The Kursk operation made a huge difference in the Russia’s diplomatic position.
Without that, they could have done “an act of goodwill” and “agree to” a ceasefire with the front line as a de facto international border, then gather their strength for a year or two and attack Ukraine for good.
This would have enabled Trump to drive home a “peace” in under 100 days, at least if he had gotten Germany and France to join the plan. And there was a high likelihood that they would have done that, “in the name of peace.”
They couldn’t do that when part of the front was inside the territory of the Russian Federation.
I always understood the Kursk operation as the most crucial part of Ukraine’s front because it tied Putin’s hands diplomatically, making it impossible for the Russia to convince the west to stop arming Ukraine claiming that would be “in the name of peace”.
Now Trump has been president long enough that the momentum of “I’ll get them to make peace within 100 days or at least only a bit more” is gone, it’s not so important to have pieces of the Russia under Ukrainian rule.
Although, there’s also a secondary reason why that territory was good to have:
While the Russia did use its inhumane tactics of obliterating people’s homes even in Sudža, the intensity of that tactic was very visibly lesser than in Ukrainian villages. That meant, the Russia had to expend more soldiers in the fight than they would have expended in Ukraine. And then, when they do obliterate parts of a village, it’s a thousand times better that it’s a village in the Russia, not an Ukrainian village. They do that obliteration with all available resources and all resources spent for obliterating homes in the Russia are away from doing the same to Ukrainian homes.
I believe Zalužnyj has political reasons for saying it cost too much.
I wonder why he says that?
The Kursk operation made a huge difference in the Russia’s diplomatic position.
Without that, they could have done “an act of goodwill” and “agree to” a ceasefire with the front line as a de facto international border, then gather their strength for a year or two and attack Ukraine for good.
This would have enabled Trump to drive home a “peace” in under 100 days, at least if he had gotten Germany and France to join the plan. And there was a high likelihood that they would have done that, “in the name of peace.”
They couldn’t do that when part of the front was inside the territory of the Russian Federation.
I always understood the Kursk operation as the most crucial part of Ukraine’s front because it tied Putin’s hands diplomatically, making it impossible for the Russia to convince the west to stop arming Ukraine claiming that would be “in the name of peace”.
Now Trump has been president long enough that the momentum of “I’ll get them to make peace within 100 days or at least only a bit more” is gone, it’s not so important to have pieces of the Russia under Ukrainian rule.
Although, there’s also a secondary reason why that territory was good to have:
While the Russia did use its inhumane tactics of obliterating people’s homes even in Sudža, the intensity of that tactic was very visibly lesser than in Ukrainian villages. That meant, the Russia had to expend more soldiers in the fight than they would have expended in Ukraine. And then, when they do obliterate parts of a village, it’s a thousand times better that it’s a village in the Russia, not an Ukrainian village. They do that obliteration with all available resources and all resources spent for obliterating homes in the Russia are away from doing the same to Ukrainian homes.
I believe Zalužnyj has political reasons for saying it cost too much.