Join us to discuss this topic further in our upcoming livestream, tomorrow (Wednesday 21st August) at 20:00 CEST! Our guest, Patrick Bolder, is a retired Lieutenant-Colonel of the Dutch airforce and a strategic advisor at the Hague Center for Strategic Studies (HCSS). ua-cam.com/video/MB4jI-Tt7aE/v-deo.html
About Russia's reaction: The fact they still haven't retaken control of southern Kursk oblast and are actually still losing territory, two weeks into the attack, is already a humiliation in itself. They have failed to defend their own territory.
I understand why Ukraine did it, and I agree that Russia was taken by surprise. That is a huge win for Ukraine, but because of this succes all the media are way too optimistic about it and some are even calling it the begining of the end for Putin. I'm afraid we will see why, although very understandable, it isn't such a good idea after all. And while Russia certainly isn't the powerhouse it claims to be it's still way stronger than what all the euphoric news coverage about the Kursk invasion makes people believe right now.
@@BigBoy-ql5rn Dodgy argument. Mostly, honest individuals do not bluff. But, if asked, they would (correctly) deny it. It is the problem faced by individuals falsely accused of a crime. The difficulty for observers comprises deciding who's who -- hence "innocent until proven guilty".
i hope they manage to keep the territories they've taken, but even if they don't, it's still a big win. who would have thought that Ukraine could ever invade Russia back in 2022 ?
At the very least, it's really exposing how weak the Russian military really is, no big power would allow this to happen and certainly not for this long, and with every passing day of Ukraine on Russian soil, the more insulting it is to Putin, that they've not been able to respond yet, shows how weak Russia have got.
I can't believe the sheer size of cope in this statement of yours. If Kursk offensive fails, and it's already failing, Ukraine will lose negotiation power, troops morale, and most importantly, resources, which they could have used to prevent the Russian breakthrough in Pokrovsk or Kurakhove directions. "Ukraine will keep the territories, and even if they don't they still win", what kind of logic is that?
That message is for the Russian people, Putin wants them to think they are at war with the entire west to get more support from the Russian people. In reality, Putin is at war with the Russian people and the west, the Russian people are partly victims in all this too by a system that is abusive, but the Russian people are also partly to blame for not standing up to Putin, either way, Putin can't afford to escalate this war with the west, but desperation is kicking in, what the west and Ukraine is doing is highly humiliating for Putin, it's also exposing how weak the Russian military is.
About some pro-Russia voices in the EU or other places: They were heavily promoting peace talks before with Putin doing the same. Probably in the hope that the war freezes again. Now they are suddenly not in favor of peace talks and freezing the conflict. This action prevented this rhetoric completely as well.
As a resident of Russia, I will say: the problems of Kursk are the problems of the residents of Kursk, with the rest of the Russians who do not have relatives and friends in Kursk, everything is fine. Now Russians (or rather, parents) are more concerned about sending conscripts to fight in Kursk. I'm sorry if there are any mistakes, I don't speak English very well.
@@wladimirteroin7164 If thats true then you're all just retarded because for your country to be invaded and to think "Yhea, its not where I live so who cares?" is some kind of selfish and stupid thinking, not to mention heavy coping
Loved this video! I’ve honestly been rly lost in the Ukraine Conflict due to the overwhelming amount of daily news about it so this has been rly helpful!
When showing Russia’s size you probably should have used an accurate globe instead of the oversized 2D version, just a nitpick but it can sometimes seem like Russia is a lot bigger than it actually is, and it’s not like they’re invading Siberia, the European part of Russia is a lot more strategically important than the larger eastern parts of their country
when are we going to provide sufficient military aid and a decent strategy plan for ukraine's victory rather than mere survival? why are we so sleepy on so many things? regulations and cheese can't be our everything.
Because we haven't transformed into the European Imperium, yet. That's what you get when you have democracy stiffling Humanity's progress, useless politicians f'ing over their citizens to make a career and not agreeing on anything due to conflicting interests (a byproduct of democracy on a large scale), anti-war mentality even when talking about self defense, bs immigration laws and much MUCH more. The Emperor, protects!
A little bit for correctness: It was not a counterattack of Ukraine. It was an attack of Ukraine on Kursk. Because Russia never attacked Ukraine from this direction. (it is important from the point of view of military science to take into account attacks, counterattacks, retreats, defenses, etc.). Because a counterattack and an attack are very different both in preparation and in the complexity of the operation. Also, during counterattacks you can encircle many more people, but in modern warfare such situations are rare.
If I am right there have been negotiations in Doha between Russia and Ukraine. As they were just taking place Ukraine invaded Kursk. Bit strange, right?
I found that this is purely a betting war and therefore every move will attract more consequences for both forces, a dumb childish game, this is people's life and not a game character...WAKE UP!
It remains to be seen if it is a success or not. So far it is certainly in Ukraine favor. But they also pulled their best troop from Ukraine into Russia, whike Russia didn't do the same thing. So give it another month or two.
3:36 If the Ukrainian army knows how to surprise, I believe they also know how to cause fear, and they possess ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.
Comparing the territory taken to the entire territory of Russia is kind of pointless. We know that to the actual politicians in Russia everything vest of the Ural mountain range is far more important than anything else. Putin and his friends would not want to move their capitol after all. So if they can take ground towards Moscow and their goal simply is a trade territory at some point Putin will relent. They will spin it domestically as a bad trade for Ukraine, but they will take it nonetheless. One thing I kind of wonder about is if the ground defense in Kursk was such a big joke how are their air defenses. Ukraine's F-16 fleet is soon coming into this fight. If they can hold the skies over Russian territories uncontested because all their air defenses are defending Moscow or the occupied territories that is a big game changer. Not to mention troop transports are a nice target for F-16 fighters. Drawing men from the east to make them easier targets.
As all invasions in this war, most gains are made in the first moments before soldiers come stabilise the front. This is nothing new that Ukraine captured some territory. No movement past the first week is not a success, it's expected.
Kursk is prime agricultural land, very rich in all kinds of grain, that now will not be harvested. And there are a lot of evacuated people that might not be keen to move back to live there in a very unsafe region that are going to start looking for housing in russia proper. russias economy will take an extra hit and a lot of disgruntled people are going to show up on the doorstep of their relatives for a place to crash, telling stories of total failure in the military and civilian stuctures. Try to sweep that under the rug now your internal security forces are being sent to the border to keep Ukraina out.
One important aspect of the incursion that wasn't mentioned is that even though the locals staying in the region (mostly older ones) are quite certainly not pleased by the bullets flying, they are trying to show to them that they are different than portrayed by the Russian propaganda. This caters to different fronts: - domestic and global audiences to show that they are better than Russia or Israel so they do deserve further support - Russians that they aren't what propaganda is trying to show and that they won't repeat the WW2 Germany mistake of treating them badly if they go against their big bad masters So all in all this wild card has much more potential than just preventing Russians from taking 2 instead of 1 meter per day (yes, Ukrainians would be loosing land in the south east no matter what so it was either make a new pitch or slowly crumble away... from that angle it doesn't really look like an "is it a good or bad decision?" and more like "was there realistically any better choice to begin with even if this choice turns out to not be the solution it's been hoped to be?")
Some guestimates indicate that a quarter million of russians could have been evecuated/displaced. Many of those will show up on the doorstep of relatives deeper inland for a place to crash or start looking for places to rent or buy away from the front. And they are all telling tales of the total collapse of the military and civilian structures in kursk and belgorod. It's a panic for civilians and the internal security forces that are there to stop them from telling there storries might also be draining away to go plug holes in the defences along the 1000+ km of border with Ukraina. Kursk is also prime agricultural land, it's mostly wheat/grains farming, they might lose the whole harvest which will cause another hole that will be hard to plug when prices go up.
People in Kursk oblast are getting terrorised and robbed by soldiers, broken windows in houses etc. And then those soldiers tell them it is time to evacuate, since Ukrainians probably will get there in few days.
The problem is that you think of Russians and their reactions as the same as how you'd react. Has history not thought you anything? Russians just don't act and react as westerners do. So whatever you heard in this video and whatever they imply. Don't be so sure of it.
I would rather assume that the shift in narrative now goes more against the Ukraine, delivering evidence that they are an aggressor in the war. Using the supplied weaponry not to defend their land, but to invade another goes against some of the preambles under which support was granted in the first place. Those are my thoughts about how the media and politics might react, not what I expect or wish for
It doesn't work that way, the moment Russia invaded Ukraine, then Ukraine had every right to invade Russia, the fact is, Ukraine and Russia are at war with each other, saying Russia can invade Ukraine but Ukraine can't invade Russia is a ridicule's argument to make. At the end of the day, the aggressor is the ones that start the war, how the war goes from there is anyone's guess, but if Ukraine could only defend it's self whiles Russia could invade, that's quite an advantage for Russia as they can target Ukraine from Russian soil and Ukraine can't do anything about it, because of this, Ukraine should be targeting Russian sites much sooner, but the west put limits on that until recently. In any case, the aggressor that starts the war, can't complain how the defenders will respond to the war, Ukraine has every right to fight this war however they see fit, Russia started the war, Ukraine is responding to it, attacking sites in Russia is very effective in defending Ukraine.
@@paul1979uk2000 Of course it doesn't work that way, but only from a neutral standpoint. And politicians are not neutral about this. Anyone that is against sending weapons now has a big new argument on their side, like "look, we sent them weapons and now they start invading other countries with them" I just don't see how this could change the narrative in favour of the Ukraine. It seems like the opposite is actually the case
I believe that this video's analysis is taking the conflict completely out of context. First, we have to ask the question: What problems exist in each country right now? For Russia, the economy is really struggling as Russia pays lots and lots of money for people to go to Ukraine and fight. For Ukraine, the key issue is manpower. Despite heavy mobilization for 3 years, Ukraine is struggling to rotate its troops in key areas, such as Pokrovsk and Toretsk directions. Ukraine has recently lost the battle of Krasnohorivka for this very reason. Let's analyze it from this perspective using your points. 1) Creating a buffer zone: This is by all means pointless. A buffer zone is good in the sense that the fight is not happening on Ukraine's territory, but taking the war altogether it is a losing position for Ukraine. Tens of thousands are attacking in open fields (there are basically no urban areas, Sudzha only has 5k people) rather than defending in Donbas, so this only worsens the main Ukrainian problem of manpower. So yes, the buffer zone is created, but Ukraine does not benefit from lengthening the front. When it does reach natural barriers, such as rivers, it will have to put lots of troops on the new frontline, which will be FABd and FPVd forever, only worsening the manpower problem. 2) Diverting troops is a legitimate and clever goal, but it has seemingly not materialized. Russian offensive in Donbas is accelerating. 3) Shifting the narrative is definitely something that happened, but I believe that it makes no sense to say that it is either good or bad. The West is pro-Ukraine regardless and the aid has always been increasing, both when Ukraine was winning and when Ukraine was losing. Point is, even though the narrative has changed, it does not bring any tangible differences to the actual war effort and may not be worth thousands of casualties. 4) Leverage for peace negotiations is a silly reason. According to Qatar officials, Ukraine and Russia had agreed to carry out deescalation negotiations in Qatar on I believe August 22 (please double check). Ukraine's offensive brought these to a stop. If you say that this will ultimately create leverage, I would disagree because as discussed in 1) this offensive puts Ukraine in a more losing position. 5) Exposing Russia's red lines remains unclear. There is a great William Spaniel video about this. Lastly, humiliating Putin is certainly not a legitimate reason, as he is already humiliated in the eyes of the majority of Westerners (who actually matter). Kyiv in 3 days etc. It may be funny, but it is foolish to say that it is worth the lives of thousands of soldiers.
I could broadly agree with your points but one can just recognize it's a high risk-high reward gamble for Kiev, and that is working to plan so far. As for your point 4), I think I does add some leverage, considering the argument for Russia to make claims about Zaporozhye and Kherson territories is "the recognition of current realities on the field". As it stands now, this argument is hard countered by the Ukrainians holding land in Kursk. Thus, and acceptable "lines of map" now would look more like "get LPR and DPR" and let's end this war now, which is essentially the de facto ante bellum status quo in Ukraine... Just my two cents though...
@@insignis1012 I just disagree with the notion that there is a high reward here. In my personal opinion, the real goal of the operation, given its size, was the seizure of the Kursk Nuclear Powerplant. In this case, it would certainly add A LOT of leverage to Ukraine. However, since the presumed goal has not been reached and now will not be reached, I do not see any real positives to the operation. Basically, my point is that the operation is a net negative. But thank you so much for chipping in! I do agree that this kind of caps potential Russian gains, as if they can't retake the territory on their own, they will have to trade something for it.
@@Mesopotamia-v6d euroasian topography, european culture and mentality. if denmark has greennland it doesn't mean denmark is north american. when france, britain, portugal, spain, netherlands and germany had colonies all over the world, that didn't stop them from being european.
Join us to discuss this topic further in our upcoming livestream, tomorrow (Wednesday 21st August) at 20:00 CEST! Our guest, Patrick Bolder, is a retired Lieutenant-Colonel of the Dutch airforce and a strategic advisor at the Hague Center for Strategic Studies (HCSS). ua-cam.com/video/MB4jI-Tt7aE/v-deo.html
About Russia's reaction: The fact they still haven't retaken control of southern Kursk oblast and are actually still losing territory, two weeks into the attack, is already a humiliation in itself. They have failed to defend their own territory.
They failed us long time ago. From 1996 to be fair.
@@Крэйден_хthe russian gouvernment has been a failure since 1916
I understand why Ukraine did it, and I agree that Russia was taken by surprise. That is a huge win for Ukraine, but because of this succes all the media are way too optimistic about it and some are even calling it the begining of the end for Putin. I'm afraid we will see why, although very understandable, it isn't such a good idea after all. And while Russia certainly isn't the powerhouse it claims to be it's still way stronger than what all the euphoric news coverage about the Kursk invasion makes people believe right now.
Typical Russia, but they'll get their territory back, they always do
@@Deeekingmaker No they don't. What's a stereotipe
It's not a bluff (it's a bluff)
"this is not a bluff" is exactly what a person doing a bluff would say
It's also what a person NOT doing a bluff would say
@@allo-other No, it's not. Someone who isn't bluffing wouldn't even say anything at all. They would just do.
@@BigBoy-ql5rn Dodgy argument. Mostly, honest individuals do not bluff. But, if asked, they would (correctly) deny it. It is the problem faced by individuals falsely accused of a crime. The difficulty for observers comprises deciding who's who -- hence "innocent until proven guilty".
i hope they manage to keep the territories they've taken, but even if they don't, it's still a big win. who would have thought that Ukraine could ever invade Russia back in 2022 ?
It's another PR stunt which will lose them the war faster. Idk how you people are so gullible to believe everything they say...
At the very least, it's really exposing how weak the Russian military really is, no big power would allow this to happen and certainly not for this long, and with every passing day of Ukraine on Russian soil, the more insulting it is to Putin, that they've not been able to respond yet, shows how weak Russia have got.
@@paul1979uk2000 Are you advocating for Russia to nuke Kyiv?
I can't believe the sheer size of cope in this statement of yours.
If Kursk offensive fails, and it's already failing, Ukraine will lose negotiation power, troops morale, and most importantly, resources, which they could have used to prevent the Russian breakthrough in Pokrovsk or Kurakhove directions.
"Ukraine will keep the territories, and even if they don't they still win", what kind of logic is that?
Slava Ukraini from the European union!
The "Ukraine and its western masters" jab makes me angy. Like Russia not being fueled by foreign aid from a different group of countries.
That message is for the Russian people, Putin wants them to think they are at war with the entire west to get more support from the Russian people.
In reality, Putin is at war with the Russian people and the west, the Russian people are partly victims in all this too by a system that is abusive, but the Russian people are also partly to blame for not standing up to Putin, either way, Putin can't afford to escalate this war with the west, but desperation is kicking in, what the west and Ukraine is doing is highly humiliating for Putin, it's also exposing how weak the Russian military is.
They are paying for it, Ukraine just launder the money for the big guy and gets weapons out of it
Great vid! Very very interesting!
Glad you enjoyed it!
About some pro-Russia voices in the EU or other places: They were heavily promoting peace talks before with Putin doing the same. Probably in the hope that the war freezes again. Now they are suddenly not in favor of peace talks and freezing the conflict. This action prevented this rhetoric completely as well.
The evacuation of people from those territories has also failed, and Russians are getting annoyed from it. I'm sure, that it is only a beginning
As a resident of Russia, I will say: the problems of Kursk are the problems of the residents of Kursk, with the rest of the Russians who do not have relatives and friends in Kursk, everything is fine. Now Russians (or rather, parents) are more concerned about sending conscripts to fight in Kursk. I'm sorry if there are any mistakes, I don't speak English very well.
@@wladimirteroin7164 If thats true then you're all just retarded because for your country to be invaded and to think "Yhea, its not where I live so who cares?" is some kind of selfish and stupid thinking, not to mention heavy coping
The "beginning" you were talking about is already ending, judging from the geolocations.
No go and cope at the Telegraph's commentary section
Now it's Russia's turn to "accept the new territorial realities"
Good video
Loved this video! I’ve honestly been rly lost in the Ukraine Conflict due to the overwhelming amount of daily news about it so this has been rly helpful!
When showing Russia’s size you probably should have used an accurate globe instead of the oversized 2D version, just a nitpick but it can sometimes seem like Russia is a lot bigger than it actually is, and it’s not like they’re invading Siberia, the European part of Russia is a lot more strategically important than the larger eastern parts of their country
Good point
Thank you!
Interesting view! Well done on the overview of it.
Nice one
God I love the clarity of your content
Comment to allow more people to see this.
Lets hope Ukraine manages to get more land
when are we going to provide sufficient military aid and a decent strategy plan for ukraine's victory rather than mere survival? why are we so sleepy on so many things? regulations and cheese can't be our everything.
The older our populations become the less vigorous they get. Older people are prone to strive for status quo.
It is one thing to help Ukraine defend itself, it is another to help Ukraine invade.
@@Hardcore_Remixer_Alt_Acc
It can't defend itself if it can't strike back.
Because we haven't transformed into the European Imperium, yet. That's what you get when you have democracy stiffling Humanity's progress, useless politicians f'ing over their citizens to make a career and not agreeing on anything due to conflicting interests (a byproduct of democracy on a large scale), anti-war mentality even when talking about self defense, bs immigration laws and much MUCH more.
The Emperor, protects!
@@egodaimon992 Nah, that's not really it.
Great breakdown video!
A little bit for correctness: It was not a counterattack of Ukraine. It was an attack of Ukraine on Kursk. Because Russia never attacked Ukraine from this direction. (it is important from the point of view of military science to take into account attacks, counterattacks, retreats, defenses, etc.). Because a counterattack and an attack are very different both in preparation and in the complexity of the operation. Also, during counterattacks you can encircle many more people, but in modern warfare such situations are rare.
If I am right there have been negotiations in Doha between Russia and Ukraine. As they were just taking place Ukraine invaded Kursk. Bit strange, right?
DW never fails to deliver. Good analysis.
How could they move from kaliningrad to Kursk wil they go by boat and then by train? because they are prohibited form the Eu Airspace
I found that this is purely a betting war and therefore every move will attract more consequences for both forces, a dumb childish game, this is people's life and not a game character...WAKE UP!
It remains to be seen if it is a success or not. So far it is certainly in Ukraine favor. But they also pulled their best troop from Ukraine into Russia, whike Russia didn't do the same thing. So give it another month or two.
To sum up, the EU is in financially so I expect inflation.
3:36 If the Ukrainian army knows how to surprise, I believe they also know how to cause fear, and they possess ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.
Comparing the territory taken to the entire territory of Russia is kind of pointless. We know that to the actual politicians in Russia everything vest of the Ural mountain range is far more important than anything else. Putin and his friends would not want to move their capitol after all. So if they can take ground towards Moscow and their goal simply is a trade territory at some point Putin will relent. They will spin it domestically as a bad trade for Ukraine, but they will take it nonetheless. One thing I kind of wonder about is if the ground defense in Kursk was such a big joke how are their air defenses. Ukraine's F-16 fleet is soon coming into this fight. If they can hold the skies over Russian territories uncontested because all their air defenses are defending Moscow or the occupied territories that is a big game changer. Not to mention troop transports are a nice target for F-16 fighters. Drawing men from the east to make them easier targets.
Это не блеф... it's a bluff
As all invasions in this war, most gains are made in the first moments before soldiers come stabilise the front. This is nothing new that Ukraine captured some territory. No movement past the first week is not a success, it's expected.
Not First! 😅
Close ;)
I have faith that history will not be kind to these fools
Kursk is prime agricultural land, very rich in all kinds of grain, that now will not be harvested. And there are a lot of evacuated people that might not be keen to move back to live there in a very unsafe region that are going to start looking for housing in russia proper. russias economy will take an extra hit and a lot of disgruntled people are going to show up on the doorstep of their relatives for a place to crash, telling stories of total failure in the military and civilian stuctures. Try to sweep that under the rug now your internal security forces are being sent to the border to keep Ukraina out.
One important aspect of the incursion that wasn't mentioned is that even though the locals staying in the region (mostly older ones) are quite certainly not pleased by the bullets flying, they are trying to show to them that they are different than portrayed by the Russian propaganda.
This caters to different fronts:
- domestic and global audiences to show that they are better than Russia or Israel so they do deserve further support
- Russians that they aren't what propaganda is trying to show and that they won't repeat the WW2 Germany mistake of treating them badly if they go against their big bad masters
So all in all this wild card has much more potential than just preventing Russians from taking 2 instead of 1 meter per day (yes, Ukrainians would be loosing land in the south east no matter what so it was either make a new pitch or slowly crumble away... from that angle it doesn't really look like an "is it a good or bad decision?" and more like "was there realistically any better choice to begin with even if this choice turns out to not be the solution it's been hoped to be?")
Some guestimates indicate that a quarter million of russians could have been evecuated/displaced. Many of those will show up on the doorstep of relatives deeper inland for a place to crash or start looking for places to rent or buy away from the front. And they are all telling tales of the total collapse of the military and civilian structures in kursk and belgorod. It's a panic for civilians and the internal security forces that are there to stop them from telling there storries might also be draining away to go plug holes in the defences along the 1000+ km of border with Ukraina. Kursk is also prime agricultural land, it's mostly wheat/grains farming, they might lose the whole harvest which will cause another hole that will be hard to plug when prices go up.
Yes, russia is huge, but little is of strategic value, at least in this war.
Great news and all but this is now old news and this story is being flogged to death like the latest pop song on fm radio.
I think no,
People in Kursk oblast are getting terrorised and robbed by soldiers, broken windows in houses etc. And then those soldiers tell them it is time to evacuate, since Ukrainians probably will get there in few days.
Ok so russians soldiers are very friendly ?
Have the west think that wat is a nuclear was drop
no
The problem is that you think of Russians and their reactions as the same as how you'd react. Has history not thought you anything? Russians just don't act and react as westerners do. So whatever you heard in this video and whatever they imply. Don't be so sure of it.
I would rather assume that the shift in narrative now goes more against the Ukraine, delivering evidence that they are an aggressor in the war. Using the supplied weaponry not to defend their land, but to invade another goes against some of the preambles under which support was granted in the first place.
Those are my thoughts about how the media and politics might react, not what I expect or wish for
It doesn't work that way, the moment Russia invaded Ukraine, then Ukraine had every right to invade Russia, the fact is, Ukraine and Russia are at war with each other, saying Russia can invade Ukraine but Ukraine can't invade Russia is a ridicule's argument to make.
At the end of the day, the aggressor is the ones that start the war, how the war goes from there is anyone's guess, but if Ukraine could only defend it's self whiles Russia could invade, that's quite an advantage for Russia as they can target Ukraine from Russian soil and Ukraine can't do anything about it, because of this, Ukraine should be targeting Russian sites much sooner, but the west put limits on that until recently.
In any case, the aggressor that starts the war, can't complain how the defenders will respond to the war, Ukraine has every right to fight this war however they see fit, Russia started the war, Ukraine is responding to it, attacking sites in Russia is very effective in defending Ukraine.
@@paul1979uk2000 Of course it doesn't work that way, but only from a neutral standpoint. And politicians are not neutral about this. Anyone that is against sending weapons now has a big new argument on their side, like "look, we sent them weapons and now they start invading other countries with them"
I just don't see how this could change the narrative in favour of the Ukraine. It seems like the opposite is actually the case
🚨🆘🚨⚠️⚠️⚠️💔💔💔😭😭😭😭🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Ukraine who cares.
I believe that this video's analysis is taking the conflict completely out of context. First, we have to ask the question: What problems exist in each country right now? For Russia, the economy is really struggling as Russia pays lots and lots of money for people to go to Ukraine and fight. For Ukraine, the key issue is manpower. Despite heavy mobilization for 3 years, Ukraine is struggling to rotate its troops in key areas, such as Pokrovsk and Toretsk directions. Ukraine has recently lost the battle of Krasnohorivka for this very reason.
Let's analyze it from this perspective using your points.
1) Creating a buffer zone: This is by all means pointless. A buffer zone is good in the sense that the fight is not happening on Ukraine's territory, but taking the war altogether it is a losing position for Ukraine. Tens of thousands are attacking in open fields (there are basically no urban areas, Sudzha only has 5k people) rather than defending in Donbas, so this only worsens the main Ukrainian problem of manpower. So yes, the buffer zone is created, but Ukraine does not benefit from lengthening the front. When it does reach natural barriers, such as rivers, it will have to put lots of troops on the new frontline, which will be FABd and FPVd forever, only worsening the manpower problem.
2) Diverting troops is a legitimate and clever goal, but it has seemingly not materialized. Russian offensive in Donbas is accelerating.
3) Shifting the narrative is definitely something that happened, but I believe that it makes no sense to say that it is either good or bad. The West is pro-Ukraine regardless and the aid has always been increasing, both when Ukraine was winning and when Ukraine was losing. Point is, even though the narrative has changed, it does not bring any tangible differences to the actual war effort and may not be worth thousands of casualties.
4) Leverage for peace negotiations is a silly reason. According to Qatar officials, Ukraine and Russia had agreed to carry out deescalation negotiations in Qatar on I believe August 22 (please double check). Ukraine's offensive brought these to a stop. If you say that this will ultimately create leverage, I would disagree because as discussed in 1) this offensive puts Ukraine in a more losing position.
5) Exposing Russia's red lines remains unclear. There is a great William Spaniel video about this.
Lastly, humiliating Putin is certainly not a legitimate reason, as he is already humiliated in the eyes of the majority of Westerners (who actually matter). Kyiv in 3 days etc. It may be funny, but it is foolish to say that it is worth the lives of thousands of soldiers.
I could broadly agree with your points but one can just recognize it's a high risk-high reward gamble for Kiev, and that is working to plan so far. As for your point 4), I think I does add some leverage, considering the argument for Russia to make claims about Zaporozhye and Kherson territories is "the recognition of current realities on the field". As it stands now, this argument is hard countered by the Ukrainians holding land in Kursk. Thus, and acceptable "lines of map" now would look more like "get LPR and DPR" and let's end this war now, which is essentially the de facto ante bellum status quo in Ukraine...
Just my two cents though...
@@insignis1012 I just disagree with the notion that there is a high reward here. In my personal opinion, the real goal of the operation, given its size, was the seizure of the Kursk Nuclear Powerplant. In this case, it would certainly add A LOT of leverage to Ukraine. However, since the presumed goal has not been reached and now will not be reached, I do not see any real positives to the operation. Basically, my point is that the operation is a net negative.
But thank you so much for chipping in! I do agree that this kind of caps potential Russian gains, as if they can't retake the territory on their own, they will have to trade something for it.
First. ;)
Yes you are!
Last comment, close it up lads!
Donbass 😂😂
Mega fail now Russia will annex Ukraine
There is no east European countries! They all are west Russian countries!
ussr and russia are two different things and russia itself is an eastern european country.
Russia is more like Eurasian country@@Qnexus7
@@Mesopotamia-v6d euroasian topography, european culture and mentality.
if denmark has greennland it doesn't mean denmark is north american.
when france, britain, portugal, spain, netherlands and germany had colonies all over the world, that didn't stop them from being european.
maybe if russia can win a war against a country that's only a fraction of it's size first