psychological and political implications. By taking the fight into Russian territory, Ukraine aims to challenge the Russian government's narrative of the war, potentially undermining domestic support for the conflict. Ukrainian officials have emphasized that this offensive is not merely a retaliatory measure, but a strategic maneuver designed to alter the balance of power and reshape the negotiating terms in future peace talks.
It is also, as noted by the Institute for the Study of War, drawing young Russian conscripts openly into combat. Officially exempted from service in Ukraine, they have borne the brunt of combat with battle-hardened Ukrainian units, with predictable results of repeated defeats and mass surrenders. Putin has so far kept conscripts formally out of the fighting inside Ukraine for fear of provoking dissent among ordinary families.
The August offensive, while limited in scale, is in stark contrast to Ukraine's summer offensive in 2023, which faced significant setbacks. That campaign was marred by several challenges, including dense Russian fortifications, extensive minefields, and inadequate air support. Ukrainian forces often struggled to advance, and the operation ultimately fell short of its ambitious objectives.
In contrast, the Kursk offensive reflects significant operational improvements. Ukrainian forces have struck where Russian defenses are extremely thin and have demonstrated better coordination between different branches of the military, particularly in integrating artillery, armor, electronic warfare, and drone support. The successful use of these combined arms tactics has allowed Ukrainian units to advance rapidly and maintain pressure on Russian defenses.
Additionally, the logistical planning behind the Kursk operation appears more robust, with Ukrainian forces able to sustain their advance despite the challenges of operating on foreign soil.
The involvement of elite units, such as the 80th Air Assault Brigade, further highlights Ukraine's enhanced military capabilities. Such highly mobile and well-equipped forces played a crucial role in the operation, demonstrating Ukraine's ability to conduct complex maneuvers and sustain high-tempo operations over extended periods. The tactics used mark a significant departure from the more cautious and attrition-based approach seen in the 2023 summer offensive.
Despite this, the Kursk offensive is not without its risks. Operating on Russian territory poses significant logistical challenges, and Ukrainian forces must contend with a growing number of Russian counterattacks. Russia has already begun reinforcing its positions in Kursk, and the outcome of the offensive remains uncertain. Should Russian forces manage to contain or reverse Ukraine's gains, the operation could face setbacks like those experienced during the 2023 summer campaign.
However, the offensive's broader implications are clear. Ukraine has demonstrated its offensive abilities, challenging the conventional wisdom that it cannot conduct sustained offensive action. This could have far-reaching consequences for the war's future trajectory, potentially altering the strategic calculus for both Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine’s American and European partners must also take note, as the successes undercut any accusations that Kyiv cannot regain the offensive initiative.
If the summer 2023 offensive demonstrated Ukraine’s weaknesses in prosecuting complex multi-arm operations, the summer of 2024 may deliver an altogether more positive assessment — that the UAF has learned lessons and is better able to pursue its strategic objectives. While challenges remain, the successes of the Kursk operation underscore Ukraine's potential to reshape the battlefield and, ultimately, the outcome of the war.
Doug Livermore is the President of Livermore Strategic Solutions Ltd. and the Deputy Commander for Special Operations Detachment – Joint Special Operations Command in the North Carolina Army National Guard. In addition to his role as the Director of Engagements for the Irregular Warfare Initiative, he is the National Director of External Communications for the Special Forces Association, National Vice President for the Special Operations Association of America, Director of Development of the Corioli Institute, and serves as Chair of the Advisory Committee for No One Left Behind.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are the author’s and do not represent official US Government, Department of Defense, or Department of the Army positions.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
War Without End
Russia’s Shadow Warfare
CEPA Forum 2025
Explore CEPA's flagship event.
