Hacker Neue

Preferences
throw310822 parent
I can't understand if this invasion of a tiny portion of Russia (comparatively with what Russia has invaded of Ukraine) has a strategic value or it's only meant as a distraction- for Russia and the West alike- and in hope of some hasty and ill-thought reaction from Putin. Does anyone have a better insight?
hollerith
(1) The Ukrainian leadership is so intent on winning at all costs (understandably) that they'd probably knowingly start WW III if they thought doing so would help them win. A few months ago they attacked a target in Russia (a radar installation or such) whose only purpose was to warn Moscow of an attack on Russia by ICBMs and long-range Western bombers that Ukraine does not have. Similarly, invading Russian territory also has a little of this quality of tempting Moscow into attacking the West more directly than it has been.

(2) Kiev hopes that by reaching out and touching the lives of many ordinary Russians (i.e., Russians living in Kursk oblast and their relatives, many of whom now have to host their relatives as refugees) they can turn Russian public opinion against continuing the war by making the ordinary Russian believe that the costs of the war on people like him is too high. Analogously, the North Vietnamese leadership watched American public opinion very carefully during its war.

lawn
> The Ukrainian leadership is so intent on winning at all costs (understandably) that they'd probably knowingly start WW III if they thought doing so would help them win.

I love how the narrative is to place as much blame as possible onto the Ukrainan leadership.

The undertone is of course that Russia should therefore be able to do whatever they want.

Maybe you're not parroting Kremls agenda knowingly, but the effect is the same.

protomolecule (dead)
lawn
The main reason they're doing this to create a buffer zone to prevent Russia from bombing their civilians.

If the west had allowed Ukraine to use their weapons on Russian soil they could've used those to accomplish the same, but here we are and they're doing what the can.

Another reason is to destabilize Russia and to show the world that Ukraine can fight back.

victorbjorklund
it means russia can no longer do "lets have ceasefire and freeze the border" because that would mean them ceasing Kursk to Ukraine. Instead they have to negotiate
protomolecule (dead)
kwertyoowiyop
Consider similarities to the Tet Offensive.
deadlydose
The only similarity is that it was a surprise and had a psychological impact. The Tet Offensive was massive by comparison.
aguaviva
It does seem that in retrospect, both campaigns will be seen as in effect having "marked time" -- by shifting the narratives, and forcing the respective occupiers to pause to notice (in a brutal and embarassing fashion) that the clock was ticking on their optional neocolonial projects.

Tet also had significant political impact, and forced Westmoreland to start reevaluating the cost (and manpower) needed to keep the ball rolling.

As to whether Kursk '24 will portend something similar for the Russian side - time will tell.

smarm52
It sure makes Putin look weak on the world stage. Looking weak is a bad position for a dictator to be in, it makes their supporters look for replacements, which means they're out of a job and probably destined for a shallow grave.

De Mesquita, B. B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2005). The logic of political survival. MIT press.

pestatije
its a negotiation item to use if their forced to do so in case of a Trump election win

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal