Daniel DePetris
When the Ukrainian army made a sudden, quick thrust into Russia’s Kursk region on Aug. 6, handing yet another surprise to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his security services (the United States was surprised as well), the commentary settled into another period of bombastic celebration.
“They’re [Ukrainian forces] gaining an enormous morale boost,” retired Gen. David Petraeus said on CNN. “It’s a huge blow to Putin needless to say.” Carl Bildt, Sweden’s former prime minister, was even more ebullient, writing that “Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk has fundamentally changed the course of the conflict.” Retired Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, exclaimed that Kyiv’s operation in Kursk tore apart Russia’s narrative of invincibility.
This isn’t the first time military experts and other observers have jumped the gun — indeed, jumping the gun seems to be the pattern. Too many tend to extrapolate far too much based on a single military event, even if that event appears significant in the moment. First, it was Ukraine’s impressive defense against Russia’s initial invasion toward Kyiv in the opening weeks of the war. Then it was Ukraine’s swift counteroffensive in Kharkiv, which reclaimed the region from Russian forces in a matter of days. Then it was Russia’s beating back the Ukrainian army’s 2023 counteroffensive along the 600-mile frontline. Now it’s Ukraine’s invasion of Russian territory. In each case, the event was less a turning point and more an example of how interstate war ebbs and flows.
No comments:
Post a Comment