The “Ukrainian” invasion of Kursk, orchestrated by London and NATO, appears more like a desperate move than a genuine success. While Western analysts celebrate a supposed turning point, the reality reveals a dangerous and unsustainable maneuver, with the Ukrainian army increasingly exposed to a devastating Russian counterattack. The risk of nuclear escalation is real, and the true objective might be to drag NATO into a direct conflict with Russia, sacrificing Ukraine for Western interests, paving the way for a new Cold War and war profits for the West.
* * *
by Fabio Mini
The “Ukrainian” incursion into the Russian territory of Kursk, which began with about a hundred men, has expanded and deepened significantly. Now, Western sources report the presence of around five mechanized and armored brigades in addition to Ukrainian special forces in Russia, and every kilometer they occupy or traverse is considered a definitive success. Even the most skeptical analysts of Ukrainian military capabilities tend to portray the situation as a critical turning point in the entire conflict, while local warmongers are already celebrating in anticipation of a Russian collapse across the front. However, the development of operations on the ground suggests several tactical and strategic considerations.
1. The Ukrainian invasion marks a shift in strategic initiative and command of operations from Ukraine to the United Kingdom, both as part of NATO and as the leader of the BB (Baltic Block or Beagle Boys Bloc ad libitum) supporting Ukraine. Ukrainian forces are motivated and trained, showing clear signs of revitalization due to the participation of Western professionals, precise orders, and audacious objectives. Caution regarding Russian power and its escalation capacity has vanished. The Ukrainians themselves have abandoned fears of Russian retaliation, while NATO, Europe, and the United Kingdom have never considered the risks and sacrifices the conflict entails and continues to entail for Ukrainians. The bullish whatever it takes bravely touted has always referred to indifference towards Ukrainian losses and the war profiteering by the West.
2. The “Ukrainian” maneuver aimed at distracting Russian forces from the Donbass has, in fact, favored the mobilization of new Russian forces that are preparing while the occupied area is being evacuated to gain time by yielding space. The remaining penetration capability of Ukrainian forces may carry them forward by dozens of kilometers, but without reinforcements behind them, as they advance, the logistical arm stretches, and the forces tend to find themselves in a dangerous pocket that could close not so much by Russian resistance at the front but by the closure of missile and aerial fire at the rear, on Ukrainian territory.
3. Ukrainian occupation is not stabilized and is fluid. The possibility of establishing Ukrainian territorial military commands, as announced by President Zelensky for the amusement of his supporters, is an end in itself and can last as long as the military presence lasts. Throughout history, military occupation has diverted resources from the population, imposed regimes that alienate any sympathies for the occupiers, and engaged operational forces in territorial control tasks, distracting them from combat fronts. Even the potential transformation of the breach into an area controlled by an international contingent has a negligible chance of success due to the predictable Russian opposition to an international violation and a high probability of representing an open military provocation.
4. The Kursk maneuver is based on the Western bet that Russia will not employ tactical nuclear weapons. It certainly won’t do so on its own territory, even if occupied, and even if Russian hawks themselves are pressing for a slaughter to strike the invading forces. But it could do so on Ukrainian territory, precisely at the point where the penetration closes. The devastating effects of something that is ruled out a priori are easy to predict.
5. The ongoing operation, which fuels dreams of the beginning of the end for Russia, could unfold in the opposite direction precisely due to the cynicism of Western leadership of operations. The most rational and likely goal of the Ukrainian and British operation is to involve NATO in direct war against Russia on Russian territory before the United States and other countries, grappling with internal problems and international priorities, pull the plug on the artificial respirator keeping Ukraine alive. It would be an open West-East war, disastrous for everyone, whether it involves prolonged operations or, worse still, triggers nuclear confrontation. However, the Western cynicism driving the Kursk operation allows us to consider the strategic goal of hastening the end of the conflict by sacrificing the last Ukrainian forces, negotiating territorial exchanges, and integrating what remains of Ukraine into NATO and the European Union. This would open the new Cold War that many dream of, with its new missile deployments in Europe, the big business of the new arms race and the reconstruction of territories devastated by war, and the “benefits” of the new iron curtain: this time on the Dnieper, splitting Kyiv in two or four.
Il Fatto Quotidiano, August 18, 2024
