Morale Boost or Military Gamble? Ukraine Pushes Into Kursk
While Ukrainian forces advance into Russian territory, experts debate the operation's limited military impact and its broader political implications
Ukraine has reportedly initiated a new offensive in Russia’s Kursk region, according to an announcement by Moscow on Sunday.
Initial reports of the attack emerged from Russian pro-military bloggers, who described Russian forces as being under “intense pressure.” Later, Russia’s Ministry of Defense released a statement asserting that its troops were actively repelling the offensive.
The ministry stated that the assault began early Sunday near the village of Berdin, involving two Ukrainian tanks, an engineering vehicle, and 12 armored personnel carriers transporting infantry.
Much like the cross-border raid carried out by Ukrainian forces five months ago, Kyiv has remained largely silent about the current operation, consistent with its standard practice of maintaining operational secrecy.
Military observer Yan Matveyev advises caution in interpreting Ukraine’s offensive in Russia’s Kursk region. “It’s too early to define strategic goals or to talk about success or failure. We simply don’t have enough information. I would describe the very first attack as fairly successful—after all, Ukrainian columns managed to overcome minefields and advance a significant distance. But a more or less objective assessment of the offensive can only be made after at least a few days,” he told The Media Line.
It’s too early to define strategic goals or to talk about success or failure. We simply don’t have enough information.
At this stage, Matveyev argues that the offensive has limited military significance and is primarily a boost to the morale of Ukrainian forces. “So far, the significance of this offensive is small and mainly concerns the morale of the Ukrainian armed forces. The attack we saw on January 5 won’t have a significant impact on the dynamics of the war. It’s a different matter if the offensive continues and Ukraine deploys larger forces—if they even have them. In that case, yes, the Russian command would have to adjust. First, the dynamics on the Kursk front would change, and then possibly in other areas. But it’s too early to talk about that.”
Assessing Russia’s response, Matveyev highlights recurring operational shortcomings. “When it comes to current events, the primary mistakes are a lack of control and poor flexibility, although since August, the Russian Kursk group has made significant improvements in these areas. However, issues with communication and the quality of command remain critical challenges for the Russian army. These shortcomings lead to one major issue—Russian forces are slow to respond to unexpected actions by the Ukrainian armed forces. We saw the same pattern in Berdin.”
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Matveyev observes that military activity in the Kursk region is garnering significantly more public attention in Russia than the battles in Ukraine’s eastern regions. “Military actions in the Kursk region concern and interest Russian citizens far more. This is evident from the number of views on videos and posts, as well as survey data. Simply put, the battle for the village of Berdin may draw considerably more interest from Russian residents than the battle for Pokrovsk.”
Political analyst and media expert Alexey Kovzhun downplays the notion that Ukraine’s offensive in Russia’s Kursk region represents a turning point in the war. “No, I don’t get the sense that this is a pivotal moment. The Kursk region has already become a constant in our mental space. We’ve grown used to the idea that we are there, and even the jokes about it have ended. We’re there, we’re not being driven out, and thank God for that,” he told The Media Line.
Kovzhun considers the operation’s significance to be more political than military. “From my perspective, the operation is aimed at demonstrating to our allies that the myth of Russia’s invincibility is just that—a myth propagated by Russia itself. Historically, Russia has lost almost every war it initiated. Even in World War II, victory was achieved only with the help of allies. If you examine the scale of Lend-Lease, it becomes clear that this was the decisive factor—along with an endless supply of bodies thrown into the fight.”
“Lend-Lease” refers to a program during World War II in which the United States provided military aid, equipment, and supplies to Allied nations, including the Soviet Union, to support their fight against Axis powers.
Kovzhun notes that the operation has further undermined Russia’s ability to instill fear through its so-called “red lines.” “Russia has rewritten its nuclear doctrine three times in a year to leave an indelible impression on the timid West. And for a time, it worked—unfortunately, it worked in 2022, a critical moment when, according to the military, had we received everything promised, we had a chance to end the war that year. But back then, all this nuclear bluffing managed to scare our allies. There was this fear that Putin might launch a nuclear bomb around the corner, and that would be the end of the world. He played that bluff well, pretending to be a madman holding a razor to his throat. But the Kursk operation finally dispelled the myth of the madman with a blade.”
Russia has rewritten its nuclear doctrine three times in a year to leave an indelible impression on the timid West
He also highlights that the ongoing operation could significantly influence future negotiations. “Everyone is waiting with bated breath for January 20, this magical date tied to the idea that [US President-elect Donald] Trump might come and restore order. It’s clear to everyone that freezing the front line is no longer possible because part of it runs through internationally recognized Russian territory. That’s a major bargaining chip for future talks, which everyone is anticipating.”
Furthermore, he emphasizes the operational impact on Russian forces. “The Kursk operation stretched the front line into Russian territory. The forces that would have been trampling our land are now trampling Russian soil. The shells that would have hit our towns and villages are now falling on Russian towns and villages. As far as I know, we still haven’t received everything that was agreed upon, so the operation continues. But it’s clear that without Western support, Ukraine wouldn’t have stood a chance—and still wouldn’t now. Victory would be out of the question. That’s the harsh reality. It also highlights a broader issue: Our allies have become complacent. The key supplier remains the US, which has now entered a period of unpredictability,” he explained.
The forces that would have been trampling our land are now trampling Russian soil
When asked whether Ukraine fears provoking harsher attacks from Russia, Kovzhun dismisses the idea. “No. It’s clear to everyone that Russia is already doing everything it can—bombing cities, hospitals, churches, libraries, children. They’re doing everything possible. The idea that something could provoke them further—what more can they do? Start a war? They’ve already done it all.”
Kovzhun remains optimistic about the morale of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. “It has a positive effect on the fighting spirit of Ukrainian soldiers, military personnel, and civilians. It’s already a given—we are in the Kursk region. There was a time before the Kursk operation when Russian volunteers briefly entered the Bryansk and Belgorod regions. Those were moments of real jubilation because it felt like tugging at the tiger’s whiskers. Since then, the Kursk region has brought a calmer satisfaction—we’re there, and that’s great.”
Discussing Trump’s potential return to power, Kovzhun describes him as “a factor of chaos” but does not express significant concern. “Trump is an unhinged cannon, rolling across the deck—a heavy fool that could crush friends or enemies alike. But that’s an American problem, not ours. For Ukraine, Trump is an unknown quantity, but let’s not forget that during his presidency, we received Javelins. At the time, it was considered a huge deal—Russians even said that if the US delivered Javelins, they’d view it as a declaration of war. Well, the Javelins were delivered, and nothing happened. Trump was also the first to authorize an attack on Russian mercenaries in Syria after the deaths of American soldiers, and Russia quietly accepted it.”
The FGM-148 Javelin, a portable, shoulder-fired anti-tank missile system produced in the United States, is highly effective against armored vehicles and has become a symbol of Western military aid to Ukraine, particularly during its conflict with Russia.
On the geopolitical front, Matveyev addresses Donald Trump’s potential influence on the conflict if he returns to power. “No one can predict Trump’s decisions except Trump himself—and even that is questionable. It’s clear that he wants to end the conflict and will likely attempt to arrange negotiations. Based on his statements and plans, Trump appears to support reducing aid to Ukraine, which is undoubtedly bad news for the Ukrainian armed forces. However, I don’t rule out that a rigid stance from Putin during negotiations—essentially, the Kremlin’s unwillingness to compromise—could produce the opposite outcome. Under Trump, the US might end up increasing its support for Ukraine.”
Matveyev is skeptical about the potential for future Ukrainian offensives in other border regions. “As for prospects for further offensive actions by Ukraine in other border regions—I would say they are practically nonexistent given the current shortages of equipment, supplies, and personnel. There are certainly no forces available for an invasion of new sectors. In my opinion, any such invasion now would likely be a mistake for the Ukrainian armed forces.”
