ukraine – Air Marshal's Perspective

March 10, 2025March 9, 2025

615: TRUMP-ZELENSKY MEETING: A CASE STUDY IN DIPLOMATIC DISASTER AND ITS AFTERMATH

My article published on the EurasianTimes Website on 08 Mar 25.

Diplomatic meetings between world leaders are often carefully choreographed to project unity, resolve, and a sense of shared purpose. However, the recent press meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky defied all such expectations, quickly descending into a diplomatic debacle. Marked by confusion, contradictions, and apparent miscommunication, the event highlighted broader concerns about U.S. foreign policy, Ukraine’s ongoing struggle for support, and the personal dynamics of both leaders.

Background: A History of Tense Relations

The Trump-Zelensky relationship has never been straightforward. From the infamous 2019 impeachment inquiry that stemmed from a call between the two leaders to ongoing questions about U.S. military aid to Ukraine, the relationship has been defined by political manoeuvring and controversy. Trump’s scepticism regarding continued assistance to Ukraine and his past praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin further complicated the dynamic, making any public engagement between him and Zelensky a high-stakes affair. Zelensky, who has tirelessly lobbied for international support, entered the meeting seeking reassurances of continued U.S. backing. Conversely, Trump appeared less committed to a strong pro-Ukraine stance, leading to inevitable friction.

The Press Meeting: Breakdown of the Fiasco

Opening Remarks and Immediate Tensions. The meeting began with a sense of unease. Zelensky, clearly aware of the political delicacy of the moment, attempted to emphasise the need for U.S. solidarity with Ukraine. He spoke about Ukraine’s resilience, the necessity of sustained military aid, and the importance of a united front against Russian aggression. Trump, however, struck a different tone. Instead of affirming U.S. support unequivocally, he pivoted to grievances about past U.S. financial commitments, echoing his longstanding argument that European nations should bear more burden for Ukraine’s defence. He also made cryptic remarks about Ukraine’s leadership and the need for a negotiated settlement with Russia, which many interpreted as a sign of wavering commitment.

Contradictory Statements and Public Disagreements. As the meeting progressed, the contradictions between the two leaders became more evident. In response to a journalist’s question about military aid, Zelensky reaffirmed Ukraine’s urgent need for continued weapons shipments. Trump, however, avoided direct commitments, instead suggesting that if he were in office, he would have “ended the war in 24 hours,” a vague assertion he repeated without offering concrete details. The starkest moment of discord came when a reporter pressed Trump on whether he believed Ukraine could win the war against Russia. Trump hesitated, then pivoted to criticising NATO and questioning whether Europe was doing enough. Zelensky, visibly frustrated, countered by stressing that Ukraine’s ability to win depended on consistent U.S. and allied support. The exchange underscored the growing gap between the two leaders’ worldviews.

Mixed Signals. Observers were quick to highlight the numerous diplomatic missteps throughout the meeting. Trump’s non-committal language and refusal to explicitly endorse continued U.S. military support for Ukraine was seen as a signal of uncertainty, leaving allies and adversaries speculating about future policy shifts. While maintaining his composure, Zelensky’s increasingly direct responses indicated his dissatisfaction and frustration with Trump’s reluctance to take a firm stance. Trump’s critique of NATO contributions muddled the broader message further about Western unity, raising concerns among European allies.

Diplomacy at its Worse.

The Fragility of Diplomatic Engagements. The meeting’s abrupt shift from a planned minerals agreement to a contentious exchange underscores the delicate nature of diplomatic interactions. Despite prior negotiations, the inability to finalise the deal highlights how quickly diplomatic efforts can unravel when foundational trust and mutual respect are compromised. The casual and often adversarial tone of Trump’s remarks toward Zelensky further exemplified a shift in diplomatic norms. Rather than projecting a united front, Trump’s statements highlighted internal divisions and personal grievances.

The Importance of Diplomatic Protocol and Respect. The public nature of the dispute, with President Trump accusing President Zelenskyy of ingratitude, deviated from traditional diplomatic decorum. Such breaches can strain bilateral relations and diminish the effectiveness of future diplomatic engagements, emphasising the need for maintaining professionalism and mutual respect in international affairs. Despite attempts to project unity, Zelensky’s visible discomfort and Trump’s dismissive attitude toward concerns about quid pro quo revealed the limitations of public diplomacy when deeper tensions exist behind the scenes. The meeting failed to resolve underlying doubts about U.S.-Ukraine relations and instead amplified media scrutiny.

Mixing Domestic Politics with Foreign Relationships

The Influence of U.S. Domestic Politics on Foreign Relations. The press conference underscored how U.S. foreign policy, especially toward allies, is deeply entangled with internal political battles. President Trump’s confrontational stance, influenced by internal political dynamics, exemplifies how domestic agendas can shape foreign policy decisions. Trump’s remarks about Ukraine and its supposed history of corruption tied directly into his impeachment inquiry, showing how personal political interests can shape international dealings. This incident illustrates foreign leaders’ challenges when navigating the complex landscape of U.S. internal politics, especially when partisan considerations overshadow international commitments.

The Influence of Personal Diplomacy on International Relations. The incident highlights how personal dynamics between leaders can profoundly impact bilateral relations. The personal grievances aired during the meeting suggest that individual personalities and interpersonal interactions play a critical role in shaping the course of international diplomacy.

The Precarious Position of U.S. Allies in a “Transactional” Foreign Policy. Trump’s “America First” approach was evident in his insistence that European nations should contribute more to Ukraine’s defence. This transactional nature of U.S. support made it clear that Ukraine (and similar allies) could not assume unconditional backing but had to navigate shifting expectations and potential political costs.

Domestic and International Reactions

U.S. Political Response. Reactions to the meeting in Washington were polarised. Trump’s Republican allies attempted to downplay the discord, with some arguing that Trump’s tough talk was aimed at pushing European nations to contribute more. However, critics, especially from the Democratic Party and foreign policy experts, warned that Trump’s ambiguity could embolden Russia and undermine Ukraine’s war effort. Some within the party, particularly those who support continued aid to Ukraine, expressed concerns about how Trump’s remarks might be interpreted in Kyiv and Moscow. Some in Congress argue that Trump’s stance weakens America’s leadership role, while his base largely supports a reduced involvement in Ukraine.

Ukrainian Stance. Reactions in Ukraine were mixed but largely apprehensive. Ukrainian officials emphasised their appreciation for past U.S. support but privately expressed concerns about Trump’s unpredictable stance. Some Ukrainian commentators viewed the meeting as a missed opportunity to secure more substantial commitments from a key U.S. leader with potential future influence.

European Reactions. European leaders, meanwhile, were alarmed by Trump’s comments on NATO burden-sharing. French and German officials reiterated their commitment to Ukraine but privately worried that Trump’s rhetoric could further strain transatlantic relations. Moscow, predictably, seized on Trump’s remarks as evidence of weakening Western resolve, with Russian state media amplifying his criticisms of NATO and U.S. financial commitments to Ukraine.

Russian Reaction. Moscow obviously approved of the discord between the U.S. and Ukraine. Russian officials have openly expressed satisfaction over the fallout, viewing it as a potential weakening of NATO unity and a strategic advantage for Russia. Russia may see this as an opportunity to prolong the war and test NATO’s resolve.

Post-Meeting US Follow-up Actions

Following the contentious Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28, 2025, President Donald Trump has reportedly undertaken several actions.

Public Criticism of President Zelensky. In the aftermath of the meeting, President Trump publicly criticised President Zelensky, accusing him of disrespecting the United States during his visit to the Oval Office. Trump expressed that Zelensky’s attitude was not conducive to peace negotiations and suggested that U.S. support could be reconsidered if Ukraine is not committed to resolving the conflict.

Suspension of Military Aid. President Trump ordered a “pause” on U.S. military aid to Ukraine, aiming to pressure President Zelensky into engaging in peace talks with Russia. This suspension affects all military equipment not yet in Ukraine, including weapons en route by air or sea and those held in transit areas in Poland.

Suspension of Intelligence Sharing. President Donald Trump has suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine. The suspension encompasses critical data on Russian military movements and intentions. The Trump administration has indicated that this suspension is a temporary measure contingent upon Ukraine’s engagement in peace negotiations with Russia.

Re-evaluation of U.S. Support for Ukraine. The administration is reassessing its stance on unconditional support for Ukraine. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated that the U.S. is no longer willing to provide unchecked aid without a clear path to peace, reflecting a shift in policy towards a more conditional approach based on Ukraine’s cooperation in peace efforts. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz mentioned that the U.S. is pausing and reviewing all aspects of its relationship with Ukraine.

Russian Recent Kursk Operations

In recent developments, Russian forces have launched a significant offensive in the Kursk region, aiming to encircle Ukrainian troops. On March 5, 2025, taking advantage of the cessation of U.S. intelligence support to Ukraine, Russian units advanced rapidly southward, threatening the main Ukrainian stronghold at Sudzha. This manoeuvre risks encircling approximately 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers, prompting the Ukrainian command to consider a strategic withdrawal to avoid substantial losses. The suspension of U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing has critically weakened Ukraine’s defensive capabilities in the area. These developments underscore a rapidly evolving and precarious situation in the Kursk region, with potential implications for the broader conflict dynamics.

Implications

Uncertainty over Future U.S. Policy. The meeting reinforced growing uncertainty over the future of U.S. policy toward Ukraine. With Trump’s return to the White House, Ukrainian officials must prepare for a more transactional approach to diplomacy that could demand greater European involvement and a shift in U.S. support priorities.

Impact on Ukraine’s War Effort. For Ukraine, clarity on long-term U.S. support remains critical. Trump’s lack of firm commitments in this meeting means Kyiv will likely intensify its outreach to Congress and other Western leaders to secure ongoing aid. If Trump or his allies push for a reduction in assistance, Ukraine may face more significant challenges in sustaining its military operations against Russia.

Zelensky’s Political Future. Domestically, Zelensky faces mounting pressure. Critics argue that his confrontational approach with Trump may jeopardise Ukraine’s international support, leading some U.S. lawmakers to question continued assistance. Senator Lindsey Graham suggested that Zelensky consider resigning or altering his stance to maintain U.S. support.

Geopolitical Ramifications. Beyond the U.S.-Ukraine dynamic, the meeting had broader implications for global diplomacy. It highlighted deepening divisions within the West over approaching the Ukraine conflict and signalled to adversaries that American foreign policy may remain unpredictable. This uncertainty could embolden Russia while complicating efforts to maintain a strong and united Western response.

Knock-on Effects

Impact on NATO and Global Diplomacy. The incident has exposed rifts within NATO and raised questions about the alliance’s cohesion. European nations would now contemplate increased defence budgets and a more autonomous security strategy independent of U.S. leadership.

Power Dynamics in Asymmetrical Alliances. Zelensky’s cautious and deferential tone initially highlighted the challenges faced by smaller nations dependent on U.S. military and financial support. His attempt to downplay the controversy around Trump’s alleged pressure suggested an effort to maintain favour with Washington while avoiding deeper entanglement in U.S. domestic politics.

The Strategic Calculations of Smaller Nations. Ukraine’s predicament reflects the complex calculus smaller nations must perform when aligning with major powers. Balancing national interests against the expectations of powerful allies requires astute diplomacy, especially when those allies’ internal politics are in flux. Countries reliant on U.S. security guarantees may reconsider their alliances, fearing instability in American foreign policy.

The Necessity for Allies to Diversify Support. Given the U.S. administration’s unpredictable stance, Ukraine’s subsequent outreach to European leaders signifies the importance of nations diversifying their alliances. Relying on a single ally, especially one with shifting foreign policy positions, can leave countries vulnerable, underscoring the need for a broad base of international support.

Conclusion

The Trump-Zelensky press meeting was a textbook example of how diplomatic engagements can go awry. The event showcased the growing uncertainty surrounding U.S.-Ukraine relations, from mixed messaging to visible tensions. For Ukraine, securing unwavering support remains a top priority, while for Trump, the meeting underscored his evolving and often ambiguous stance on foreign policy. As the war in Ukraine continues, the need for clear, consistent, and unified diplomatic messaging has never been greater. Whether future engagements between the U.S. and Ukraine can avoid similar pitfalls remains an open question with high stakes for both nations and the wider international community.

Please Do Comment.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

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.

References:-

The Guardian. “Trump criticises European leaders at Starmer’s Ukraine summit for saying they need US support – as it happened.” The Guardian, March 3, 2025.

New York Post. “Trump pauses all US military aid to Ukraine after heated Oval Office meeting with Zelensky.” New York Post, March 3, 2025.

The Times. “Zelensky ‘won’t be around very long’, says Trump – as it happened.” The Times, March 3, 2025.

Vanity Fair. “Kremlin Hails Trump’s Zelensky Blow-Up: Washington Now ‘Aligns With Our Vision’.” Vanity Fair, March 3, 2025.

India Today. “Zelenskyy breaks silence on Trump’s public dressing-down: Don’t think it’s right.” India Today, March 3, 2025.

Hindustan Times. “US News Live Today March 1, 2025: Donald Trump says Zelenskyy can return for talks when ‘ready for peace’.” Hindustan Times, March 1, 2025.

The Indian Express. “Zelenskyy wants to work ‘directly’ with Trump, suggests measures to end Russia-Ukraine war.” The Indian Express, December 1, 2024.

The Times. “Trump and Zelensky clash at the White House – as it happened.” The Times, March 1, 2025.

TFI Global News. “Trump Zelensky White House clash: A Diplomatic Disaster with far-reaching consequences.” TFI Global News, March 1, 2025.

February 17, 2025February 17, 2025

602: UKRAINE UNVEILS TRYZUB: A GAME-CHANGING DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON

Ukraine has unveiled a new laser weapon called “Tryzub” (Ukrainian for “trident”), which can shoot down aircraft over a mile away. During a defence conference, Colonel Vadym Sukharevskyi, commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces, announced the weapon’s capabilities. This development positions Ukraine among the few countries possessing such advanced laser technology.

The ‘Tryzub’ or Trident laser weapon that Ukraine has unveiled is a cutting-edge military system capable of shooting down aircraft and other aerial threats from over a mile away. It is a powerful laser technology designed to neutralise drones, planes, and other airborne objects by precisely disabling them at high speeds. This weapon is part of Ukraine’s efforts to enhance its defence capabilities amid ongoing conflicts.

The unveiling of the Tryzub, Ukraine’s new directed energy weapon, represents a significant leap forward in military technology. As countries worldwide increasingly turn to advanced technologies to bolster their defence capabilities, Ukraine’s Tryzub laser weapon stands out as a ground-breaking innovation.

Global Context: Nations with Laser Weapon Systems. With the Tryzub, Ukraine joins a small group of countries possessing operational laser weapons. The United States is one of the leading nations in laser technology, with its truck-mounted high-energy lasers designed to target drones, helicopters, and rockets. Similarly, countries such as China, Israel, Turkey, and Germany have also developed their laser systems. In July, South Korea announced that it would begin deploying laser systems designed to intercept drones, particularly North Korean drones, which have raised security concerns in the region. South Korea’s “Block-I” anti-air laser system, developed by Hanwha Aerospace, can engage small, low-cost drones at a fraction of traditional munitions.

Indian Effort. India is also developing laser weapons, including systems like DURGA (Directionally Unrestricted Ray Gun Array) and KALI (Kilo Ampere Linear Injector), which have been in research since the 1980s. According to reports, DURGA is designed for space-based applications, while KALI is expected to target powerful pulses of electron beams to turn off satellites.

Development Program

Origin. The Tryzub, named after the Ukrainian national emblem—a trident—was developed as part of Ukraine’s broader efforts to modernise its defence arsenal. The weapon’s development reflects a recognition of the need to keep pace with the rapid evolution of military technologies globally. The Tryzub project was initiated in response to the increased threats faced by Ukraine, particularly from the ongoing conflict with Russia and the threat of further aerial aggression.

Historical Context. Ukraine’s efforts to develop advanced defence technologies like Tryzub are rooted in its geopolitical position and the conflict with Russia that began in 2014. The annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine underscored the need for a modern, effective air defence system. The Ukrainian government’s decision to invest in directed energy weapons was influenced by the success of similar systems in other conflict zones and the recognition that conventional air defence systems were becoming obsolete against evolving aerial threats.

Collaborative Development. The development of the Tryzub involved collaboration with international defence contractors and technology partners. Ukrainian defence companies, alongside foreign entities, worked on integrating advanced laser technologies into a practical military system. This collaboration sped up the development process and allowed Ukraine to leverage cutting-edge technology it might not have developed independently.

Launch and Public Demonstration. The Tryzub was officially unveiled in a public demonstration attended by military leaders, international observers, and defence experts. The event showcased the weapon’s capabilities in neutralising various targets, including drones and low-flying aircraft. The Ukrainian government positioned the Tryzub as a key component of its defence strategy, emphasising its role in protecting critical infrastructure and maintaining air superiority.

Key Features

The Tryzub laser weapon is a complex system integrating several advanced technologies to provide a robust defence solution.

Laser Technology. At its core, the Tryzub utilises high-powered laser beams capable of effectively targeting and turning off aerial threats. The weapon operates in the infrared spectrum, targeting the electronic systems of drones, planes, and other aerial objects without relying on physical munitions. This directed energy approach minimises collateral damage and the risk of unintended consequences of conventional weaponry.

Range and Engagement Capabilities. One of the most significant aspects of the Tryzub is its operational range. The weapon can engage targets from distances over two kilometers (approximately 1.24 miles), allowing it to intercept threats at a safe distance from defensive positions. The laser system is designed to automatically track and lock onto targets, adjusting the beam for movement and atmospheric conditions, thus enhancing accuracy.

Automated Tracking and Control System. The Tryzub has advanced sensors and targeting algorithms that enable automatic detection, tracking, and engagement of targets. This automation reduces the need for human intervention, allowing the system to operate independently in complex environments. Operators can manually override these systems for greater control, making them adaptable to different combat scenarios.

Energy Efficiency and Sustainability. The Tryzub’s design focuses on energy efficiency, allowing the weapon to operate for extended periods without depleting its power source. This is achieved through advancements in laser technology, including improvements in cooling systems and power management. The system can be deployed in stationary and mobile configurations, providing flexibility in how and where it is used.

Real-time Monitoring and Feedback. The Tryzub is integrated with a real-time monitoring system that provides operators with live feedback on the weapon’s performance. This system allows for continuous effectiveness evaluation, tracking the laser’s status and engagement with targets. It also facilitates rapid parameter adjustments based on the operational environment and target behaviour.

Strategic Implications

The deployment of the Tryzub laser weapon has significant strategic implications for Ukraine’s defence posture and its broader military strategy. By integrating such advanced technology, Ukraine bolsters its air defence capabilities and positions itself as a leader in modern military innovation.

Enhanced Air Defence. The Tryzub represents a revolutionary advancement in air defence technology, providing Ukraine with a robust solution to counter aerial threats. The ability to neutralise threats at a distance of over two kilometers allows for the interception of drones, helicopters, and low-flying aircraft, thus minimising risks to ground troops and infrastructure. This enhances Ukraine’s defensive posture, particularly in contested regions where air superiority is critical.

Deterrence Value. The Tryzub has a significant deterrent effect, signalling to potential adversaries that Ukraine can defend itself with cutting-edge technology. Its deployment demonstrates Ukraine’s commitment to modernising its military forces and its readiness to invest in technologies that offer a strategic advantage. This could alter future conflicts’ calculus, forcing adversaries to consider the cost and risks of engaging Ukrainian forces equipped with advanced technologies.

Adaptability in Modern Warfare. The Tryzub represents a significant shift towards adaptable and dynamic defence strategies in modern warfare. Its integration with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and other robotic systems allows for a coordinated response to threats, providing Ukraine with a flexible and scalable defence network. This adaptability instils confidence in the audience about Ukraine’s ability to respond to the fast-paced nature of modern conflicts, where detecting, tracking, and engaging threats in real-time is essential.

Technological Asymmetry. The Tryzub can potentially be a strategic asset for Ukraine in asymmetrical conflicts. Its advanced technology allows Ukraine to counteract the superior numbers and capabilities of larger adversaries effectively. By maintaining a technological edge, Ukraine can continue to level the playing field in conflicts where traditional means of defence are less effective.

Applications and Challenges

While the Tryzub represents a significant technological breakthrough, its practical application and effectiveness in real-world scenarios must be tested and refined.

Testing and Validation. Before full-scale deployment, the Tryzub must undergo extensive testing in various conditions to confirm its operational effectiveness. This includes testing against different types of aerial threats, simulating combat scenarios, and evaluating the system’s performance in different environmental conditions, such as varying humidity levels and weather conditions that can affect laser beam propagation.

Countermeasures and Counter-Laser Technologies. As directed energy weapons become more prevalent, adversaries will likely develop more countermeasures. These may include reflective materials, jamming technologies, or other tactics designed to disrupt the effectiveness of the Tryzub. Ukraine must stay ahead of these developments, continuously upgrading the system’s capabilities and incorporating new defensive measures.

Integration with Other Defence Systems. The Tryzub must be integrated with existing defence systems, such as radar networks, electronic warfare units, and ground-based interceptors, to maximise effectiveness. This integration allows for a comprehensive air defence strategy that can respond to multiple threats simultaneously, ensuring no gaps in coverage exist.

Implications for the Future of Warfare

The Tryzub laser weapon is not just a game-changer for Ukraine but also a harbinger of future trends in military technology. Its development highlights the broader move towards directed energy weapons in modern warfare, where precision, speed, and adaptability are key. Deploying such technologies will likely reshape the nature of conflicts and how nations approach defence and deterrence.

The Rise of Directed Energy Weapons. The Tryzub is part of a broader trend of countries investing in directed energy technologies, including high-powered lasers, electromagnetic pulse systems, and particle beam weapons. These technologies offer distinct advantages over traditional munitions, such as delivering precise attacks without physical impact. Tryzub’s success could accelerate the development and adoption of similar systems worldwide.

Implications for Defence Strategy. The Tryzub represents a significant shift in defence strategy, emphasising the need for countries to develop high-tech solutions to maintain an edge in modern warfare. The deployment of directed energy weapons like the Tryzub allows nations to bypass the limitations of conventional military systems, focusing instead on rapid, precise, and scalable solutions.

Civilian Applications. Beyond their military use, directed energy technologies like the Tryzub have the potential to be adapted for civilian purposes. For example, laser-based counter-drone systems could protect critical infrastructure from aerial threats in urban environments, or laser systems could clear hazardous debris from space. The versatility of such technologies makes them attractive for applications beyond defence.

Conclusion. Ukraine’s unveiling of the Tryzub-directed energy weapon represents a significant milestone in the development of modern military technologies. This revolutionary system enhances Ukraine’s defensive capabilities and sets the stage for future advancements in directed energy weapons. As Ukraine continues to refine and expand its use of the Tryzub, it will play a critical role in shaping the future of warfare, providing a new framework for how nations defend themselves in an increasingly complex and technology-driven world. The Tryzub laser weapon is a testament to the power of innovation in defence and its potential to transform the global security landscape.

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.

Disclaimer:

References:-

Rogoway, Tyler. “Ukraine’s Tryzub Weapon System: A Leap in Directed Energy Warfare.” The War Zone, 2024.

BBC News. “Ukraine’s Military Innovation: Directed Energy Weapons in Action.” BBC World Service, March 2024.

Reuters. “Directed Energy Weapons: Ukraine’s New Frontier in Defence.” Reuters Defence Weekly, April 2024.

Global Security.org. “Ukraine’s Tryzub Laser Weapon System: Features and Specifications.” Accessed December 2024. https://www.globalsecurity.org.

Defence News. “Directed Energy Advances: Global Trends and Implications.” Defence News Online, February 2024. https://www.defensenews.com.

Jane’s Defense Weekly. “Tryzub Unveiled: Ukraine’s Directed Energy Leap.” Accessed December 2024. https://www.janes.com.

Raj, Arjun, and Meyers, Gregory. “Directed Energy Weapons: A New Frontier in Battlefield Technology.” Journal of Defense Studies, vol. 12, no. 3, 2022, pp. 45–68.

Schneider, Mark. “The Proliferation of Laser and Directed Energy Weapons.” Military Technology Quarterly, 2023, pp. 34–52.

U.S. Department of Defense. Directed Energy Futures: Policy and Strategy Document. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2022.

Ukrainian Ministry of Defense. Strategic Defense Innovations: Tryzub Weapon System Overview. Kyiv: MoD Publications, 2024.

Mizokami, Kyle. Weapons of the Future: Directed Energy and Military Technology. New York: TechPress, 2021.

Sweetman, Bill. Laser Weapons: Technology, Applications, and Implications for the Military. Washington, DC: Defense Analysis Publications, 2020.

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.