\u0395\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf Responsible Statecraft \u03b1\u03c0\u03cc 10 \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Symposium: What does Ukraine’s incursion into Russia really mean?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BLUF<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. We put the following question to a well-rounded group of foreign policy experts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“What is the likely impact of current Ukrainian military incursions into the Russian Kursk region on the broader Ukraine War?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. Ten experts gauge the short and long term effects of Kyiv\u2019s bold invasion on the war :<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jasen J. Castillo, Monica Duffy Toft, Ivan Eland, Mark Episkopos, Lyle Goldstein, John Mearsheimer, Sumantra Maitra, Rajan Menon, Peter Rutland, Stephen Walt<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. Prof. John Mearsheimer : THE KURSK OFFENSIVE IS A FOOLISH IDEA<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4. Prof. Stephen Walt, Yale University :<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Ukrainian incursion into Russia is a sideshow intended to bolster Ukrainian morale and give the West confidence to keep backing Kyiv, but it will not affect the outcome of the war<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Responsible Statecraft<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Aug 15, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beginning Aug. 6, the Ukrainian military launched a surprise, cross-border offensive against Russia in the eastern Kursk region, seemingly flipping the script on the war\u2019s current trajectory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kyiv claims its units have pushed more than 20 miles into Russian territory, taking over 74 settlements and towns encompassing some 400 square miles, as well as over 100 Russian prisoners of war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For its part, Moscow has acknowledged the incursion but as of Wednesday said its military has stabilized the border and is actively fighting to wrest control over those contested areas. Meanwhile, the fog of war has settled in and there is no official confirmation on the number of casualties or actual territorial gains by Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced the incursion as a \u201clarge-scale provocation.\u201d For its part the Ukraine Foreign Ministry is saying this isn\u2019t about holding territory but stopping long-range missile strikes by Russia into Ukraine from the Kursk region by creating a \u201cbuffer zone\u201d there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So many questions remain about the Ukrainian strategy, the Russian response and what long term impact this may have \u2014 or not \u2014 on the overall war, including the potential for future negotiations, the effect on morale on both sides, and whether this emboldens Ukraine\u2019s supporters, including the U.S., to help re-energize what was looking like a foundering war effort on the Ukrainian side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So we put the following question to a well-rounded group of foreign policy experts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“What is the likely impact of current Ukrainian military incursions into the Russian Kursk region on the broader Ukraine War?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jasen J. Castillo, Monica Duffy Toft, Ivan Eland, Mark Episkopos, Lyle Goldstein, John Mearsheimer, Sumantra Maitra, Rajan Menon, Peter Rutland, Stephen Walt<\/p>\n\n\n\n
John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute<\/p>\n\n\n\n
THE KURSK OFFENSIVE IS A FOOLISH IDEA<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Ukraine\u2019s invasion (of Kursk) was a major strategic blunder, which will accelerate its defeat. The key determinant of success in a war of attrition is the casualty-exchange ratio, not capturing territory, which Western commentators obsess over. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“The casualty-exchange ratio in the Kursk offensive decisively favors Russia for two reasons. First, it has caused relatively few Russian casualties because Ukraine\u2019s army effectively overran undefended territory. Second, once alerted to the attack, Moscow quickly brought massive airpower to bear against the advancing Ukrainian troops, who were in the open and easy to strike. Unsurprisingly, the attacking forces lost many soldiers and a huge proportion of their equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“To make matters worse, Kyiv removed top-notch combat units from the front lines in eastern Ukraine \u2014 where they are desperately needed \u2014 and made them part of the Kursk strike force. This move is tilting the already lopsided casualty-exchange ratio on that critically important front further in Russia\u2019s favor. It is no wonder \u2014 given what a foolish idea the Kursk incursion is \u2014 that the Russians were caught by surprise.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Yale University<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Ukrainian incursion into Russia is a sideshow intended to bolster Ukrainian morale and give the West confidence to keep backing Kyiv, but it will not affect the outcome of the war. Ukrainian forces have reportedly seized about 1000 square kilometers of poorly defended Russian territory. Russia\u2019s total land mass is more than 17 million square kilometers, which means that Ukraine now \u201ccontrols\u201d 0.00588% of Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By comparison, Russian forces currently occupy roughly 20 percent of Ukraine and the failed Ukrainian offensive last summer shows how difficult it will be for Ukraine to retake these areas. The incursion may be a minor embarrassment for Putin (as well as additional evidence that Russia is far too weak to invade the rest of Europe), but Ukraine\u2019s fate will be determined by what happens in Ukraine, and not by this operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n