The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Kenneth Hillas is an adjunct professor at the University of Maine’s Graduate School of Policy and International Affairs. He is a retired senior foreign service officer who worked on Soviet/Russian affairs and served two years in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not represent those of the University of Maine.
In some wars there are turning points in the conflict. The 1943 Battle of Kursk — the largest tank battle ever fought — was the last major offensive by Nazi Germany in World War II on the Eastern Front. Germany’s offensive capacity was destroyed, and it lost ground to the Soviet Army over the next two years.
Turning points can alter the military balance or upset the strategic calculus of national leaders. The early 1968 Tet Offensive by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces, although eventually defeated, upended American public attitudes about the war by undermining the credibility of the Pentagon’s claims that the U.S. was on the road to victory. It persuaded the Johnson administration to start the Paris peace talks in May 1968 that eventually led to the Paris peace accords in 1973, by which time all U.S. combat forces had been withdrawn.
There has been speculation that Ukraine’s offensive in Russia’s Kursk region, the first invasion of Russia since World War II, may prove to be a turning point in the war between Russia and Ukraine. Carl Bildt, the co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, believes Ukraine’s current offensive in the Kursh Region of Russia represents a “turning point” in the war because it has destroyed the narrative the Kremlin has been feeding its populace, and will thus require it to find a way to end the war.
Ukraine’s offensive, for sure, has seized more than 1,000 square miles of Russian territory and continues to slowly gain ground. Ukraine has captured at least 600 Russian soldiers, strengthening its hand if peace talks ever get started. But the Kursk offensive has not changed the strategic equation in eastern Ukraine where Russian forces continue to slowly but surely gain ground, a region viewed by many in Russia as historically part of their country. Russia retains considerable advantages in manpower and weaponry and has not shifted significant forces from eastern Ukraine to contain the invasion of Kursk. Just as important, Russian President Vladimir Putin has proven adept at squashing opposition to the war — jailing, killing or forcing into exile many opposition figures. That repression will intensify if there is a need to deal with rising disaffection over the war.
Big questions remain unanswered. Would Putin ever be willing to forego his goal of “reuniting” all of Ukraine with Russia? Could Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky accept less than the goal of liberating all Ukrainian territories taken by Russia, including Crimea. Until the two leaders reach these conclusions, the war is likely to grind on, even if there are tactical changes along the fronts. It would require some major political reframing by the Kremlin to make such a policy shift. While an overwhelming majority (77 percent) of Russians have said this year they support Putin’s war against Ukraine, about half the population also favors the start of peace talks, according to the Levada Center, an independent survey firm in Russia.
In his more than 24 years in power, Putin has shown an ability to play on nationalist sentiment. His calls for restoring Russia’s status as a great power and righting the historic wrongs many Russians think occurred under Soviet rule stir latent nationalist sentiment. For example, Crimea, a historically Russian region, was transferred in 1954 by a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR at the behest of Communist Party General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian.
Whether Ukraine’s Kursk offensive proves a turning point does not appear to stand up to scrutiny. For the U.S. and its NATO allies, this means that support for Ukraine remains a long-term effort. Notwithstanding the $250 million in U.S. assistance announced by the Biden administration on Sep. 6, the continuation of U.S. military support is in doubt. The president’s drawdown authority would have to be extended past Sept. 30 in order to draw from the overall $6 billion in assistance Congress authorized earlier this year. That would require Congress to adopt a continuing resolution prior for fiscal year 2025 with a presidential drawdown authority provision. Former President Donald Trump, however, reportedly opposes such a continuing resolution.
Without Western support — especially by the U.S. — Ukraine military prospects will decline, as would Zelensky’s ability to maintain Ukraine’s national unity and resolve. A weakening of Western support is a “turning point” on which Putin is counting.
