“Russia brought war to others, and now it is coming home.” These were the words Volodymyr Zelenskyy used when he broke his week-long silence about Ukraine’s surprise incursion into Russian territory.
Beyond sticking it to the Kremlin, the Ukrainian president cited only one purpose for his army’s audacious offensive: to secure a border area that has been used by Russian forces to bombard Ukraine’s neighbouring Sumy region.
Ambiguity about the strategic objectives of the first invasion of Russian territory since the second world war makes sense: it keeps the enemy guessing. It also makes it harder for Ukrainians and their western supporters to deem the offensive a failure if it goes wrong.
“Vagueness is the best way not to corner oneself if things develop not as planned,” says Mykola Bielieskov, research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies, part of Ukraine’s military policy department.
Defence analysts, Ukrainian soldiers and even Vladimir Putin have proffered their own explanations for the operation: to draw Russian forces away from the front where Ukrainian troops are slowly losing ground; to restore some faith in Ukraine’s offensive capability; and to take Russian territory for use as leverage in any negotiation with Moscow — the latter notably voiced by the Russian president on Monday.
Of all the possible strategic objectives of the Kursk invasion, seizing land as a bargaining chip is the most compelling. It is also the most dangerous.
Kyiv knows that it will come under mounting pressure to negotiate an end to the war, especially but not only if Donald Trump returns to the White House after November’s presidential election. Diplomatically, Ukraine has tried to get on the front foot, pushing its own peace formula and promising an international peace conference — with Russia invited — before November 5.
Trump has boasted that he will bring peace to Ukraine overnight. Nobody knows how. But several of his former officials and advisers have suggested it could involve an informal ceding of territory in return for meaningful western security guarantees.
Kyiv and many of its European allies worry about a Trump administration forcing Ukraine into an unjust and unstable peace with the threat of withholding further US weaponry.
But at the current level of western military support — and of Ukraine’s domestic mobilisation of resources — Kyiv lacks a viable medium-term path to victory. Europe still seems reluctant to step up. While there is a “recognition” that the Europeans will have do more to arm Ukraine, there is “no substantive discussion of options”, says a senior European official.
Most western capitals say they want Kyiv to be in the strongest possible position for talks. Until last week’s Kursk offensive, Ukraine had few options for getting there in the short term. On the eastern front, it is losing ground. Russia’s positions seem entrenched in the south (although Russian-held Crimea looks increasingly vulnerable). Now, Kyiv may have Russian ground to barter.
That could go down well with the Ukrainian public, which according to opinion polls is increasingly open to a negotiated settlement with Russia, but is still largely opposed to territorial concessions. It is also a trade that a real estate developer turned president can get behind.
But if Kyiv wants to swap land it seized in Russia it has to keep it — and the cost could become excessive. Ukraine’s incursion will have to be sustained with a sophisticated supply operation as well as with the kind of troop rotations and reserves that have been lacking in the east.
Ukrainian soldiers and western analysts worry that throwing scarce resources at Kursk will make it harder for Ukraine to hold on to strategically important positions in Donetsk. Russia’s grinding advances have continued there in recent days. Kyiv risks overcommitting for political reasons to its new offensive just as it did last year to its doomed defence of Bakhmut.
“What can Ukraine achieve, if it spends more manpower and equipment to take more border villages in the Kursk direction?” asked the Finnish analyst Emil Kastehelmi on X. “There’s a limited amount of benefit to be gained from simply controlling more land.”
Zelenskyy appears to think the gains are worth the gamble. Much, says Bielieskov, will hinge on the scale of Russia’s response to the invasion, which is still unclear. For the moment, Zelenskyy is keeping his options and his objectives open.
