Military experts believe that Ukraine’s incursion into Russian territory has not only demonstrated its capabilities to NATO and the world but has also dispelled doubts some countries had about it. Although the current conflict has not yet reached a critical point, from political and military perspectives, this action holds significant strategic value.
There has been a dramatic shift on the Russia-Ukraine battlefield. On August 6, Ukrainian forces launched a surprising military operation. In the early hours of that day, a Ukrainian unit, supported by a large number of drones and powerful artillery, with tanks and armored vehicles at the forefront, swiftly crossed the northern border and advanced deep into the Russian territory of Kursk Oblast. This marked the first time Ukraine had sent a large regular ground force to operate in Russian territory and the largest foreign invasion of Russian territory since World War II.
Ukrainian President Zelensky stated that Russia had brought war to other countries, and now the war was returning to Russia. Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Ukrainian officials clarified that Ukraine did not intend to occupy Russian territory, and the surprise attack was aimed at convincing Russia to engage in fair negotiation processes.
According to Ukrainian sources, since August 6, they have controlled an area of 1150 square kilometers of Russian land, capturing 82 settlements and the border town of Sujha. This surpasses the progress made by Russian forces within Ukraine this year. Sujha is located along a strategic natural gas pipeline line, about 10 kilometers from the Ukraine-Russia border.
The unexpected Ukrainian incursion caught Russian authorities off guard. Russia had to declare a state of emergency in Kursk Oblast and rapidly evacuate around 200,000 residents. Russian forces then mobilized a large number of active-duty and reserve troops to reinforce Kursk Oblast and engaged in fierce battles with Ukrainian forces for over ten days but failed to drive the Ukrainian military out of Russian territory.
Unlike past brief border conflicts, this Ukrainian offensive is long-lasting and penetrative. Moscow had not noticed any abnormality hours before the Ukrainian forces crossed the border, and Russian President Putin only received official war reports on the second day after the Ukrainian invasion.
The Ukrainian operation has embarrassed Putin and Russian military leadership. Russia’s “special military operation” against Ukraine, initially planned to end in a few days, has now lasted nearly three years and transitioned into a “territorial defense war.”
On August 16, the Russian Foreign Ministry accused Ukrainian forces of using Western-supplied weapons to destroy a bridge over the Seim River in the Glushkovo area of Kursk Oblast. A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson claimed that it was the first time Kursk Oblast had been attacked by Western-made rocket launch systems, with the likely weapon being the HIMARS system provided by the US.
HIMARS stands for the US M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, known for its mobility, long range, and strong firepower. HIMARS has become a key weapon system used by the Ukrainian military in countering the Russian invasion.
One of Putin’s aides alleged that Western countries, led by the US and NATO, were involved in orchestrating the sudden attack by Ukrainian forces on the Kursk region, although Washington denied this allegation. He stated that without the involvement and planning of NATO and Western special forces, the Ukrainian military would not have dared to enter Russian territory.
However, the US and major Western countries stated that Ukraine did not inform them in advance of the operation, and Washington was not involved.
An unidentified Russian security source claimed that Russian forces destroyed a Ukrainian reconnaissance and sabotage unit equipped with weapons from NATO countries in the Kursk region. Russian security officials reportedly seized US-made M4 carbines, an M2 Browning machine gun, and a Swedish-made AK 5 automatic carbine from the captured unit.
The EU also provided Ukraine with two mine-clearing drones and other mine-clearing equipment valued at over €1.8 million (approximately $1.98 million).
On August 15, the British government stated that Ukrainian forces could use British weapons in their operations on Russian territory but there were still restrictions on the use of long-range Storm Shadow missiles.
In May this year, former UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron stated that Ukraine had the right to use weapons provided by London to target objectives within Russian territory. However, the British government had not previously commented on the use of donated weapons by Ukrainian ground forces in Russian territory.
A spokesperson for the UK Ministry of Defense recently confirmed that Ukraine had “clear rights to defend itself against illegal attacks by Russia,” and stated, “this does not rule out action on Russian territory.”
Ottawa also indicated that Ukraine could use Canadian-provided tanks and missiles in attacking Russian territory. A Canadian Defense Ministry spokesperson said that Canada’s donation of military equipment to Ukraine and future donations had no geographical restrictions on their use.
In the early stages of the Russia-Ukraine war, the Biden administration and European allies of NATO were initially hesitant to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles, tanks, and fighter jets, fearing it could provoke a nuclear response from Russia or lead to Russian strikes beyond Ukraine’s borders. The Biden administration strictly prohibited Ukrainian forces from using US-provided weapons to strike targets inside Russian territory.
However, on May 27 this year, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated that allied countries should reconsider the restrictions on Ukrainian forces using these weapons to attack Russian targets when providing assistance to Kyiv. He emphasized that these restrictions undermined Ukraine’s ability to defend itself.
Subsequently, Biden decided to relax some restrictions on Ukraine using American weapons in Russian territory to help defend the northeastern Kharkiv region. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that this was part of the US efforts to “adapt and adjust” to the war developments.
Following this, several countries, including the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, and France, have either called for or already relaxed restrictions on arms exports to Ukraine.
Putin warned that allowing Ukraine to use their weapons to attack targets inside Russia would lead to “serious consequences.”
On August 18, Su Ziyun, Director of the Military Strategy and Industry Institute of the Taiwan Institute for National Defense and Security Studies, stated in an interview with Epoch Times that Ukraine’s unexpected incursion into Russian territory was a strategic move to relieve its military pressure in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Su Ziyun remarked that the Ukrainian forces have achieved some success as Russian counterattacks were repelled. He emphasized the superiority of Western weapons, particularly the HIMARS system. According to him, HIMARS, as a long-range missile system, played a crucial role in striking reinforcements. The Ukrainian drones also proved highly effective, solidifying their position in the Kursk region.
Regarding Putin’s warning of “serious consequences,” Su Ziyun suggested that Putin might hesitate in using tactical nuclear weapons. The decision to use tactical nuclear weapons within Russia’s own territory like Kursk would be extremely challenging for Putin. Moreover, the current situation does not warrant the triggering of nuclear weaponry.
Su Ziyun highlighted that Ukraine’s successful strategic offensive not only proved its capability to infiltrate Russian soil to NATO and the world but also dispelled doubts about it, boosting the confidence of its supporters. It demonstrated that defenders could defeat invaders. Although the conflict has not yet reached a critical point, this operation holds significant political and military strategic importance, adding leverage for future political negotiations.
Russia has repeatedly accused NATO, led by the US, of using Ukraine to wage a “proxy war.”
Gennady Gatilov, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and other international organizations in Switzerland, claimed in May this year that from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine until March 2024, Kyiv had received 785 tanks, 266 multiple rocket launchers, 844 155mm howitzers, 93 152mm howitzers, 278 122mm howitzers, 251 anti-air missile systems, 30 aircraft, and 91 helicopters from the US, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, France, and Sweden.
In February, following Hungary’s decision not to obstruct, the EU agreed to provide an additional €500 billion (about $539 billion) aid package to Ukraine. In April, Biden approved nearly $61 billion in military support to Ukraine.
However, the Biden administration has vehemently denied Russia’s claims. US officials stated that this was not a war Ukraine initiated but a battle for survival. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said: “This is a war that Putin chose. We did not start a war against Russia, and we will not start a war against Russia.”
Su Ziyun expressed that Ukraine’s genuine goal was to reclaim lost territories and rid itself of Russian threats, hence its desire to join NATO.
He mentioned that many now view Ukraine as a NATO proxy, a situation caused by Russia itself rather than Ukraine’s intention. To a certain extent, this increased the confidence of NATO countries as they had long feared Russian invasion. The efficacy of NATO weapons in Russian territory undoubtedly enhances the confidence of NATO countries in defending against Russian aggression.
“I believe it is better to see NATO as a defensive organization rather than an offensive one,” Su Ziyun concluded.