- Ukrainian forces launched a surprise offensive into Russia’s Kursk region last Tuesday.
- They have captured around 1,000 square kilometers of Russian land so far, Kyiv’s top general said.
- That figure is almost as much territory as Russia has seized in Ukraine this year.
Why hope it’s “not just for negotiating”? I mean why not use this as leverage to force the Russians to negotiate on Ukraine’s terms?
Because its a big tactical advantage that they opened a gaping hole in Russian defensive lines.
Defenses are strongest in the direction they are facing. They are very weak from the sides and even worse from the rear. (Ukraine now has a lot of Russian rear it can take advantage of, from Kursk)
If Ukraine has the manpower they could take this little bit of land, manoeuvre around the Russian lines, wreck their shit and get back a lot of land that was stolen from them.
Just to underline what this comment is saying: this type of breakthrough was the wet dream of WW1. The race to the sea, where the western front was established, was based on finding a flank and turning it. That was the objective of most warfare up to that point, and it ended because they ran out of ground on which to turn a flank. Then they couldn’t meaningfully break through the defenses (or layers of, to be more accurate), like we see Ukraine doing in Kursk. If they turn the flank, they’ll have routing russians for days, and have achieved maneuver warfare again.
I think it’s actually irrelevant really because I don’t reasonably see a situation where Putin is going to be prepared to negotiate. He seems to see this war as his lasting legacy (there have been rumors that he might have some terminal condition, possibly cancer), he doesn’t want his legacy to be defeat, he wants it to be victory even if it requires the death of about 80% of the population.
The only way that Russia would negotiate is if Putin is no longer in charge.
Negotiations happen when one or, more likely, two sides don’t see a way to improve their positions with military force.
The rumors you’re speaking of are a direct consequence of Russia being an autocracy. When you have a country whose ruler doesn’t leave on their own (a dictator), people start speculating on when he’s going to die. These rumors have been going around for about a decade, I believe, and are pretty much meaningless.
Now, about “securing a legacy.” I think it’s much more trivial than that. Invading Ukraine was a good way to secure presidency for the next 1-2 terms and to eradicate opposition within the country. If that’s the case, then, in a sense, he got what he wanted, although he likely also expected the war to be short and victorious (judging by the state media narrative at the time). That didn’t happen. And now there are other issues at hand for him.