russia – Air Marshal's Perspective

November 30, 2024November 29, 2024

543: RUSSIAN USE OF THE ORESHNIK MISSILE AND ITS STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Sputnik News, a Russian news agency and radio broadcast service, sought inputs on the Analakshya Project.

Article on the subject:-

RUSSIAN USE OF THE ORESHNIK MISSILE AND ITS STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The development and deployment of the Oreshnik missile, a hypersonic, intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) by Russia, marks a significant shift in global military power dynamics. First publicly revealed in November 2024 during a strike on Ukraine, the Oreshnik has been described as a highly advanced missile capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear warheads with hypersonic speeds exceeding Mach 10. The missile’s introduction highlights Russia’s continued push towards leveraging next-generation military technology to assert its influence, challenge adversaries, and fortify its strategic deterrence capabilities

Oreshnik Missile

Hypersonic Speed and Manoeuvrability. The Oreshnik missile stands out for its hypersonic velocity, with reports indicating speeds of around 2.5 to 3 kilometers per second (Mach 10). This speed renders it nearly immune to current air defence systems, as interception at such velocities requires cutting-edge detection and response technologies. Hypersonic missiles like Oreshnik can also perform mid-flight manoeuvres, making their trajectory unpredictable and further complicating interception efforts.

Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs). Oreshnik reportedly carries multiple independently targetable warheads (MIRVs), with estimates ranging from three to six warheads per missile. These MIRVs can be programmed to strike different targets simultaneously or overwhelm defence systems through sheer volume. The MIRV capability enhances the missile’s destructive potential, especially in scenarios where multiple high-value targets are prioritized.

Intermediate Range and Versatility. The missile’s range is believed to fall between 3,000 and 5,000 kilometers, making it an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). This range covers a significant portion of Europe and parts of Asia, but falls short of reaching the United States. However, this strategic range allows Russia to maintain a strong regional deterrence posture, capable of targeting European NATO members and other adversaries within proximity.

Operational Deployment and Combat Testing. Russia’s first known operational use of the Oreshnik missile occurred in November 2024, when it was deployed against the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. According to reports, this strike served as a combat test for the missile in a non-nuclear configuration. Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that the test was successful, with the missile reaching its intended target without interception. The deployment was designed to demonstrate Russia’s capability to strike with precision and lethality, even in high-pressure combat environments. This deployment signals a shift in Russian military doctrine, emphasising the operational use of hypersonic weapons for both deterrence and offensive purposes. By using Oreshnik in combat, Russia showcased its ability to field advanced missile systems under real-world conditions, sending a clear message to both adversaries and allies regarding its military prowess.

Strategic Implications

Strengthening Regional Deterrence. The Oreshnik missile significantly enhances Russia’s ability to deter regional adversaries. Its intermediate range allows Russia to project power across Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia, creating a buffer zone of influence where neighbouring countries must consider the risk of hypersonic strikes. This capability provides Russia with a powerful bargaining chip in diplomatic negotiations, particularly in contexts involving NATO expansion, territorial disputes, and geopolitical tensions.

Challenging NATO’s Defence Systems. NATO’s current air defence systems are primarily designed to intercept traditional ballistic and cruise missiles. The deployment of Oreshnik, with its hypersonic speed and manoeuvrability, presents a significant challenge to these systems. NATO countries may be forced to accelerate the development of hypersonic defence systems or pursue alternative deterrent measures, increasing military expenditures and deepening the arms race between Russia and Western powers.

Arms Control Frameworks. The introduction of Oreshnik further undermines the already fragile state of global arms control agreements. In 2019, both Russia and the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which previously prohibited the development of missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The Oreshnik missile, with its intermediate range and potential nuclear capability, exacerbates concerns over the proliferation of such systems and the absence of regulatory frameworks to mitigate their deployment.

Global Reactions and Countermeasures

United States and NATO. In response to the growing hypersonic threat, the United States and NATO have intensified efforts to develop next-generation missile defence systems. Programs focusing on space-based sensors, directed-energy weapons, and hypersonic interceptors are being accelerated to counteract Russia’s advancements. Additionally, NATO may consider deploying more conventional deterrents, such as forward-deployed forces and ballistic missile defence systems in Eastern Europe.

China’s Perspective. China, a close military partner of Russia, may view the Oreshnik missile as an opportunity for technological collaboration. Given its own hypersonic weapon developments, China could seek to integrate lessons from Oreshnik’s deployment into its missile programs. Alternatively, the missile’s success might prompt China to accelerate its efforts to match or surpass Russian capabilities, potentially increasing regional tensions in Asia.

India’s Strategic Calculations. For India, the development of the Oreshnik missile poses both a strategic challenge and an opportunity. India’s focus on developing its own hypersonic weapons, such as the Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle (HSTDV), aligns with the need to counter future threats from China. Furthermore, India may consider enhancing its missile defence systems and investing in early-warning systems capable of detecting hypersonic threats.

Broader Implications for Global Stability

Escalation of the Hypersonic Arms Race. The successful deployment of Oreshnik signals the start of a new era in missile technology, prompting other nations to accelerate their hypersonic weapons programs. This arms race could destabilize existing power balances, increasing the likelihood of miscalculations and accidental escalations during geopolitical conflicts.

Shift in Military Doctrine. The introduction of hypersonic missiles like Oreshnik is reshaping military doctrines worldwide. Traditional reliance on nuclear deterrence is now supplemented by hypersonic weapons, capable of delivering swift and precise strikes without the political fallout associated with nuclear weapons. This shift is likely to result in the development of new tactical doctrines.

Conclusion. The Oreshnik missile represents a bold leap in Russia’s military capabilities, reflecting the country’s commitment to leveraging advanced technologies for strategic dominance. Its deployment in Ukraine served as a clear demonstration of Russia’s readiness to use hypersonic missiles in both conventional and nuclear contexts, reshaping the global security landscape. As nations around the world grapple with the implications of this new weapon, the Oreshnik missile underscores the urgent need for renewed international dialogue on arms control and missile defence. Without such measures, the risk of a hypersonic arms race escalating into broader conflict remains a profound concern for global stability.

Inputs:-

(The views expressed are of the Individual, not IAF or GOI).

- The missile’s ability to carry multiple homing warheads and reach extreme temperatures of 4,000°C presents a significant threat to conventional missile defence systems.
- India’s military establishment would likely view Russia’s Oreshnik missile with a strategic interest.
- India may closely study the technology behind Oreshnik’s hypersonic speed, multi-warhead capabilities, and extreme heat resistance.
- India might assess this development in terms of its missile defence upgrades and hypersonic capabilities development programs.
- This could drive India to accelerate its hypersonic programs, such as the HSTDV (Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle), and enhance its missile defence systems.
- This could influence India’s strategic partnerships and technology acquisition efforts, particularly bolstering its Ballistic Missile Defence and hypersonic deterrence programs.
- India would be careful about directly acquiring the Oreshnik missile due to its commitment to Indigenous defence development under Atmanirbhar Bharat.
- India may seek technology partnerships with friendly nations to develop home-grown versions of similar advanced missile systems while maintaining strategic independence.

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

BelTA News. (2024). Oreshnik: A Precision Weapon Comparable to Nuclear Strike Capability.

Asia Times. (2024). Russian Oreshnik Missile: A Warning to NATO, US, and Ukraine.

Komsomolskaya Pravda via BelTA. (2024). Military Expert Commentary on the Oreshnik Missile’s Impact in Ukraine.

Global Security Review. (2024). Hypersonic Missiles and Modern Warfare: The Russian Edge.

Military Balance Report (2024). International Institute for Strategic Studies.

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.

November 28, 2024November 28, 2024

541: COLD WAR REDUX: TRAITS AND DRIVERS OF COLD WAR 2.0

My Article published on the Indus International Research Foundation website on 27 Nov 24.

“Cold War 2.0” describes the re-emergence of intense geopolitical competition between major powers, mainly the U.S. and China, and Russia’s increasingly assertive foreign policy. This framework parallels the original Cold War, which saw the United States and the Soviet Union locked in ideological and strategic rivalry. However, the current scenario has distinctive traits shaped by global interconnectedness, economic interdependence, and digital warfare.

Economic Interdependence and Competition. Unlike the U.S.-Soviet rivalry, the current era is marked by deep financial ties between rival states. For instance, the U.S. and China have significant trade and investment links, creating a complex relationship between competitors and economic partners. This has led to policies like “decoupling” and “friend-shoring,” where nations look to limit economic dependencies with strategic rivals, especially in critical sectors like technology and energy.

Tech and Cyber Dominance. The competition now prominently features digital spaces and technological development. China’s rise in artificial intelligence, 5G networks, and quantum computing has led the U.S. and its allies to push for greater control over digital infrastructure and intellectual property. Cyber security is another battlefield, with accusations of hacking and surveillance shaping security policies and alliances.

Military Posturing and Arms Races. The military build-up is also central to Cold War 2.0. While nuclear capabilities remain crucial, the focus has expanded to space warfare, hypersonic missiles, and advanced drone technology. For example, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy counters China’s growing military influence in Asia. At the same time, Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine have led NATO to strengthen its military presence on Europe’s eastern flank.

Ideological Clashes. While less ideological than the original Cold War, there is a growing divergence between the democratic and authoritarian governance models, particularly as China promotes its model as an alternative to Western liberalism. This has led to ideological contestation in digital governance, human rights, and trade rules, with each power attempting to influence international norms and institutions to reflect its values.

Strategic Alliances and Blocs. The current rivalry sees the emergence of new alliances and a revival of older ones, such as NATO and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) among the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia, which aims to counterbalance China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. Similarly, China and Russia are strengthening their ties, often working together in the United Nations and other forums to counter Western initiatives.

Resource Control and Economic Leverage. Access to resources such as rare earth metals, energy, and food is another area of strategic competition. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which funds infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, is seen as expanding its influence by creating economic dependencies. The U.S. counters with its initiatives, such as the Build Back Better World (B3W) program, which offers alternatives for development financing.

Impacts on Global Relations. The emergence of Cold War 2.0 has led to shifting alliances, with some nations choosing sides and others attempting a non-aligned approach to maintain autonomy. Middle powers like India, Brazil, and South Africa find themselves balancing between the two giants, shaping new multilateral dynamics. Meanwhile, the increased emphasis on national security in trade and technology policies is reshaping globalisation, potentially leading to more isolated economic blocs.

Comparison of Drivers of the Earlier and Current Cold War

The drivers of the original Cold War (1947–1991) between the U.S. and the Soviet Union differ from those of today’s “Cold War 2.0,” primarily between the U.S. and China, with Russia playing a significant but secondary role. These geopolitical, ideological, and technological rivalries reveal continuities and marked differences.

Sl No

Drivers

Differences

Ideological Rivalry

Earlier Cold War: The U.S. and the Soviet Union were divided by sharply contrasting ideologies: capitalism and democracy versus communism and authoritarianism. Each superpower sought to promote its ideology globally, often through proxy wars, propaganda, and cultural influence campaigns.

Current Cold War: Although there’s still an ideological component, the divide is less rigid. The U.S. advocates liberal democracy, while China’s governance model blends authoritarianism and state-led capitalism. Rather than openly promoting its ideology as a direct alternative, China emphasises economic development and “pragmatic” governance as models for stability and growth. There’s less overt ideological export and more influence through economic interdependence and development projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Geopolitical Power Struggles

Earlier Cold War: The rivalry largely revolved around Europe, with proxy conflicts extending to Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The focus was to prevent either side from gaining influence in these regions, as seen through U.S. and Soviet interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and other hotspots.

Current Cold War: The U.S. and China focus on the Indo-Pacific region as the primary sphere of influence, with attention to Southeast Asia, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. The U.S. is strengthening alliances with Japan, Australia, India (QUAD), and other Indo-Pacific partners, while China is extending its influence through its BRI and increasing its military presence in disputed territories. Russia, meanwhile, has focused on asserting control in Eastern Europe, as seen in the Ukraine conflict, though this rivalry is more geographically constrained.

Economic Rivalry and Interdependence

Earlier Cold War: The U.S. and Soviet Union had limited economic interactions, creating two largely independent blocs. Economic influence was exerted through aid programs (like the U.S. Marshall Plan) and political-economic treaties with allied countries. Global trade and economies were less intertwined, allowing for distinct capitalist and socialist economic systems.

Current Cold War: Economic interdependence is a defining factor. China and the U.S. are each other’s largest trading partners, and both economies are deeply embedded in global supply chains. Despite economic competition, each depends heavily on the other. This dynamic has led to “selective decoupling,” where each side aims to reduce dependence on critical technologies and resources without severing all economic ties. This is especially prominent in sectors like semiconductors, 5G, and renewable energy technologies.

Technology and Cyber Warfare

Earlier Cold War: The technological competition focused on space, nuclear capabilities, and conventional military technology. The “Space Race” and “Arms Race” were significant components, with the Apollo moon landing and arms treaties like SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) symbolising the intense scientific and military rivalry.

Current Cold War: The focus has shifted to advanced technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and cyber security. Cyber warfare has become a core area of conflict, with cyber-attacks, espionage, and influence operations playing significant roles. There’s competition for dominance in 5G networks and critical infrastructure control, with concerns about digital sovereignty, surveillance, and influence operations on social media. This “Tech Race” lacks the clear-cut technological “wins” of the Space Race, but it’s arguably more pervasive and impactful on civilian and governmental life worldwide.

Military Strategies and Posturing

Earlier Cold War: The focus was on nuclear arms buildup and deterrence through Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), with proxy wars to avoid direct confrontation. NATO and the Warsaw Pact were established, and military posturing often involved nuclear tests, displays of military hardware, and highly symbolic confrontations (e.g., the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Current Cold War: While nuclear deterrence remains, military competition now involves a broader range of strategies, including space militarisation, hypersonic missile development, and significant advancements in drone and cyber warfare. China is focused on expanding its naval capabilities and power projection in the South China Sea, while the U.S. strengthens its presence in the Indo-Pacific. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to a renewed focus on NATO’s defensive posture in Europe.

Alliances and Proxy Conflicts

Earlier Cold War: Alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact formalised the division of East and West. Many proxy conflicts emerged, particularly in developing regions, where both superpowers supported opposing sides to prevent ideological shifts. Examples include the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Current Cold War: Alliances are less rigid, and there’s an emphasis on “flexible” partnerships. The U.S. builds security frameworks like the Quad and AUKUS (Australia, the U.K., and the U.S.) while strengthening alliances like NATO. China, meanwhile, does not engage in formal military alliances but leverages economic influence through the BRI and diplomatic coalitions like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Russia uses its influence in post-Soviet states and controls Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Propaganda and Influence Operations

Earlier Cold War: The U.S. and Soviet Union engaged in direct propaganda campaigns, including Radio Free Europe, cultural exchanges, and global information wars to win hearts and minds.

Current Cold War: Information warfare is more complex and digital. Social media platforms have become battlegrounds for influence, with disinformation campaigns, election interference, and social polarisation strategies targeting rivals. China and Russia conduct sophisticated operations, leveraging global media channels, online platforms, and soft power to shape narratives. The U.S., in turn, supports global media initiatives that promote democratic governance and transparency.

Cold War 2.0 has introduced new complexities into international relations, where intertwined economies, advanced technology, and a globalised world order shape competition. The drivers of today’s “Cold War 2.0” reflect a multi-dimensional competition that diverges from the earlier Cold War in its deep economic interdependence, technology-centric rivalry, and more fluid alliances. The ideological divide is softer but still significant, with the U.S., China, and Russia vying for global influence. This rivalry unfolds in a digitally connected world where technology and information warfare play unprecedented roles, resulting in a complex geopolitical landscape with intensified tensions and interdependencies. Unlike the bipolar world of the original Cold War, today’s scenario is multipolar, involving several influential states that resist being drawn entirely into either camp. The result is a fluid, high-stakes environment that demands careful diplomacy and strategic restraint.

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:

George Takach. “Cold War 2.0: The Battle Between Democracies and Autocracies.” The Diplomat, June 2024.

Ferguson, Niall. “The Rise of Cold War II.” Milken Institute Global Conference, May 2022.

Mayer, Maximilian, and Kavalski, Emilian. “Cold War 2.0 and European Security.” Intereconomics Journal, July 2022.

Traub, James. “A New Non-Aligned Movement in a Divided World.” Foreign Policy, July 2022.

Bishara Marwan. “And so, Cold War II begins”, Al Jazeera, 24 February 2022.

Westad Odd Arne “Has a New Cold War Really Begun?”, Foreign Affair, 09 February 2019.

Smith Nicholas Ross, “A New Cold War: Assessing the Current US-Russia Relationship”, Wayback Machine. Springer, 23 March 2021.

Woodward Jude, “The US Vs China: Asia’s New Cold War? Manchester University Press, 2017.

Zhao Minghao, “Is a New Cold War Inevitable? Chinese Perspectives on US-China Strategic Competition”. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 2019.

Willy Wo-Lap Lam, “The New Cold War that Threatens to Turn Hot”, The Jamestown Foundation 2023.

Disclaimer:

September 30, 2024September 30, 2024

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.