Introduction: A Historic First Since WWII
In August 2024, the world watched in stunned disbelief as Ukraine did something no foreign military had achieved since World War II: it invaded and held Russian territory. Known as the Kursk Offensive, Ukraine’s sudden push into Russia’s Kursk region captured 1,300 square kilometers of land and sent a shockwave through Moscow’s military command.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham famously described the move as “bold, brilliant, beautiful.” It was, without question, a historic moment—one that galvanized Ukraine, humiliated the Kremlin, and injected new energy into Kyiv’s war-weary population. But now, with the pocket of occupied Russian land lost and thousands of soldiers dead or wounded, the critical question looms:
Was the Kursk Offensive worth it?
The Offensive: Ambition on Foreign Soil
The operation started like a thunderclap. Ukrainian troops swept across the border, surprising underprepared Russian defenses and seizing a sizeable area near the town of Suda. Within days, Ukraine had accomplished something unthinkable—a foreign military presence on Russian soil, complete with a functioning perimeter and ongoing military logistics.
By early March 2025, Ukraine had held this territory for seven months, resisting multiple counterattacks, including by 12,000 North Korean troops, who had joined the war as part of a growing Russia–DPRK alliance.
But beneath the headlines of victory, there were cracks forming in the pocket’s stability.
Why Did the Kursk Pocket Collapse?
The front’s collapse in March 2025 seemed sudden, but the signs were always there.
1. Poor Strategic Width
According to both soldiers on the ground and analysts like the Finland-based Blackbird Group, Ukraine failed to expand and secure the flanks of its incursion. A wide, defensible front became a narrow salient, easy for Russia to chip away at.
2. Logistics Breakdown
In late December, a Russian drone strike on a key supply track severely disrupted resupply operations. By February, the loss of the village of Spylovo brought the last remaining roads under constant drone surveillance, turning them into deadly “kill zones.”
3. Russian and North Korean Reinforcements
Far from being mere cannon fodder, North Korean troops acted as force multipliers, according to Ukrainian accounts. Simultaneously, Russia began deploying fiber-optic connected drones immune to Ukrainian electronic warfare—a devastating innovation.
4. Command Delays and Communication Gaps
The final retreat on March 6th began with lower-level units, with senior command only greenlighting the withdrawal once it was too late. Drone footage shows a mixed retreat—some units moved in an orderly fashion, while others fled chaotically under artillery fire.
Retreat or Disaster? What the Evidence Shows
The answer, it seems, depends on who you ask.
- President Trump claimed that thousands of Ukrainian troops were encircled.
- Open-source analysts, like the Blackbird Group and Christopher Miller, countered that large-scale disaster was averted, with only small numbers captured or killed in retreat.
Telegram videos, often a source for propaganda, lack any credible footage of mass Ukrainian surrender, supporting the latter narrative.
Still, the cost was high. Ukrainian sources estimate thousands of soldiers died during the seven-month campaign—a steep toll for a country already facing a critical manpower crisis.
What Was the Goal of the Kursk Operation?
To evaluate success or failure, we need to know: What was Ukraine trying to achieve?
That, as it turns out, kept changing.
Initial Goal: A Shock-and-Awe Raid
- Capture Russian soldiers to trade for Ukrainian POWs.
- Prove to the world that Ukraine could still strike back.
This early phase worked brilliantly. The raid netted hundreds of Russian captives, most of whom were exchanged for high-value Ukrainians.
Shifting Goal: Create a Buffer Zone
Over time, Kyiv hinted the Kursk operation was meant to preempt a Russian assault on Sumi by taking the fight to Russian soil.
Others suggested it was intended as a bargaining chip in future negotiations. Still others saw it as a signal to Western backers: Give us more weapons—we can win.
This lack of a clear, fixed objective is one of the most persistent criticisms of the operation.
Internal Weaknesses and External Dependencies
The longer Ukraine held the pocket, the more apparent its vulnerabilities became.
Poor Defensive Planning
- No drone nets were installed over supply roads.
- Fortifications were minimal.
- Commanders delayed essential decisions until it was too late.
Manpower Crisis
- 12,000 Ukrainian troops tried to hold back 62,000 enemy soldiers (including Russians and North Koreans).
- Ukraine’s government delayed unpopular mobilization laws, worsening the deficit.
Starlink Limitations
Starlink, which powers much of Ukraine’s military communication, was disabled in Russian territory, leaving units cut off.
U.S. Intelligence Cutoff
In the final days of the pocket’s existence, U.S. intelligence sharing was paused. While some claim this crippled the operation, most serious analysts (e.g., Michael Kofman) believe it was a contributing factor, not the main cause of failure.
Was It Worth It? Evaluating the Strategic Costs
1. Manpower and Equipment Losses
- Both Ukraine and Russia suffered heavy equipment losses—around 700 vehicles each.
- Elite units were lost on both sides.
- Ukraine’s manpower losses, however, are more impactful, given its smaller reserve pool.
2. Diversion of Troops from the Donbas
Some analysts argue that diverting troops to Kursk weakened Ukrainian positions elsewhere:
- The fall of Avdiivka in October.
- Gains by Russia near Chasiv Yar and Kupiansk.
- Inability to stop Russian entrenchment along the Oskil River.
3. Did Kursk Protect Sumi or Kyiv?
That depends on which parallel reality you believe:
- If Russia was preparing a major assault on Sumi or Kyiv, then Kursk may have bought time for Ukraine to fortify.
- If Russia’s true focus was Donbas, then Kursk may have drained Ukraine’s ability to hold critical fronts.
The Morale Factor: Intangible, but Important
Despite the eventual retreat, Kursk had significant psychological impact.
For Ukraine:
- It was a rare moment of triumph in a grim year.
- It exposed vulnerabilities in Russia’s defense.
- It reminded Ukrainians—and the world—that the fight wasn’t over.
For Russia:
- It revealed cracks in high command.
- It prompted urgent defensive measures deep inside Russian territory.
- It sowed panic rarely seen since the 2023 Wagner mutiny.
One Ukrainian commander told The Economist:
“For too long, Russia was seen through a kaleidoscope of fakes… We showed the emperor had no clothes.”
So… Was It Worth It?
Even now, there is no consensus.
- Critics (e.g., John Helin) call it a costly distraction, pulling focus from more important battles.
- Balanced analysts (e.g., Michael Kofman) say it was tactically successful, but failed operationally.
- Supporters argue it forced Russia into costly battles, delayed an assault on key Ukrainian cities, and boosted national morale at a dark time.
Your conclusion depends on what you value most:
- Manpower conservation? Kursk was likely a mistake.
- Psychological impact and strategic daring? Kursk was a gamble that made a point.
- Defensive preparedness for cities like Sumi? The next few weeks will tell.
FAQs
Q: What was the Kursk Offensive?
A Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk region in August 2024, occupying up to 1,300 sq km of Russian territory for seven months.
Q: How many Ukrainian troops were captured?
Very few. Despite claims of mass encirclement, open-source evidence shows that most Ukrainian forces successfully retreated.
Q: Was the Kursk Offensive successful?
Tactically, yes. Strategically, it’s debated. The operation had short-term benefits but unclear long-term gains.
Q: Did the operation protect cities like Sumi?
Possibly. Kursk may have delayed or disrupted Russian plans to invade northeastern Ukraine, but this is still uncertain.
Q: How did the West respond?
Despite initial praise, Kursk did not unlock significant new Western aid. Morale in Ukraine improved, but political outcomes were limited.
Conclusion: A Chapter Not Yet Closed
The Kursk Offensive will likely be remembered as one of the boldest operations of the Ukraine–Russia war. It was audacious, risky, and ultimately unsustainable. Whether it was a strategic misstep or a necessary act of wartime desperation depends on your view of Ukraine’s objectives—and what happens next.
One thing is clear: history is still being written, and the Kursk chapter, though ended militarily, is far from closed in its consequences.
