Category: Geo-politics

Posted on

531: INDIA IN THE CROSSROADS OF TRUMP 2.0

 

 

Pics courtesy Internet

 

My Article Published on The EurasianTimes Website on 07 Nov 24.

 

Donald Trump’s return will have many implications for India regarding economics, security, and global alignments. Trump is more of a businessman and generally favours bilateral trade deals over multilateral ones. He may advocate a more transactional approach in his second tenure, focusing on trade deficits. His previous administration’s tariff policies targeted many trading partners, including India, which saw increased duties on certain exports. India might face pressure to expand its markets to American goods, particularly in the agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and technology sectors. Trump’s previous immigration policies impacted the H-1B visa program, which disproportionately affected Indian workers in the tech sector. A return to these policies could limit Indian talent mobility, impacting both individuals and companies. India’s IT sector might find the U.S. less accessible for skilled migration, though Trump has sometimes indicated support for highly skilled immigration.

 

 

Security Repercussions for India

Trump’s “America First” approach sometimes means stepping back from global commitments, including military engagements abroad. If the U.S. were to reduce its military presence in Asia, this could shift greater responsibility to regional players. While India is enhancing its military capabilities, a significant U.S. pullback from the region could embolden China or other adversarial forces, increasing security pressure on India. India’s security landscape will be affected in several ways, especially concerning regional stability, defence partnerships, and counterterrorism.

 

Increased Demand for Strategic Alignment with the U.S. A Trump victory could mean heightened expectations for India to align with U.S. policies in the region, which could be at odds with India’s traditionally non-aligned stance. India might face pressure to take more decisive stances on issues like Taiwan, South China Sea disputes, and participation in regional blocs led by the U.S. India may have to weigh its economic and diplomatic ties with other countries, particularly Russia, against the U.S. demands for closer alignment.

 

China-India-U.S. Dynamics. Trump’s “Indo-Pacific” strategy strongly focuses on containing China, and a second term would likely deepen this agenda, intensifying U.S.-China competition. India would likely be asked to take a more assertive role in regional security, particularly in the Indian Ocean. While India could benefit from U.S. support in balancing China’s influence, it also risks being pulled into a more intense, potentially destabilising rivalry, which might strain its resources and complicate diplomatic relations with China.

 

Impact on the Quad Alliance. Trump has supported the Quad (U.S., India, Japan, and Australia), seeing it as a counterweight to China’s influence. His re-election could lead to an expanded Quad agenda, including more security collaboration in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. This might benefit India’s strategic standing but could also draw it into more confrontation with China. The Quad’s increased visibility may create additional security risks, with China potentially reacting aggressively in the region, impacting India’s borders and maritime security.

 

Pakistan Policy. Trump previously adopted a tough stance on Pakistan, particularly regarding terrorism financing and harbouring militant groups that target Afghanistan and India. He may again apply pressure on Pakistan to dismantle terrorist networks. This would align with India’s security goals, potentially reducing cross-border terrorism. However, any diplomatic tension between the U.S. and Pakistan could destabilise, making Pakistan lean more heavily toward China and impacting India’s security environment.

 

Afghanistan’s Security Dynamics. Trump had strongly advocated withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. While a complete withdrawal has already taken place, his potential re-election could mean a lack of further U.S. engagement in Afghan stability, especially in containing Taliban and extremist groups. For India, this would mean facing an increasingly Taliban-influenced Afghanistan, leading to higher security risks, especially if terror groups resurge in the region.

 

 

Repercussions on Military Cooperation

Trump’s administration fostered strong defence cooperation with India as part of a broader Indo-Pacific strategy to counterbalance China’s growing influence. However, Trump’s unpredictable alliance approach could lead India to exercise caution. The repercussions on military cooperation between the U.S. and India could be multifaceted, introducing new strategic dynamics.

Strengthened Defence Partnership. Trump’s administration previously prioritised India as a significant defence partner within the Indo-Pacific framework. A second term could intensify military cooperation. India may receive advanced technology and intelligence sharing, and joint exercises could increase frequency and complexity. However, this could also increase India’s security obligations in the Indo-Pacific, putting it on the front lines of any U.S.-China friction in the region.

 

Enhanced Defence Technology and Arms Transfers. Under Trump, the U.S. could prioritise India as a key buyer of advanced defence equipment, including drones, anti-missile systems, and surveillance technology. India has acquired U.S. assets like C-17 heavy lift aircraft, C-130 Special operation aircraft, Apache attack helicopter, Chinook heavy lift helicopter, and P-8I Poseidon surveillance aircraft. A second Trump term might accelerate such sales, particularly if the U.S. encourages India to purchase high-tech systems that enhance its capabilities against China.

 

Military Modernisation. Trump’s administration previously pushed for arms deals with India, and a second term could further expand India’s access to U.S. military technology. This could accelerate India’s modernisation efforts, potentially providing advanced systems and technologies. Trump’s administration might push for more defence manufacturing in India through programs like “Make in India.” The U.S. could support joint ventures and technology transfers to Indian companies, allowing India to produce components of high-tech defence systems locally. While this would strengthen India’s defence manufacturing sector, there might be strings attached, with the U.S. expecting greater access to India’s defence markets and influence over India’s arms export policies.

 

Counterterrorism and Intelligence Sharing. Trump’s stance on counterterrorism aligns with India’s interests, and military cooperation could extend to enhanced intelligence-sharing agreements. The U.S. has been a critical partner in sharing counterterrorism intelligence with India, which helps prevent potential terrorist attacks. India’s counterterrorism efforts could be bolstered if Trump maintains or deepens intelligence sharing. However, if his administration decides to limit or privatise specific intelligence-sharing mechanisms, India might face challenges acquiring timely information.

 

Cyber security and Space Warfare Collaboration. Trump has shown interest in cyber defence and space as critical domains of warfare. Cooperation in these fields could deepen under his presidency, with the U.S. assisting India in building its space-based surveillance and cyber security capacities. This could help India counter cyber threats from adversaries like China and strengthen satellite surveillance of sensitive border areas. However, tighter coordination in these domains might push India further into the U.S. strategic orbit, affecting its autonomy in setting space and cyber policies.

 

Joint Military Exercises and Training. Military exercises like the Malabar naval drills have seen increased engagement from all Quad members (U.S., India, Japan, and Australia), aiming to boost interoperability among the forces. With Trump in office, India may face opportunities for more profound joint training and exercises, extending into new domains like cyber and space warfare.

 

Conclusion. Trump’s second tenure could bring some alignment on shared geopolitical interests but might introduce new uncertainties, especially in trade and immigration policies. It could deepen the relationship between the U.S. and India regarding strengthened defence cooperation and intelligence, enabling India to access advanced defence technologies and participate more actively in joint exercises. However, India might face growing expectations to align with U.S. policies in Asia, potentially narrowing its strategic autonomy and requiring it to manage and navigate a delicate and complex regional security landscape. India must weigh these factors carefully, balancing cooperation with the U.S. against its regional interests.

 

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

 

644
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

Posted on

529: LEARNING FROM ISRAELI DEFENCE FORCES: (PART I: Israeli Defence Forces)

 

Pic: Courtesy Internet

 

My article published on the Chanakya Forum website on 05 Nov 24.

 

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF), also known in Hebrew as Tzahal, are the military forces of the State of Israel. Tzahal, which stands for Tzva HaHagana LeYisrael, is the Hebrew acronym for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). It translates literally to the “Army of Defence for Israel. Tzahal is deeply integrated into Israeli society due to mandatory military service and is prominent in the national consciousness. Established in 1948 following the creation of the state, the IDF serves as Israel’s primary defence organisation, protecting the country’s sovereignty and citizens.

 

The IDF has been involved in various conflicts and military operations, including wars with neighbouring states (1948, 1956, 1967 Six-day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War) and numerous operations in Gaza and the West Bank, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The ongoing tension and violence between Israel and groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as border defence, are central focuses of the IDF’s modern-day operations. It uses a combination of ground, air, and naval forces for these operations. Numerous lessons can be drawn from this active and experienced force.

 

Israeli Defence Forces

 

Tasks and Roles. IDF’s primary mission is to protect Israel’s borders and ensure the security of its citizens. This involves deterring potential threats, carrying out defensive and pre-emptive operations, and responding to external and internal dangers. IDF is also responsible for counterterrorism efforts, intelligence gathering, and rapid response to any incursions or attacks, particularly those involving groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant organisations. The IDF also plays a role in peacekeeping and disaster relief operations worldwide when needed.

 

Technological Prowess. The IDF places great importance on maintaining cutting-edge military technology, has a robust defence industry, and cooperates closely with allies, particularly the U.S. Israeli innovations like the Iron Dome missile defence system and advanced drone technology play a significant role in the military’s defensive strategies.

 

Manpower. Israel has a system of compulsory military service for most Israeli citizens, including both men and women. Typically, men serve for around 32 months and women for around 24 months. Most of Israel’s military capacity depends on reservists, who are periodically called up for training and active duty.

 

Israel Ground Forces.

 

The Israel Ground Forces are the land-based component of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and serve as the backbone of Israel’s military operations. They are responsible for defending the country’s borders, engaging in combat, and securing critical objectives during war or conflict. Israel’s Ground Forces are considered highly skilled, well-trained, and technologically advanced. The Ground Forces are composed of various corps and units that work together to provide tactical support on the battlefield.

 

Infantry Corps. The infantry forms the core of the ground forces and is responsible for engaging enemies in close combat and securing territories. Major infantry brigades include the Golani Brigade, Givati Brigade, Nahal Brigade, and Kfir Brigade. These brigades are trained in various operations, from urban warfare to anti-terror missions.

 

Armoured Corps. The Armoured Corps uses Merkava, which was domestically developed and is recognised as one of the world’s most advanced tank series. The corps is critical in offensive and defensive operations, particularly in open field and desert terrain.

 

Artillery Corps. The Artillery Corps provides fire support for the infantry and armoured units, utilising long-range howitzers, mortars, and rocket systems. They are crucial for targeting enemy positions from a distance and supporting ground manoeuvres.

 

Combat Engineering Corps. These units are responsible for constructing and dismantling fortifications, clearing minefields, and breaching enemy defences. They are vital for ensuring the mobility of IDF forces in hostile environments and play a key role in defensive and counter-terrorism operations.

 

Paratroopers Brigade. The Paratroopers are an elite unit known for rapid deployment and airborne assault capabilities. They are often used in special operations and high-priority missions behind enemy lines.

 

Special Forces Units. The Ground Forces also encompass several elite special forces units trained for unconventional warfare, counterterrorism, intelligence gathering, and hostage rescues. Units such as Sayeret Matkal (the IDF’s principal Special Forces unit), Shayetet 13 (elite naval commandos), and Duvdevan (undercover units) fall under this category.

 

Border Defence Units. The Ground Forces include specific units dedicated to patrolling and securing Israel’s borders, especially with Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and Egypt. They focus on thwarting infiltration, smuggling, and border attacks.

 

Israeli Air Force.

 

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) is one of the world’s most advanced and capable air forces. It is known for its high operational effectiveness, state-of-the-art technology, and strategic importance to Israel’s defence. The IAF is a crucial branch of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and is critical in maintaining Israel’s security and deterrence posture in a volatile region. It symbolises the country’s resolve to defend itself in an often hostile regional environment. The IAF has built a global reputation for excellence in air combat and defence through innovation, highly trained personnel, and cutting-edge technology.

 

Formation. The IAF was officially established on May 28, 1948, shortly after the creation of the State of Israel. It initially consisted of a small fleet of mainly outdated World War II-era foreign aircraft. Over time, the IAF evolved into a sophisticated, modern air force focused on air superiority, precision strikes, intelligence gathering, and air defence.

 

Mission and Roles. The IAF is responsible for maintaining control of Israeli airspace and ensuring that no enemy aircraft can operate above Israeli territory. It conducts targeted airstrikes against enemy military installations, terrorist bases, and high-value targets that threaten Israel’s security. These operations are designed to neutralise threats quickly and with minimal collateral damage. It also conducts continuous surveillance using advanced unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and reconnaissance aircraft to gather intelligence on hostile forces and threats. In its Air Defence role, it operates missile defence systems like the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow to protect Israeli cities and strategic sites from rocket and missile attacks. The transport and helicopter fleet of the IAF provides airlift and logistical support to Israeli military operations and humanitarian missions, both domestically and abroad. It also conducts search and rescue missions.

 

Aircraft.  The IAF operates a wide range of cutting-edge aircraft, many of which are sourced from the United States, while others are modified with Israeli-made technology. The IAF’s backbone consists of fighter jets like the F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F-15 Eagle, with Israel being one of the largest aircraft operators outside the U.S. In recent years, the IAF has also acquired the F-35 Lightning II (Adir), a fifth-generation stealth fighter, enhancing its ability to strike undetected in hostile airspace. The IAF operates AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, providing air support for ground forces and precision strikes against armoured and terrorist targets. Israel is a world leader in drone development. The IAF operates a range of UAVs for intelligence gathering, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, including the Heron and Eitan drones. The IAF uses C-130 Hercules and C-130J Super Hercules for transport missions, along with Boeing 707 and KC-135 aircraft for aerial refuelling.

 

Technological Edge. The IAF is known for its ability to integrate cutting-edge technologies into its operations. Israel’s aerospace and defence industries, such as Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Rafael Advanced Defence Systems, develop advanced avionics, electronic warfare systems, and weaponry that significantly enhance the IAF’s capabilities.

 

Missile Defence. The IAF also plays a significant role in missile defence. The Iron Dome system is a short-range missile defence system designed to intercept and destroy rockets and artillery shells fired at Israeli civilian areas. David’s Sling is designed to intercept medium-to-long-range missiles and rockets. The Arrow system is a long-range missile defence system capable of intercepting ballistic missiles at high altitudes.

 

Pilot Training and Recruitment. IAF pilots undergo one of the world’s most rigorous and prestigious training programs, which only a small percentage of recruits complete. The training emphasises flying skills, leadership, teamwork, and operational flexibility. Israel also recruits highly skilled operators for its drone and intelligence units, who play a crucial role in modern warfare and intelligence-gathering operations.

 

Strategic Importance. The IAF is vital for Israel’s deterrence strategy in the Middle East, as it projects Israeli power and provides a rapid response to emerging threats. Its capabilities allow Israel to conduct long-range operations, often with minimal outside support, and provide a strong defence against regional adversaries like Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

 

Israeli Navy.

 

The Israeli Navy is the maritime branch of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and plays a crucial role in defending Israel’s coastline, securing its maritime borders, and conducting naval operations. Despite being smaller than Israel’s air and ground forces, the navy is crucial to its overall defence strategy, particularly given Israel’s strategic position along the Mediterranean Sea and its economic reliance on maritime trade. It protects Israel’s 273-kilometer Mediterranean coastline and its naval assets, such as offshore gas fields (the Tamar and Leviathan fields) and ports (the ports of Haifa and Ashdod). It enforces maritime blockades when necessary, particularly off the coast of Gaza, to prevent smuggling of arms to hostile groups like Hamas. It also conducts anti-smuggling and counter-terrorism operations to stop arms, militants, and contraband from reaching enemy forces. The Israeli Navy operates a fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, considered one of its most strategic assets. These submarines are rumoured to have second-strike capabilities and may be armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, although Israel has not confirmed this officially. The navy’s surface fleet includes corvettes, missile boats, and patrol boats. Ships like the Saar-class corvettes have advanced missile systems and anti-submarine warfare capabilities. The Israeli Navy is home to the elite commando unit Shayetet 13, which specialises in sea-to-land incursions, counter-terrorism, sabotage, intelligence gathering, and hostage rescue missions. Shayetet 13 is known for conducting highly classified and daring missions, sometimes deep inside enemy territory or at sea. The Israeli Navy has been involved in several critical military operations. The navy successfully protected Israel’s coastline and engaged in naval battles with Arab forces during the 1967The Six-Day War.  Shayetet 13 commandos participated in the rescue of hostages from a hijacked aeroplane in Uganda in Operation Entebbe. During Operation Cast Lead (2008–2009) and Operation Protective Edge (2014), the Navy played a role in blockading Gaza, preventing arms smuggling, and providing support to ground and air forces during military operations against Hamas. The navy intercepted the Gaza Flotilla in 2010, attempting to breach the Gaza blockade, an operation that turned controversial after violent confrontations on one of the ships.

 

Notable Operations Conducted by Israeli Defence Forces.

 

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has conducted numerous military operations since its establishment in 1948.  List of notable operations undertaken by Israeli Defence Forces:-

 

    • 1948 Arab-Israeli War (War of Independence).
    • 1956 Suez Crisis (Operation Kadesh).
    • 1967 Six-Day War.
    • 1973 Yom Kippur War.
    • Operation Entebbe (1976).
    • Operation Opera (1981).
    • 1982 Lebanon War (Operation Peace for Galilee).
    • First Intifada (1987–1993).
    • Operation Defensive Shield (2002).
    • 2006 Lebanon War.
    • Operation Cast Lead (2008–2009).
    • Operation Pillar of Defence (2012).
    • Operation Protective Edge (2014).
    • Operation Northern Shield (2018-2019).
    • Operation Black Belt (2019).
    • Operation Guardian of the Walls.
    • Operation Breaking Dawn (2022).

 

(Coming Soon: Part II of the article will discuss relevant details of the operations conducted by the Israeli Defence Forces and the lessons drawn).

 

Link to the article:-

LEARNING FROM ISRAELI DEFENCE FORCES (PART I: Israeli Defence Forces)

 

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

 

644
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References

  1. Jewish Virtual Library, “Israel Defense Forces: Wars & Operations”, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-s-wars-and-operations
  1. Israeli Air Force website, https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/israeli-air-force/
  1. By the Center for Preventive Action, “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, Global Conflict Tracker, 06 Oct 2024.
  1. Army University Press, “Israeli Conflicts”, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Books/CSI-Press-Publications/Israeli-Conflicts/
  1. Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Arab-Israeli wars”, Britannica, 09 Sep 2024.
  1. Dr Jack Watling and Nick Reynolds, “Occasional Papers – Tactical Lessons from Israel Defense Forces Operations in Gaza”, RUSI, 11 Jul 2024.
  1. Brief, “Lessons from Israel’s war in Gaza”, Rand Corporation.
  1. Daniel Byman, “Lessons from Israel’s Last War in Lebanon”, CSIS Brief, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 02 Oct 2024.
  1. Report, “Lessons from Israel’s Forever Wars”, Reports and Papers Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School.
  1. Raphael S. Cohen, David E. Johnson, David E. Thaler, Brenna Allen, Elizabeth M. Bartels, James Cahill, Shira Efron, “Lessons from Israel’s Wars in Gaza”, RAND Research Summary, 18 Oct 2017.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

Posted on

515: KURSK INCURSION: TURNING THE TABLES

 

 

My OPED published on the EurAsian Times website on 30 Sep 24.

 

In an unexpected move, On Aug. 6, Ukraine surprised the world by launching a bold pre-emptive offensive attack into Russian territory. Reportedly, over 1000 Ukrainian troops, along with armour, crossed into Kursk Oblast, a Russian region that borders Ukraine to the southeast. Ukraine’s cross-border attack named “Operation Krepost” on Russia’s Kursk region is the most significant incursion by Ukrainian forces into Russian territory since the start of the war. In this operation, Ukraine claims to have seized over 1,000 square kilometres of territory and captured several settlements and hundreds of Russian soldiers. The Kursk attack is distinct in the scale of resources used by Ukraine and its highly secretive nature. The event represents a turning point in the war and global geopolitics, shifting the initiative temporarily from Moscow to Kyiv. It has sparked widespread debate, highlighting the conflict’s potential for escalation and geographical expansion and raising questions about the underlying objectives behind this move and its possible future repercussions.

 

Surprise, Shock and Awe. Any move into Russia required a surprise. The Ukrainian attack on Kursk was a stunning display of surprise in modern warfare. By employing a mix of operational secrecy, deception, and tactical manoeuvring, Ukraine managed to achieve a surprising advantage. Ukraine had been engaging Russian forces in the eastern regions around Toretsk and Pokrovsk, giving an impression that its primary focus remained there and diverting attention away from the northern border with Kursk. Ukraine also exploited the gaps in stretched-out Russian deployment by attacking an area with lesser defences. In contrast to previous minor ones with irregular forces, the sheer magnitude of the incursion misled Russian military planners, leaving them in shock and awe at the audacity of the Ukrainian troops. The plans were kept tightly under wraps, sharing them only with a tight group of generals and security officials. The attack was executed with remarkable speed and efficiency, limiting Russia’s ability to mobilise reserves and respond effectively in the early stages. This swift strike allowed Ukrainian forces to capture territory and establish control over critical areas before a complete Russian response could be coordinated.

 

Intentions and Objectives. Ukraine aimed to shift the momentum of the war by launching an offensive into Russian territory. Strategically, Ukraine aimed to divert Russian forces from other critical fronts, such as the eastern regions of Toretsk and Pokrovsk, where Russia had been advancing. While the complete success of this diversion is debated, Ukraine’s offensive has forced Russia to reassess its deployments and react to the threat. Ukraine’s objectives could also be to weaken Russia’s military capability, capture territory, and disrupt Russian supply lines. Some analysts also speculate that holding Russian territory might give Ukraine better leverage in peace negotiations in future. Besides, Ukraine needed to boost its morale after months of defensive operations. A successful offensive into Russia would showcase Ukrainian capabilities and counter Russian propaganda about an inevitable victory. These factors combined to encourage Ukraine to take the risk of crossing into Russia and launching the most significant cross-border attack of the war.

 

 

Effect on Russia. The Ukrainian attack on Kursk has had a significant effect on Russia, both militarily and politically. It has forced Russia to divert resources, exposed its military vulnerabilities, and increased internal political and psychological pressure. The Kursk Offensive has further stretched the already heavily engaged Russian military on multiple fronts, further complicating ongoing Russian offensive operations. Ukraine’s capture of territory in Kursk, including several settlements, is a blow to Russian morale and undermines the Russian invincibility. However, it has also significantly boosted Ukrainian morale, providing a much-needed psychological advantage. This also posed logistical challenges, as Ukrainian forces targeted vital supply lines and infrastructure. The Kursk attack is a psychological blow to the Russians, raising fears of further incursions and challenging the Kremlin’s portrayal of the war as distant from Russian territory. The shock of the incursion could also erode public support for the ongoing conflict as casualties rise and domestic security is threatened. The attack puts internal pressure on the Russian government.

 

Russian Response. Russian President Vladimir Putin called the incursion “a large-scale provocation” and responded by declaring an emergency, imposing heightened security measures in these areas and launching retaliatory counterattacks. Russia mobilised additional troops, mainly from regions close to Kursk, such as Belgorod and Bryansk, to stabilise the situation and prevent further Ukrainian advances. Russia escalated its aerial bombardments across Ukraine, focusing on critical infrastructure, military installations, and supply lines. These colossal airstrikes aimed to disrupt Ukraine’s operations and cripple its logistics. Several missiles (including Kinzhal, Kh-101 and Iskander missiles) and drones attacked 15 of Ukraine’s 24 regions.  Russia also deployed more drones and missile systems to target Ukrainian cities far from the front lines. Russia organised ground counteroffensives to reclaim the territory lost to Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region. These counterattacks aimed to regain control of settlements captured by Ukraine and reinforce border defences. Alongside traditional military responses, Russia reportedly increased cyber-attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and government systems, aiming to weaken Ukraine’s command and control capabilities. Diplomatically, Russia described the Ukrainian attack as a significant provocation, with President Putin labelling it as part of Ukraine’s broader strategy to destabilise Russia. The Russian government used the Kursk attack to rally domestic support for the war effort and called on international partners to limit support for Ukraine.

 

Ukraine’s Supporters.  Several nations and organisations provided critical assistance to Ukraine. The U.S. is Ukraine’s most prominent supporter, providing billions in military aid, including advanced weaponry, intelligence, and training. The U.S. has supplied systems like HIMARS and air defence platforms, which are essential to Ukraine’s defence against Russian advances. Most NATO members, particularly those in Eastern Europe, like Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania, have provided substantial military aid, logistical support, and training. The European Union has also contributed financially, providing billions in aid packages. The U.K. has been a critical supporter, delivering advanced weapons systems and training Ukrainian forces. It has also played a significant diplomatic role, pushing for continued Western support for Ukraine. Canada has offered military and financial assistance to Ukraine, providing artillery systems, armoured vehicles, and drones. It has also imposed significant sanctions on Russia and supported diplomatic initiatives against the invasion. Western defence contractors, particularly from the U.S., have supplied Ukraine with essential technology and equipment. Civil society movements and non-governmental organisations in countries supporting Ukraine have also raised funds and provided humanitarian assistance. These state and non-state supporters have enabled Ukraine to continue resisting the Russian invasion, providing a vital backbone of military, economic, and diplomatic support.

 

Behind-the-scenes Support. In this instance, a debate has arisen about the direct or indirect involvement of the behind-the-scenes supporters. Washington says it was not informed about Ukraine’s plans ahead of its Aug. 6 incursion into Kursk. The United States has also said it did not take any part in the operation. Russia claims that the United States’ involvement in Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s western Kursk region was “an obvious fact.” Russia also asserts that Western weaponry, including British tanks and U.S. rocket systems, have been used by Ukraine in Kursk. Media sources have reported that the United States and Britain have provided Ukraine with satellite imagery and other information about the Kursk region in the days after the Ukrainian attack. The intelligence was aimed at helping Ukraine keep better track of Russian reinforcements that might attack them or cut off their eventual withdrawal back to Ukraine.

 

 

Crystal Gazing. Ukraine’s advance into Kursk would culminate due to a combination of the Russian response, the number of casualties, and extended lines of communication. The Ukrainian army will probably be unable to hold all of the Russian territory it has advanced on. Kyiv is contemplating a longer-term occupation to use the land as a bargaining chip.  This will take a lot of Ukrainian resources, and enforcing a long-term occupation would depend on factors like Ukraine’s priorities, the availability and spare ability of resources, and the severity of the Russian response. The choices include consolidation on the captured terrain and partial or complete withdrawal. Partial withdrawal and consolidation seem to be the logical possibility.

 

The initial successes achieved by Kyiv in The Kursk attack have further intensified the war and raised questions about the future of the conflict. The Ukrainian offensive into Russian territory has had a profound impact on the course of the war. On one hand, it has boosted the morale of the Ukrainian army and sent a strong message to the West about Ukraine’s ability to take the offensive initiative. On the other hand, the offensive has elicited mixed reactions in Russia. The event has far-reaching repercussions on the entire war, further complicating the situation in the coming period. The war in Ukraine is a complex game, with many intertwined factors influencing the course of events. Both sides are undertaking concurrent campaigns that consume enormous resources (manpower, munitions, and supporting systems). Surge operations for short durations are possible, but sustaining them for long durations is doubtful. The future of this war mainly depends on the extent of continued Western military and political support to Ukraine.

 

Link to the Website:

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/operation-krepost-ukraines-awe-inspiring/

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

644
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

 

References

  1. Basel Haj Jasem, “Kursk: A new chapter in the Ukraine war”, Daily Sabah, 27 Aug 2024.
  1. Anastasiia Lapatina, “Six Observations—and Open Questions—on

Ukraine’s Kursk Operation”, 15 Aug 2024.

  1. Deutsche Welle, “What is behind Ukraine’s Kursk operation in Russia?” The Indian Express, New Delhi, 11 Aug 24.
  1. “Moscow says US involvement in Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk is ‘an obvious fact’”, By Reuters, 27 Aug 24
  1. Mick Ryan, “The Kursk Offensive Dilemma”, Futura Doctrina, 19 Aug 24.

Credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.