Ukraine's Miscalculated Kursk Offensive Of August 2024 That Accelerated Its Collapse

On August 6th, 2024, Ukraine launched a highly anticipated offensive into the thinly defended Kursk region of Russia.

Initially, Western media hailed the operation as a significant achievement, with reports focusing on the successes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). Outlets like CNN even described it as a personal embarrassment for Putin, while think tanks like Rand Corp. considered it a major error in judgment on Russia's part. The Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) went as far as to call it a masterpiece of operational and strategic genius.

However, as events unfolded, it became increasingly clear that the offensive had failed to meet its objectives. Not just that, the Ukrainians ended up losing more territory in one month than they had in all of 2023.

To understand why this happened, we need to first explore the historical context of counteroffensive strategies and diversionary tactics, and then break down the specific flaws in the Kursk operation.

The Rationale Behind Diversionary and Defensive Counterattacks

A diversionary attack is a tactical manoeuvre aimed at misleading the enemy, drawing attention or resources away from the primary objective. The goal is to force the enemy to divert their forces to a secondary target, while the true aim is pursued elsewhere.

In this case, Ukraine was facing relentless pressure in the Donbas region, where Russian forces had made slow but steady progress. Although the AFU inflicted heavy costs on the Russians, they had no means to halt their advance.

With the looming U.S. presidential elections in November 2024, the support for Ukraine was uncertain. The prospect of a potential Trump victory raised concerns about the possibility of reduced Western aid, as we are seeing today. Consequently, the Ukrainian government needed to act swiftly to divert Russian forces away from the crucial southern front and buy time to reinforce defensive positions. This led to the launch of what is essentially a defensive counterattack, a variation of the diversionary tactic.

A defensive counterattack occurs when a force that is under pressure—not simply holding its ground or retreating—decides to launch an attack against an enemy that is either overstretched or has exposed vulnerabilities. The primary aim is to regain lost ground, disrupt the enemy’s offensive, and reverse the momentum of the battle.

In military history, we can see many examples of this tactic, employed successfully by some of the greatest commanders in history.

Historical Context: Mastery of the Counterattack

Napoleon Bonaparte was a master of defensive counterattacks, and his famous victory at the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 serves as one of the most studied examples of using such tactics with deadly precision.

Napoleon intentionally weakened his right flank to lure the Austrian and Russian forces into attacking it. Once the enemy committed to the attack, he struck with devastating force at their exposed left flank, decisively turning the tide of the battle in his favor. This audacious move relied on perfect timing, baiting the enemy into overextending, and exploiting their vulnerability at the right moment.

Similarly, Shivaji Maharaj employed similar tactics in his victory at Pratapgarh. Faced with overwhelming numbers from the Bijapur Sultanate, Shivaji used the terrain to his advantage, luring the enemy into an unfavourable position.

His brilliant use of counter-espionage, a surprise assassination, and a swift counterstroke caught the enemy off guard, leading to a historic victory. Shivaji's tactics combined audacity, clever intelligence, and a deep understanding of timing and vulnerability—elements that are often crucial to the success of a defensive counterattack.

Throughout history, military doctrine has consistently emphasized the importance of offensive action, even in the face of retreat. The Prussian General Staff, and later the Germans in both World Wars, ingrained in their officers the need to attack at every opportunity.

However, this approach didn't always yield success. For instance, the Battle of Kursk in 1943 and the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 stand as prominent examples where the tactical doctrine of offensive action ultimately failed. In both cases, despite initially advantageous positions, the counteroffensive was either repelled or failed to achieve its objectives, resulting in heavy casualties and strategic setbacks.

Why the Kursk Offensive Failed

Now, let’s analyse the specific elements of the defensive counterattack employed in the Ukrainian Kursk offensive and explore why it was almost certainly doomed to fail:

1. Timing and Opportunity

A successful counterattack often hinges on the right moment—when the enemy has stretched their forces too thin or is exposed in a vulnerable position.

In Kursk, however, it was not Russia but Ukraine that was overstretched. The Russian forces enjoyed a significant advantage, with a 10:1 superiority in artillery, a 5:1 advantage in drones, and comparable numbers in infantry.

These advantages were achieved without the need for forced conscription, unlike the strained AFU, which was facing serious manpower shortages and low morale.

2. Defensive Posture

Unlike a typical offensive, a defensive counterattack begins with the defender holding a position, either retreating to a fortified area, weathering an initial assault, or feigning weakness to lure the enemy into a vulnerable position.

The AFU hoped to bait Russian reinforcements into the Kursk salient, thus relieving pressure on their southern front. However, Moscow chose not to take the bait.

Instead of an emotional decision to defend Kursk at all costs, the Russian strategy focused on trading space for time in Kursk while continuing its steady attrition of the AFU in the Donbas.

3. Exploiting Weakness

Defensive counterattacks are most effective when the defender can identify a weakness or vulnerability in the enemy’s formation.

While the AFU did correctly identify a weakly defended area in the Russian lines and launched an attack with 15,000 troops backed by armor and artillery, they failed to capitalize on it decisively.

The Russian forces were not as overstretched as the AFU had hoped, and their lines remained relatively intact despite the initial breach. Moreover, Russia’s ability to rapidly reinforce the area with artillery and air support ultimately overwhelmed the Ukrainian forces.

4. Reserves

One critical component of a successful defensive counterattack is the availability of reserve forces—troops kept in reserve to exploit gaps in the enemy’s lines.

Unfortunately, the AFU lacked such reserves. This severely limited their ability to bring in fresh forces to exploit any successes in the counteroffensive.

5. Momentum Shift

The ultimate goal of any counterattack is to shift the momentum from the enemy to the defending force. If executed well, this can force the attacker to abandon their offensive or even retreat.

Unfortunately, in Kursk, the AFU’s counterattack failed to achieve this. Instead of reversing the tide, the AFU’s weakened positions in the south began to yield territory at a pace not seen since the early stages of the war.

By October 2024, Russian forces had steadily regained almost 60% of the territory that had been lost to Ukraine during the offensive.

The Aftermath: A Strategic Setback for Ukraine

While the Kursk offensive served as a brief propaganda victory for Ukraine, its broader impact was to hasten the decline of the Zelensky regime.

Ukrainian claims of occupying 1,300 square kilometers of territory—often cited by media outlets—were significantly overstated. Independent sources, such as the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), reported closer to 1,100 square kilometers occupied. Of that, only around 400 square kilometers—centered around the town of Sudzha—remained under Ukrainian control by the end of the year.

In retrospect, the offensive in Kursk may have been an audacious attempt to shift the momentum of the war, but it ultimately lacked the strategic depth, resources, and timing needed for success. Instead of achieving the desired diversion or shifting the momentum, it only accelerated Ukraine’s struggles, leading to further territorial losses and a weakened position on the battlefield.

Lessons from History and the Present

The failure of the Kursk offensive highlights the timeless nature of strategic principles in warfare.

Whether it’s Napoleon at Austerlitz, Shivaji at Pratapgarh, or even the disastrous German offensives at Kursk and the Bulge, the key to successful counterattacks lies in understanding the enemy's vulnerabilities, exploiting weaknesses with precise timing, and ensuring the necessary resources and reserves are in place to capitalize on success.

The Ukrainian experience in Kursk serves as a reminder that, no matter the scale of ambition, success in warfare requires careful consideration of the battlefield realities, and in this case, the miscalculations made by Ukraine have hastened the erosion of their earlier momentum.