Un anno fa, le truppe ucraine hanno invaso la Russia – ne valeva la pena l’offensiva di Kursk?
https://www.nzz.ch/international/ukraine-hat-sich-die-kursk-offensive-gelohnt-bilanz-nach-einem-jahr-ld.1896386
di Any-Original-6113
Un anno fa, le truppe ucraine hanno invaso la Russia – ne valeva la pena l’offensiva di Kursk?
https://www.nzz.ch/international/ukraine-hat-sich-die-kursk-offensive-gelohnt-bilanz-nach-einem-jahr-ld.1896386
di Any-Original-6113
23 commenti
Hello OP, could you please place in the comments a translation of the article for approval? thank you
Putin obviously thought so. The Kursk offensive forced Putin to pull forces out of occupied Ukraine to address the issue, and Russia still lost a huge chunk of layered infrastructure that they probably won’t be able to fix for decades.
Yes, world understood that russia can be defeated on its soil
If anything, it clearly showed the West that we should once and for all stop fearing the “escalation” or the nuclear war. Russia was invaded and nothing happened. We should give Ukraine everything they need to push Russians out of their country. Now.
Ukraine made the same mistake of holding on for too long once Russia finally got its shit together. The offensive was doing pretty well into early December, after that Ukraine got significantly outnumbered and its logistics harassed by drones. Staying for 2 months longer cost them alot of good equipment and soldiers.
Ukrainian leadership has a tendency to go for political goals: holding bakhmut, insisting on a flashy offensive against all warnings, gambling for the Kursk “bargaining ship”. In the end all of these goals were pretty meaningless when the thing that actually matters for Ukraine is hitting Russia as hard as it can whilst preserving its own forces.
Well, not really. They’re in worse shape today than they were a year ago. They lost the most well equipped and motivated troops there. Russia didn’t stop their offensives. They got a huge spirit boost but those don’t last. It did not change Russia’s negotiations position. Many Russian civilians died, which is whatever I guess, but it probably only gave emotional boost to Russians.
Besides the media frenzy that is long gone, and theorizing about how much further Russia would be if it wasn’t for being distracted by Kursk, I can’t name any benefits.
In short, yes.
It wasn’t and anyone who disagrees with it is sleeping in a feel good propaganda hammock
We achieved nothing but push peace further away.
It definitely showed that russian threats are not worth shit, yet the West remains afraid.
No. Could have been worth. But in the end, no.
Short answer is no, long one noooo
It showed how weak Russia really is, not only inside Ukraine but on their OWN territory, so symbolically it was important.
Ukraine now needs more support from Europe. Much more. There are no alternatives.
They should have made a hit-and-run incursion in my opinion, going in and show that they are capable of doing such things. Which leads to the fact that Russia has to use more units for securing the border.
But staying there was a mistake. There was never any chance to get on with the limited resources like manpower, equipment, ammo etc.
I see some people here talk about that it was a symbol, but… that means nothing in the end. When you can’t hold the ground and you waste resources, it’s not a victory. With a short guerilla-style campaign, it would have gained the same symbolism and media attention, without losing all these men and equipment.
I’m all for Ukraine making Russia embarrass itself like never before, but did you see how small the portion taken by Ukrainian is in relation to the Kursk Oblast? Everyone said they invaded Kursk, but the city of Kursk was a hundred kilometers away from the invaded area. Every news title reading “Ukraine invades Kursk” felt like a deliberate mislead because Kursk ≠ Kursk Oblast.
It would have been if North Korea hadn’t entered the war
*Zelensky is obviously related to Seth MacFarlane, because he doesn’t know when to end a joke.*
A waste of lives, equipment, and opportunity for PR victory in exchange for more resources for our actual territory that need defense. I don’t care how much we can laugh about being able to capture 7 border villages if in the meantime Russia is able to decimate\destroy\depopulate 70 of ours.
Right now no, although without it would the Russians have made further gains?
One point I didn’t see anyone else raise yet is how differently local populations reacted to being invaded.
Ukrainians were strongly against being invaded by Russia. Russians couldn’t give a shit about being invaded by Ukraine (it’s Putin’s war, not mine, I won’t bother you if you don’t bother me). If anything, the Russians who were displaced by the fighting looked more upset about Putin failing to help them – weak defenses, weak response, weak support.
We wouldn’t have seen that difference without the invasion of Kursk. Z for Zero resistance.
IMO, it was a big mistake. The 2023 counter offensive was also a big mistake. What the Ukrainians should’ve done more sabotage operations and build defensive lines, while conducting hit-and-run guerilla tactics, similar to how the North Vietnamese did with the US.
They are now low on men, morale and munitions/equipment. Its likely too late to turn the tide now. The best option would be to negotiate a bitter agreement to keep as much territory as possible because the Russian goal stretches to Kharkiv and odessa.
Of course, it is worth it. Every time Ukraine resists and fights back, the news outlets and geopolitical analysts often claim it is futile. When rf takes a village after months of prolonged warfare, they suggest it’s indicative of an impending collapse.
It’s often important to strike back and bite back whenever possible, as this changes the dynamics of the situation you find yourself in. Otherwise, all those 80,000+ soldiers and North Koreans could have been used elsewhere in Ukraine.
No, it was an epic fail considering the losses and zero results.