[GK3]

Interesting reports of a Ukranian offensive in the Kursk region:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukr...024-08-07/

Unlike previous incursions, this seems to be the regular Ukrainian military and in force rather then smaller militias. Videos of leopards and strykers have been circulating, with air defense for protection. One video of a Ukrainian BUK being destroyed. 

I wonder what their main objective is: 
Capture and hold Russian Territory for leverage in negotiations?
Propoganda/morale boost?
Force Russia to divert forces from other areas? All of the above?

It seems to be too involved to just be a "raid and get out" incursion like previous ones that were reported.

I obviously am not privy to Ukraine's thinking. Ukraine has shown in the past that they are willing and able to identify "weak spots" in the Russian defenses and are willing to exploit them. This lead to the major gains in the north east starting with Kupyansk and going from there. IMO Ukraine saw an opportunity and took it. Ukraine realized that at a minimum it would force Russia to redeploy its assets to protect the border more effectively. The effect will undoubtedly be much larger than the cause. That is IMO the main reason for this assault. Ukraine was fortunately able to locate a place where an offensive action would cause Russia many more casualties than it would Ukraine. The "cost" was bearable by a Ukrainian military that is short on personnel. Russia moved as many assets as it could to support offensive actions in the north east. Ukraine made them pay.

Being a bit of an optimist I also note that Ukraine executed a successful "combined arms" operation including providing air cover (via SAMs). This is the first time they have actually done that successfully.  Granted, it was on a small scale, but this can be regarded as a "learning experience". If we see more of these it will indicate that is the case. It was indeed a leap of faith last summer when Ukraine attempted a very large "combined arms" operation without either the command staff or the troops having any experience at all in doing such an operation.

Gaining experience, especially if it is "low cost" and forces a major tactical redeployment by Russia is a big win. A significant increase in confidence at all levels in the units involved will also result. They will be "keen" to do it again. The fact there was a success will lift the general morale level, but not a lot. Ukraine still has problems defending in the north east. They aren't yet ready or able to dictate the "when and where" to Russia through Ukrainian action. If they can survive the winter without losing too much territory in the north, they may be able to turn things around in spring. Ukraine may accomplish this either by direct attacks in the north or by successful attacks elsewhere that depletes Russian forces in the north. I suspect Ukraine intends the latter. If one attempts to "make sense" of what Ukraine is doing on the ground, that seems to be the "plan". Of course, there may be no plan and opportunism may be the ruling factor. I hope not, but who knows? Ukraine is fighting hard in Kherson and inflicting significant attrition in Crimea, both air defense and logistics. AFAIK not much is going on in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. That may be inviting Russia to transfer forces out and make an offensive there by Ukraine in the spring feasible. It also may be that Ukraine just doesn't have the manpower to do more.

It appears Ukraine has penetrated to within 30 km's of a major Russian nuclear power plant.  They wouldn't have to attack the plant itself, but the distribution network around the plant could well be reachable with the right weapons. Anything the Ukraine forces can do that takes some pressure off their other forces is good.  It could possibly make possible use of F 16's if there are not S 400 or S300 batteries in the local area.

[GK3]

Interesting reports of a Ukranian offensive in the Kursk region:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukr...024-08-07/

Unlike previous incursions, this seems to be the regular Ukrainian military and in force rather then smaller militias. Videos of leopards and strykers have been circulating, with air defense for protection. One video of a Ukrainian BUK being destroyed. 

I wonder what their main objective is: 
Capture and hold Russian Territory for leverage in negotiations?
Propoganda/morale boost?
Force Russia to divert forces from other areas? All of the above?

It seems to be too involved to just be a "raid and get out" incursion like previous ones that were reported.

I obviously am not privy to Ukraine's thinking. Ukraine has shown in the past that they are willing and able to identify "weak spots" in the Russian defenses and are willing to exploit them. This lead to the major gains in the north east starting with Kupyansk and going from there. IMO Ukraine saw an opportunity and took it. Ukraine realized that at a minimum it would force Russia to redeploy its assets to protect the border more effectively. The effect will undoubtedly be much larger than the cause. That is IMO the main reason for this assault. Ukraine was fortunately able to locate a place where an offensive action would cause Russia many more casualties than it would Ukraine. The "cost" was bearable by a Ukrainian military that is short on personnel. Russia moved as many assets as it could to support offensive actions in the north east. Ukraine made them pay.

Being a bit of an optimist I also note that Ukraine executed a successful "combined arms" operation including providing air cover (via SAMs). This is the first time they have actually done that successfully.  Granted, it was on a small scale, but this can be regarded as a "learning experience". If we see more of these it will indicate that is the case. It was indeed a leap of faith last summer when Ukraine attempted a very large "combined arms" operation without either the command staff or the troops having any experience at all in doing such an operation.

Gaining experience, especially if it is "low cost" and forces a major tactical redeployment by Russia is a big win. A significant increase in confidence at all levels in the units involved will also result. They will be "keen" to do it again. The fact there was a success will lift the general morale level, but not a lot. Ukraine still has problems defending in the north east. They aren't yet ready or able to dictate the "when and where" to Russia through Ukrainian action. If they can survive the winter without losing too much territory in the north, they may be able to turn things around in spring. Ukraine may accomplish this either by direct attacks in the north or by successful attacks elsewhere that depletes Russian forces in the north. I suspect Ukraine intends the latter. If one attempts to "make sense" of what Ukraine is doing on the ground, that seems to be the "plan". Of course, there may be no plan and opportunism may be the ruling factor. I hope not, but who knows? Ukraine is fighting hard in Kherson and inflicting significant attrition in Crimea, both air defense and logistics. AFAIK not much is going on in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. That may be inviting Russia to transfer forces out and make an offensive there by Ukraine in the spring feasible. It also may be that Ukraine just doesn't have the manpower to do more.

It appears Ukraine has penetrated to within 30 km's of a major Russian nuclear power plant.  They wouldn't have to attack the plant itself, but the distribution network around the plant could well be reachable with the right weapons. Anything the Ukraine forces can do that takes some pressure off their other forces is good.  It could possibly make possible use of F 16's if there are not S 400 or S300 batteries in the local area.