Ukraine’s Gamble in Kursk Isn’t Paying Off
Washington should urge Kiev to withdraw its forces from Russia.
Last week, Moscow launched a major counteroffensive to reclaim Ukrainian-held positions in Russia’s Kursk oblast, which Kiev invaded in August. Russian forces cut off key supply lines and forced Ukrainian troops into a defensive posture. Strategists in Kiev had hoped that the Kursk invasion would force Russia to divert significant forces away from the eastern front and provide Ukraine with a bargaining chip in future negotiations. However, since the initial incursion, Russia has retaken as much as 64 percent of occupied territory in Kursk, even while maintaining an upper hand on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine has deployed around 30,000 Ukrainian troops in Kursk—troops that are now vulnerable and badly outnumbered. As Kiev faces manpower shortages and worsening demographic challenges, it cannot afford to lose any more troops who aren’t actively advancing key strategic objectives. Retreating from the region would increase the odds of saving these troops’ lives and free up significant military assets, allowing Ukraine to reinforce key defensive positions in areas like Zaporizhzhia.
The United States should encourage Kiev to withdraw its remaining forces from Kursk and use them not only to bolster its frontlines in eastern Ukraine but also, eventually, to support a post-war strategy of “armed neutrality.” Under this strategy, Western nations would help rebuild the Ukrainian military so that it could guarantee its own security going forward. But Ukraine would need as many soldiers as it can muster to make the strategy work.
Kiev claims that Moscow diverted around 50,000 troops to reinforce Kursk, yet Ukrainian forces have not seen a reduction in pressure on the eastern front. This isn’t surprising. To meet the Ukrainian assault in Kursk, Russia has turned to its reserve forces. Meanwhile, thousands of North Korean troops joined Russian defensive efforts. As Ukraine failed to hold captured territory in Kurk, Russia’s territorial gains in eastern Ukraine have been slow but steady as its forces have scored several victories in the Donbas.
The Kursk invasion may have seemed like a rational gamble at one point, but no longer. Last month, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov categorically rejected any prospect of trading territory. If Ukraine can’t use Kursk as a bargaining chip in negotiations, then continuing to lose soldiers there makes little strategic sense—especially since the end of the Russo-Ukrainian war won’t mean the end of Kiev’s need for a large, well-equipped military.
Despite President Volodymyr Zelensky’s insistence that NATO membership is the best option to secure Ukraine’s future, the Trump administration has rejected this path, arguing that Kiev’s NATO aspirations helped instigate the war in the first place. Russia also opposes any post-war security arrangement that involves NATO troops on Ukrainian territory. Given these constraints, Kiev must focus on a self-reliant defense. To that end, it should prioritize securing its core territory now, rather than holding onto exposed positions in Russia, and it should prepare for the strongest possible defense after the war.
Ukraine should have no illusions that the West will guarantee its security as part of a settlement. French and British officials have discussed deploying tens of thousands of troops to Ukraine, yet Moscow sees little to no difference between a peacekeeping deployment of Western troops to Ukraine and full Ukrainian NATO membership. Even if Russia consented, as part of a peace deal, to NATO members stationing troops on Ukrainian territory, the deterrence value of those troops would be questionable. Since the invasion began, Western governments have demonstrated their unwillingness to fight Russia over Ukraine.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
Rather than directly contributing troops, the U.S. and Europe could reinforce Ukraine’s porcupine defense strategy by supplying short-range artillery and constructing barriers with dragon’s teeth and trenches. Western support for Ukraine’s burgeoning domestic drone manufacturing base would also further enable Ukraine to defend itself, compensate for its manpower shortages, and enhance monitoring along the eastern front.
Several historical examples of armed neutrality can serve as models for Ukraine in its future pursuit to form a formidable, independent military force. Among them is Finland, which was expected to fall within days after the Soviet Union invaded in 1939. While losing about 11 percent of its territory, Helsinki scored a moral victory by successfully preserving Finnish sovereignty despite being outnumbered three to one. Ukraine can follow a similar path, as it has valiantly maintained the defense of 80 percent of its territory.
Although the Kursk incursion initially seemed like an opportunity for Kiev to enhance its leverage, the operation has proved unsustainable and ineffective. Ukraine must now consolidate its depleted resources to build an effective defense against future Russian aggression. It should withdraw the troops in Kursk and use them to defend Ukrainian territory from the Russian invaders. Ultimately, Ukraine will need as many troops as possible to avert future aggression from its much larger and more powerful neighbor.
