Assessing the Kursk Campaign

A special assessment of Ukraine’s campaign in Kursk two months after H-Hour

Source: @DefenceU on Twitter / X

Two months ago, Ukraine launched one its most audacious campaigns of the war. While it initially appeared to be a small-scale incursion similar to previous Belgorod operations, it quickly became apparent that this was a significant conventional ground campaign that had experienced combat formations in the vanguard.

For the first couple of weeks at least, Ukrainian ground forces were able advance rapidly along several axes of advance inside Kursk. The Russians, caught off guard in Moscow, were slow to respond to the incursion, repeating a pattern from other events when they have been surprised.

However, by September, the Russian response to the Ukrainian incursion had begun to take shape. Forces from multiple brigades and divisions were deployed from Russia and from inside Ukraine to stem the Ukrainian progress, which throughout September the Russians largely achieved. In the second half of September, the Russians were able to mount a significant counterattack against the western part of the Ukrainian salient and smaller attacks against the Ukrainians in the southeastern part of the salient.

But the Ukrainians have steadfastly held on, despite losing some of the territory they initially captured. It is going to take the Russians some time, and a significant allocation of ground forces, fires and aerial strike capabilities to dislodge the Ukrainians.

As they have in other parts of the theatre, the Russians chose the less experienced Ukrainian brigades in the Kursk salient as the focal point of their counterattack. While the Russians were able to seize some territory in these attacks, their progress was hampered by Ukrainian interdiction of reserves, strikes against crossings over the Seim River, and the opening of another Ukrainian axis of advance to the west of the Ukrainian salient in Kursk.

Assessing battlefield success and failure is often quite simple. Winning and losing are quickly and clearly visible. However, assessing the strategic and political outcomes of battlefield events can often take a little longer. However, sufficient time has passed since the beginning of the August Kursk campaign for an initial assessment of the political and strategic effectiveness of the campaign to be made. It is a campaign that is sure to be assessed for its impact on the trajectory on the war for a long time to come.

Two months after Ukrainian forces crossed their lines of departure and began their breach of the Russian defenses in Kursk, the Ukrainian campaign has settled into a series of smaller battles to push back Russian counter attacks and defend the ground they have seized since early August this year. The campaign is consuming valuable combat formations and resources.

Therefore, at the two month mark of Ukraine’s Kursk campaign, it is time to assess the effectiveness of the operation.  I intend to do this by reviewing the impact of the campaign at the four key levels of war: tactical, operational, strategic, and political. Each has its own nuances and success at one level does not automatically translate into success in another.