“Syrsky’s special operation”: the offensive on Kurshchyna in the estimation of American military analysts

The attention of the Ukrainian community and the Western public, focused on the war events in the east of the country, has recently expanded significantly. Kurshchyna became an important object of monitoring, assessments and discussions. American military analysts published their vision of the Kursk operation on the pages of the publication The New York Times (Ukraine’s Incursion Into Russia Reveals a Dramatic Shift – The New York Times). We bring to your attention key theses that give an idea of ​​the content and consequences of the military campaign on the territory of Russia.

In contrast to an unsuccessful counterattack

The Kurshchyna operation is an example of an unexpected operation that can eventually cause real losses to the Kremlin. It contrasts sharply with the unsuccessful counteroffensive operation in southern Ukraine last summer. Importantly, this operation was developed in secret and was intended to draw Russian troops from the front and capture territories that could be used as bargaining chips.

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia demonstrates how Ukraine’s military has improved its mechanized warfare skills, a technique it failed to master a year ago.

Evaluation of the success of the operation by NATO

According to NATO’s military commander, General Christopher G. Cavoli, the invasion is successful for the time being. “The Ukrainians found a weak point in the positions of the Russians and quickly took advantage of it, they did it very skillfully,” noted the four-star general of the US Army, who is considered a specialist in Russian military affairs.

General Kavoli, who communicates regularly with his Ukrainian counterparts, said the operation provided an important boost to Ukrainian morale after months of slow, grueling Russian military advances in eastern and southern Ukraine.

The Ukrainian strike and its subsequent success could be of strategic importance, although US officials caution that it is necessary to wait for developments to draw final conclusions.

Strategic importance and international reaction

At the same time, according to American officials, the operation in itself will not force Russia to sit down at the negotiating table. Putin has promised not to negotiate while Ukraine occupies Russia, and U.S. officials said he should be taken seriously.

At the same time, in public speeches, CIA director William Burns spoke about the need to break Putin’s self-confidence. Russia will not make any concessions, he said, until Putin’s arrogance is called into question and until Ukraine shows strength on the battlefield.

Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk, in fact, became an example of how it takes the initiative, revealing Russia’s weakness and humiliating Putin.

U.S. officials say Ukraine will have to continue the operation and take other bold actions that could challenge Russia’s confidence in imminent victory. Whether these will be new border disruptions, secret sabotage missions or other unplanned operations is still unclear.

His comments were the most extensive since the start of Ukraine’s attack on Kurshchyna. However, Biden administration officials refused to answer most questions about the operation, referring them to Ukrainian officials.

Ukraine’s operation also caused enthusiastic responses among supporters of Kyiv in Congress.

Senators Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, who met with President Volodymyr Zelensky this week in Kyiv, called for increased military support for Ukraine.

Asked about the invasion at a press conference, Graham said: “What do I think of Kursk? Bold, brilliant and beautiful. Keep up the good work.” He added: “Putin started this. Fight him back.”

At the same time, senior officials in the White House and the Pentagon also reproached the Ukrainians for not warning the Americans about their plans in advance, perhaps out of fear that they would try to convince them to cancel the risky mission. Concerns about information leakage were also significant.

Creating an operational dilemma for the Russians

After the fact, Ukrainian officials told American civilian and military leaders that the purpose of the operation was to create an operational dilemma for the Russians — to force Moscow to withdraw troops from the front lines in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, where Russian troops had been advancing slowly but surely for several weeks.

American officials have noted that Russia has withdrawn some infantry units from Ukraine and sent them to Kursk to defend against a Ukrainian offensive. However, they did not specify exactly how many troops Russia is moving and where they came from. At the same time, officials said they had not yet seen the Kremlin withdraw the armored battalions and other combat power they believe Russia needs to repel the invasion.

Nevertheless, Moscow was forced to commit its reserves to the fighting in Kursk and will have to send more forces there if it plans to push out the Ukrainians. Those forces, U.S. officials say, would otherwise be used in the coming months for Russia’s slow, exhausting offensive in eastern Ukraine.

American analysts doubt that Ukraine will have enough strength to take advantage of any Russian weakness in Donbas. Ukraine used a significant number of its troops in Kursk and may not have sufficient reserves for further action. More importantly, U.S. officials have advised the Ukrainians to avoid major offensives this year to the south or east, given the strength of Russian defensive positions.

Attacking in Kursk, the Ukrainians took into account American advice: instead of fighting through fortified positions, go to places where the enemy is not, to capture strategic positions.

The operation in Kursk is also aimed at capturing and holding territory in order to increase Ukraine’s leverage in negotiations. As an option – to exchange the Russian territory for the territory near Kharkiv, which the Russian forces captured in the spring.

The role of American weapons

In May, under pressure from advisers and key allies, US President Joe Biden authorized limited strikes by Ukraine inside Russia using US weapons. The decision marked the first time a US president has authorized limited military action against artillery, missile bases and command posts within the borders of a nuclear power. However, White House officials insisted that the authorization only extended to what they characterized as acts of self-defense against cross-border threats, so that Ukraine could defend Kharkiv and surrounding areas from Russian missiles, bombs and artillery shells coming directly from abroad. The White House has so far prohibited Ukraine from using high-precision, long-range American artillery to strike air bases and other facilities deep in Russia.

Immediately after the Ukrainian invasion, this US policy became the object of close attention. Representatives of the Pentagon and the State Department said that the use of American weapons and ammunition during the attack by Ukraine did not violate the US ban.

American intelligence knew

American intelligence agencies have been aware of Ukraine’s ambitions to attack across the border for more than a year. Although the specific time and location of the operation was a surprise, the strategic objective was known in advance. One of the intelligence reports, published on an Internet forum by an Air Force National Guard serviceman, contained information about a meeting in which Mr. Zelenskyy encouraged the military to consider a cross-border incursion. Mr. Zelensky, according to the report, wanted Ukrainian forces to “occupy unspecified Russian border towns.”

It is too early to speak about the effectiveness of the operation

American officials have expressed surprise at how successful the Ukrainian operation has been so far, and how slow and unsystematic Russia’s response has been.

One senior US official called the incursion “Syrsky’s Special Operation” and said it was a flashy operation that Mr. Zelensky is very fond of.

But U.S. officials also said they were continuing to take a wait-and-see attitude. One of them called the operation a big adventure. Only time will tell how strategic this attack will be.