Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Vlad K's avatar

Thank you for the insightful article as always!

I have noticed that there is a wide range of opinions on the reasons for the Kursk incursion (and related psy-op campaign) and why things went the way they did, but some of them are practically never discussed, even though I consider them highly probable. Here is my own analysis of the incursion, based on sources, some of whom are relatively unknown RU experts:

1) I find the following theory as the most probable one regarding the reasons for this incursion. The whole idea of attacking Kursk was originally planned by the US masters as an October surprise to boost the Democratic party candidate's rating. Obviously, the situation on the front line is dire (and will be even worse by October), discrediting the foreign policy of the current US administration which seeks reelection. This October surprise would have helped to boost the narrative of the strong UKR which is capable to even strike deep into RU territory with the Western uber-weapons (yeah, just don't ask any inconvenient questions about why it's loosing on the primary front line if it's so strong, the Western media is more than capable to obscure inconvenient facts).

However, for some reason UKR went rogue and started it early. Possible explanations:

a) No time to wait as collapse of the Donbass front is imminent and the West is unwilling to supply more vehicles and weapons (with obscuring this fact by overhyping the news of F-16 delivery; BTW where are they, why they're not used?), keeping UKR on the bare minimum life support.

b) UKR leadership was worried that the plans will be leaked to Moscow and be ruined. There was a recent report in the western media (alas I forgot to save the source, I remember Simplicius quoting this) that at least two similar operations were cancelled due to American involvement—in one case they've asked to cancel the operation and in the other case the operation plans were leaked to RU.

c) (Maybe partially a reason but not standalone) UKR leadership wanted to make it coincide with the anniversary of the "Kursk" submarine disaster (August 12, 2000) which some are misrepresenting as the first Putin's disaster (well, it happened under Putin soon after he took power, but was he responsible?). And indeed, Zelensky played this thing in his speech on Aug 12 — look up "# Zelenskyy: Kursk disaster symbolized the start of Putin's rule, and now it's the end for him".

d) Probably UKR leadership simply didn't want to wait that long as the time is clearly playing against UKR in the ongoing attrition warfare and each minute reduced their chance of success.

2) Many experts while observing footage of FPV and missile strikes noticed that RU roads quality is extremely good compared to the decadent UKR countryside which we got used to see in the past two years. Some believe that it certainly paid a factor in the relatively quick road advance in the first two days as UKR was using wheeled vehicles and tried to drive as deep as possible until RU forces organized ambushes. Either way most of these advances were not an actual territory control but a game of tag to claim as many settlements as possible and help boost the TSIPSO narratives.

3) It's important to note the SMO command was not responsible for defending Kursk Oblast and securing the border (it was under guard of the FSB border service which is relatively weak armed). On more remote positions from the border there were regular military units (mostly conscripts) which are not officially engaged in the SMO and not under the command of the army group North which is dedicated to the neighboring RU Belgorod Oblast and creating the buffer area in Kharkov region of UKR (BTW, two days ago RU MoD announced that three new army groups will be organized to boost the defense of the border regions—namely Kursk, Bryansk, and Belgorod; better late than never?). According to the ex-colonel of RU AF Vladimir Trukhan, the first defense line in the area was organized approximately at the area which is currently holding the UKR armed forces, meaning that it's behind small towns (the biggest of which is Sudzha (population of 5000 as reported in 2024)). Why so? Big Serge mentioned in his article that the border area is very wooded in Kursk Oblast. It's also curvy. So the defense line never (not in RU nor in UKR or any country) matches the country's border line. The defense line usually goes on some distance from it, representing a less curvy line and utilizing more suitable terrain to maximize the defense capabilities. Vladimir Trukhan also noted that the civilian administration has the final say in matters of allocating land for military purposes (during peacetime), and some oddities associated with the line of defense may be due to this factor.

4) There is a conspiracy theory with people speculating whether the RU military command knew about the UKR plans but intentionally played along just to create a trap and lure the UKR forces in the new meatgrinder. Meaning that there was intentional endangering of RU citizens in the Kursk Oblast by evacuating them too late. According to the ex-colonel of RU AF Vladimir Trukhan again, it's not the case ("These are not our methods", as he said). While RU intelligence may have knew about the plans of some incursion, it was indeed organized with a high level of OPSEC and RU didn't knew the exact date and vector of the attack. "We have just missed it", Trukhan said. However, it doesn't mean that RU will not turn this tactical blunder into a strategic advantage. Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov, and Zakharova already stated that URK terrorist incursion preclude any negotiations, finally putting a nail in the peace talks effort lead by China and India. And the Chinese media have indeed been spinning the narrative since the first day of the invasion that the UKR acted dishonestly and attacked RU territory, effectively starting a war on the land that had not seen bloodshed since 1943, when the German tanks previously rushed toward Russia's impenetrable defenses...

5) I believe there was a strong angle to not only damage Putin's reputation but to actually cause civilian unrest, protests (especially if the advance was more successful), and, ultimately, change of the RU top military command which, if happened, will obviously hurt RU advances on the front line as the military will need to rework the plans and it often takes weeks if not months. With this incursion there was a blatant and overwhelming psy-op campaign of TSIPSO, which included not only comments in social networks and Telegram but also calls to the people in the border towns to spread panic, and several prominent "Russian" (most of them are actually UKR origin) military bloggers either exposing themselves as UKR SBU/GUR assets or at least as useful idiots by playing along with the UKR propaganda. E.g. there is a UKR-born blogger Yuri Podolyaka with over 3 mln subscribers in Telegram (who, BTW, has a son and ex-wife still living in UKR Sumy region as he confirmed in Nov'2022 when he also said that he will do "unthinkable" to anyone who expose or endangers them; majority of the people are unaware or ignoring this fact even though he said it himself and the video is still available in his Telegram channel). Podolyaka among others exaggerated the reach of the UKR successes and pushed the narrative that the Chief of General Staff, general Valery Gerasimov, should be held responsible for the failure of preventing the Kursk incursion (recently a new major disinformation campaign started to blame general Aleksandr Lapin, commander of the army group North). The previous time such a coordinated psy-op campaign happened during the Prigozhin's mutiny (it also targeted Gerasimov as well as Shoigu, who was, BTW, not fired this year but actually raised to the Secretary of the Security Council, in place of honorable Nikolai Patrushev). This time the psy-op caused a real panic in Kurks Oblast that resulted in traffic jams on the highway to the border towns which put in danger civilians and military columns and there were some successful FPV and HIMARS strikes (which, again, people like Yuri Podolyaka used as an opportunity to blame Gerasimov and RU command in general of incompetence, totally ignoring the fact that UKR as well moving their large forces in columns (which RU presented plenty of evidence of destruction over the years and even recently even in Kursk oblast, e. g. a column of 9 vehicles just two days ago by 810th separate guards marine brigade) and even if it was a smaller column it still was stuck in traffic jam organized by TSIPSO and military bloggers who were spreading panic). The same bloggers also overhyped the idea of the imminent Kursk NPP capture, again, totally ignoring the facts (even if UKR can drive special forces there risking getting cut from the main forces, the NPP is well defended by a national guard regiment and there is no chance that UKR may hold it).

Expand full comment
Scipio's avatar

Great write up, Simplicius.

I always try to understand the SMO in Ukraine as part of a broader geopolitical chess game being played by Russia/China/BRICS, with objectives that are historic in nature and that change the way the world works.

These objectives are the establishment of a separate economic, military, political and socio-cultural system that rivals the parasitic financial "rules based order" that the West has built, and that in fact may dominate it.

The overall Russia/China strategy requires on extreme discipline and strategic patience. In particular, it relies on containing the West at all costs and not permitting the West to escalate the situation to open warfare, that may bring in nukes.

This means that all parties with an interest in what Russia/China are doing must accept that they cannot react/retaliate in ways that help the West, even when the West inflicts both lethal and humiliating hits. That is the price they must pay to achieve the long term broader objective.

In my view, we saw this strategic patience at play with Russia's urgent intervention to persuade Tehran against a massive Iranian retaliation against Israel.

We have seen the same approach in China's posture towards Taiwan. We are seeing it again in Moscow's posture towards Kiev/NATO, following the flagrant incursion into Kursk.

In respect to Ukraine, I think that Russia's pacing of the SMO is dictated more by the broader geopolitical objectives described above, and less by what's happening on the ground in Ukraine. The broader geopolitical objectives require a longer timeline to achieve & Ukraine has to fit into that timeline.

From this oerspective, it makes sense for Russia to continue steadily draining Ukraine, the EU & NATO of treasure, men and materiel, without creating a pretext for the West to escalate, and also becoming more powerful in economic, military and political terms. This approach works and has created huge pressure on the West, as we have seen for the last 2.5 years.

Of course, this approach also requires Moscow to take opportunities that arise. I see the Kursk incursion as more an act of desperation by the West than anything else. It was always a desperate "Hail Mary" PR exercise that was forced on Kiev/NATO, who decided to invade Kursk because of the pressure / weight of Russia's strategy in Ukraine.

Kursk is an opportunity for Russia. Moscow may decide not to react in any meaningful way, and to continue the policy of strategic patience/attrition. However, it may be that Moscow has determined that the West's idiotic Kursk adventure creates a pretext & opportunity to persuade the West and in particular DC, to sacrifice and walk away from their doomed Ukrainian proxy.

This would presumably require Russia to demonstrate to the West what Russian firepower is capable of when pushed to full war limits, for example by destroying all political centres in Kiev and / or Lvov, perhaps liquidating Zelensky and his top people, combined with a significant increase in intensity in military operations on the front line.

Again, it would need to be a demonstration to the West that is powerful enough to cause real fear in NATO/DC - a tricky thing to do given that NATO seeks to be run by irrational morons who cannot grasp the drastic situation they have created for themselves. Indeed Moscow may well conclude against retaliating too harshly, for precisely this reason - they cannot predict what psychos in Washington or DC would do.

Anyway, my main point is to understand Moscow's approach in Ukraine by reference more to its overall geopolitical objectives, and less by reference to its objectives in Ukraine itself. Russia and China are trying to build a new & alternative global order while also managing a "controlled demolition" of a desperate and volatile western system. It's a monumental task that will require time, patience and resilience.

Many thanks.

Expand full comment
439 more comments...

No posts