The war in Ukraine catapulted to the top of the news on 6 August when Ukrainian forces launched an unexpected assault over the border into the Kursk region of Russia.
They rapidly took over 400 square miles of territory, capturing dozens of villages and towns. Unprepared Russian forces were overcome and hundreds taken prisoner. Fears were sparked in the local population with hundreds of thousands of civilians fleeing. This marked the first invasion of Russia since world war two and is a major humiliation for Putin. But can it change the course of the war?
It’s over two-and-a-half years since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Its army holds much of the south and east of the country, but broadly speaking the current lines of control were established in the first three months of the war. Since then there have been only incremental gains back and forth, ground out at an enormous cost in ‘blood and treasure’.
There have been tens, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides and millions of Ukrainians have been displaced. Even before the invasion thousands had died during years of civil war fought around the majority Russian-speaking provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, which had declared independence from Kyiv. When opposing ruling classes clash it is the working-class who suffer most. This latest twist makes the situation more volatile and will increase that suffering further.
The invasion of Kursk certainly marks a dramatic change in the situation. But it’s a big gamble by the regime of Volodymyr Zelensky, and not necessarily one advised by all his military commanders, some of whom are said to be worried about the dangers of overstretch. He clearly sees this as a necessary risk but has not made the decision from a position of strength. Ukraine’s forces have been on the backfoot, with Russia grinding forward in recent months. He has faced problems with morale, difficulties conscripting soldiers, and a growing desire to sue for peace among a war-weary population.
War always sees contesting claims about battlefield conditions by the different sides. A Russian counter-offensive has not so far driven the Ukrainian forces out of Kursk. However, the invasion does not yet seem to have fundamentally shifted the fortunes of war. Ukraine may have hoped to force Russia to divert significant troop numbers away from eastern Ukraine, allowing them to be pushed back there. This has not happened. In fact, there seems to have been a further creeping forward of the Russian positions. The invasion may have exposed Russian frailties along its border but it’s also extended the already stretched Ukrainian lines, leaving them more vulnerable. Despite suffering huge casualties in this war Russia still has a significantly bigger pool of troops to draw on.
However, Zelensky hopes to change the political situation as well as the miliary one. One aim is to raise Ukrainian morale, linking the invasion to his secret ‘victory plan’ which he says in now ‘fully prepared’. He has said this must end in peace, not the ‘freezing of the war’ along current frontlines.
There remains a huge gulf between the positions each regime would take into any potential peace talks though. Zelensky says all Ukraine’s territory must be returned, including Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014. Putin wants any deal to reflect ‘facts on the ground’, that is to formalise its control over occupied areas. The land grab in Kursk is aimed at changing those facts and providing Zelensky with a bargaining chip to be swapped for parts of eastern Ukraine.
The timing was not accidental. Ukraine’s war effort has relied on the provision of armaments and aid from Western countries. However, that support has not always been as extensive or as urgent as Zelensky has demanded. There have been divisions between the American and European imperialist powers and among politicians within those countries. Republican opposition delayed the last round of military aid from Joe Biden’s administration. At the time, 40% of Americans believed too much was being spent on Ukraine, only 11% said it was not enough.
In particular, it’s the possibility of Donald Trump winning November’s presidential election which has increased the pressure on Zelensky, potentially signalling a fall in US support. Trump has claimed that he can end the war ‘in 24 hours’, without further elaboration. However his running mate, JD Vance, has indicated that what a peace agreement “probably looks like is the current line of demarcation between Russia and Ukraine, that becomes like a demilitarised zone”. He added it would mean Ukraine “doesn’t join NATO, it doesn’t join some of these allied institutions” – another of Putin’s demands
If Kamala Harris wins the US presidential election she is likely to continue Biden’s approach. Like most of the European regimes, Biden has pledged full support for Ukraine, although in private must recognise that there is no prospect for a decisive military victory. Western powers have pursued their own interests in backing Ukraine against Russia but have also sought to walk a tightrope that avoids escalation and any direct conflict between themselves and Putin.
That means restrictions have been placed on the use of some of the weapons supplied by the West, particularly on their use within Russia. The Ukrainian incursion into Kursk pushes the envelope on some of those restrictions. Western governments claim to have had no prior notice of that invasion although, in the context of war, no statements of this nature can ever be taken on trust.
Ukraine has continuously sought a green light to use Western weapons against targets in Russia, but has made slow progress. The UK government hinted that firing longer-range missiles such as the Storm Shadow into Russia would soon be allowed, but no such decisions were announced after discussions between Keir Starmer and Biden. The limited use of shorter-range weapons over the border had already been granted though, and nothing has been done to stop the critical use of Western equipment in the assault on Kursk.
This invasion raises the stakes in the war. Inevitably it has been seen as a provocation by Putin who had previously warned that foreign invasion is a red line that would elicit a response. The supply of Iranian missiles to Russia has been treated as another provocation by the West, hypocritically given they have armed Ukraine and numerous other regimes.
The ratcheting up of tensions in war can potentially lead to consequences that neither side want. Yet it is an inherent danger in a capitalist system that is based on competing national ruling classes. Competition intensifies in times of crisis and the world today is a dangerous place, where serious escalation is also a risk in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The ruling classes of Russia, Ukraine and their Western allies cannot be trusted to find a route to peace. But wars are not only decided on the battlefield, working-class struggle can change the situation. The pressure on Zelensky from ordinary Ukrainians is increasing. Putin’s repressive regime may appear to have stifled opposition but it is hard to know the level of anger below the surface. There are many examples of apparently strong governments being overthrown by movements that take capitalist commentators by surprise. Were any movement against Putin to erupt, no doubt the number of families whose sons went to Ukraine and never returned would be a factor.
Socialists support the building of genuine working-class organisations in Ukraine and Russia, independent of the capitalists. We seek working-class unity across national divides on the basis of shared interests. We believe in the rights of nations to self-determination, for people to democratically decide what country to be a part of, with protection for all minorities. People’s futures should not be dictated by negotiations between the ruling classes or imposed by occupying forces. Only the working class is capable of ending war and the capitalist rivalries that drive it, through the socialist transformation of society.
Tom Baldwin