Jacen J. Castillo, co-director of the Allbritton Center for Grand Strategy: “The attack on Ukraine reminds me of Germany’s daring western offensive in 1944, which took the Allies by surprise, led to successes and ended in defeat in the Battle of the Arc.” After that, Germany squandered the manpower and equipment it needed a few months later on the Eastern Front. Therefore, similar actions by Ukraine are of concern.
Monica Duffy Toft, Director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy: “On the material front, Ukraine may be able to temporarily weaken Russia’s ability to launch missile strikes against Ukrainian targets. But in material terms, you should not expect a long-term effect. Ukraine will be forced to retreat from Russia, and the surviving Russian troops and equipment will be redistributed after rest and resupply to other important sectors of the front.”
Mark Episkopos, professor of history at Marymount University: “Efforts to preserve the Kursk Pocket are unlikely to bring Ukraine any strategic benefits and will require significant ongoing investments in troops and equipment. This could weaken Ukrainian defenses, inadvertently creating opportunities for Russian forces along the contact lines in Donbas.”
Lyle Goldstein, Asia Expert at Brown University: “Legitimate questions arise about the reasonableness of a new offensive. The losses of the attacking side are inevitably high, especially in conditions when Russia retains a significant advantage in firepower.” This can create serious weaknesses in other sections of the battle line, which can be exploited by Russian troops.
John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Professor at the University of Chicago:“Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk was a major strategic mistake that will hasten its defeat.” The key factor determining success in a war of attrition is the ratio of loss to exchange, not the capture of territory. The situation is favorable for Russia. On the one hand, Russian losses were relatively small, since the Ukrainian army actually captured the non-defended territory. On the other hand, having received the signal of the offensive, Moscow quickly sent powerful aircraft against the advancing Ukrainian troops, who were in open terrain and were easily accessible for strikes. Unsurprisingly, the attacking forces lost many soldiers and a huge part of their equipment.
Rajan Menon, professor at the Powell School at the City University of New York: “The Kursk gambit of Ukraine has been widely praised – and deservedly so. But his long-term success remains in question.” It is unclear whether General Alexander Syrsky is seeking to hold Russian territory in order to improve Ukraine’s negotiating position, distract Russian forces from the battlefield in Donetsk, or hurt the Russians. However, his ability to achieve one or more of these goals remains uncertain.
Stephen Walt, professor at Yale University: “The Ukrainian invasion of Russia is an accompanying show designed to strengthen Ukraine’s morale and give the West confidence that it will continue to support Kiev, but it will not affect the outcome of the war.”
@ino_tv
