Ukraine shows it can lead to a shock, complex invasion of Russia

Ukraine’s ambitious cross-border offensive began on Tuesday, with troops advancing up to six miles into the Kursk region, an area bordering Sumi and north of Belgorod and Kharkiv. The mechanized offensive appeared to advance rapidly in the days that followed, according to geolocated images and Russian claims gathered by the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington DC think tank. However, it remains unconfirmed how much territory Ukraine actually controls in the region.

Ukraine’s intentions in this assault are also unclear, although some have speculated about the potential for it to gain leverage in negotiations with Russia, humiliate Putin, distract the Kremlin, boost Ukrainian morale, and/or draw attention and Russian forces from other battles along the front.

Regardless of Ukraine’s intent in this assault, the sudden push into Russia appears to have caught Moscow by surprise. The Kremlin has tried to downplay the recent developments amid growing concern and criticism from Russian ultranationalist voices and Kursk residents who are calling on Russian President Vladimir Putin for assistance. They say the information they are getting about the situation on the ground has been inaccurate.

As the offensive continues to unfold and additional details become available, one thing is beginning to ring clear: Ukraine was able to mount a safe, coordinated, and operationally well-prepared offensive despite the often transparent nature of the battlespace, as a result of extensive reconnaissance and surveillance.

“The attack demonstrates that despite ongoing talk of a so-called transparent battlefield, where every movement of every vehicle and soldier can be tracked, achieving surprise at the tactical level is still possible at this stage of the war,” said Franz-Stefan Gady. a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies told Business Insider.

Gady said that part of the success of Ukraine’s combined arms operation – which in this case involved the integration of air and missile defenses with mechanized units and electronic warfare – was that it appeared to have “significantly disrupted the electromagnetic spectrum of Russian communication systems. “

The effectiveness of this effort somewhat prevented Russian forces and the Kursk authorities from communicating and helped Ukraine maintain an element of surprise.

It is not entirely clear whether Ukraine has informed its key allies, including the US, about this mission.

Conflict analysts, military officials and other expert observers of the war have debated the idea that the conflict in Ukraine is a “transparent battlefield,” or at least a demonstration that modern warfare is increasingly transparent because of the challenge posed by the presence prolific of information. surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities that make hiding from the enemy difficult.

In the war in Ukraine, drones of all kinds and the ability to use unmanned vehicles to gather intelligence, scout positions, or launch attacks beyond enemy lines provide heightened situational awareness. And these are often paired with other, more traditional ISR capabilities.

Beyond sensors, some of which have thermal and night vision options, advances in electronic warfare have also made it more difficult, leaving forces and systems exposed in the electromagnetic spectrum. But battlefield tracking capabilities aren’t necessarily comprehensive, and things do slip.

On Thursday, as it became increasingly clear that Ukraine had kept the details of its operations secret, some experts weighed in. “Maybe we can finally let go of the ‘transparent battlefield’ fallacy,” Mick Ryan, a retired Australian major general and strategist who focuses on developments in warfare, posted on X.

Ryan praised the Ukrainians, adding that “the level of strategic, operational and tactical deception displayed by the Ukrainians during the planning, assembly of forces and continued execution of Operation Kursk was superb.”

The impact of the shock of the Ukrainian invasion, especially on the Russian leadership and the Kremlin, is also notable. It leaves Putin in a delicate situation, particularly one where he must simultaneously demonstrate that Russia can secure its borders and maintain its costly war effort to quell any potential concerns or unrest on the part of Russian citizens.

Also, Gady noted, the Russian leadership was somewhat embarrassed because the attack “was either not detected or not adequately responded to,” which he said is “often the case in Russian military culture.”

Ukraine’s problem now is whether it can achieve whatever its goals are, both inside and outside of Russia. If the Kursk operation is meant to distract, attract attention, or provide leverage, Ukraine will need ammunition, manpower, vehicles, and other resources to sustain the momentum and keep it effective. That’s a tall order.

And Russia is already trying to break Ukraine’s momentum, claiming on Thursday that it had halted an incursion, although some fighting in the area is still ongoing. Moscow also said it was shelling Ukrainian positions in the Sumy region on the Kursk border with more than 6,000 pounds of glide bombs.

Another goal, however, might simply be to dominate information warfare. “By dominating the information landscape, Ukraine is signaling to Western partners that it is capable of planning and conducting complex military operations in secret,” Gady said.

He added that it “also proves to Russia that Ukraine can bring the war to its territory, underscoring their current momentum.”