The Ukrainian offensive in the Kursk region, according to military analysts interviewed by The New York Times , may not be entirely justified from a military strategy point of view. Despite the possible intention to relieve pressure on the main front, the attack risks becoming a useless dispersion of forces.
The publication cites military analysts who say the attack could be an attempt to divert Russian troops from the front lines, thereby easing pressure on Ukrainian forces. However, experts also point out that the Russian army has sufficient reserves of troops to participate in the fighting, and that the attack risks further stretching Ukraine's already outnumbered forces.
“From an operational and strategic point of view, this attack makes absolutely no sense. It looks like a gross waste of people and resources that are so needed elsewhere,” said Pasi Paroinen, an expert at the Finnish think tank Black Bird Group.
Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Studies, wrote on social media that the previous attacks had “little impact on the course of hostilities” in Ukraine and “had no serious domestic political consequences for Putin.”.
He also, like other military experts, emphasized that if the goal of this week's attack was to distract Russian troops from other areas of the front, then it had little chance of success, the NYT notes.
“Russia already has more powerful forces and conventional capabilities in the area, better command and control, and it has conscript units that can be deployed, but which are not being used in Ukraine,” Lee said.
“It is unlikely that this operation will force Russia to withdraw significant forces from Ukraine,” he added.
