In early August, the war in Ukraine took a dramatic turn as the Ukrainian Armed Forces carried out a bold and unexpected incursion into Russian territory, marking the first foreign invasion of Russia since World War II. This unprecedented development, which unfolded in Russia’s Kursk region, took both the Russian government and international observers by surprise, raising serious questions about Moscow’s military preparedness, the future course of the war, and the potential for further escalation.

Despite the seriousness of the situation, the Kremlin has adopted a dual response, downplaying the severity of the Ukrainian incursion while quietly taking significant measures to counter it. The reality, however, suggests that the Kursk incursion may have far-reaching implications that Russia is reluctant to fully acknowledge.

On the night of August 6, Ukrainian forces crossed the Russian border into the Kursk region, launching a surprise offensive that targeted several towns. Within 24 hours, the Ukrainian army had advanced up to 10 kilometers into Russian territory and reportedly captured the regional center of Sudzha. A month later, Ukrainian forces had not only held their ground but had expanded their control to an area of more than 1,300 square kilometers, according to some estimates. The Institute for the Study of War placed the area at 1,150 square kilometers, while Russian officials reported a more conservative estimate of 480 square kilometers.

The incursion into Kursk represents a significant strategic and symbolic victory for Ukraine. Since the beginning of the war, Kyiv has repeatedly delivered strategic surprises that have defied expectations, reaffirming Western support and boosting morale at home. The Kursk operation is the latest example of Ukraine’s ability to turn the tide of the conflict, even as Russian forces continue to advance in other areas, such as the Donetsk region.

Russia’s Delayed Response: A Facade of Control

Moscow’s reaction to the Ukrainian incursion has been characterized by a noticeable delay and a divided approach. President Vladimir Putin, known for his tight control over Russia’s military and political responses, remained conspicuously silent for nearly a week after the incursion began. When he did address the situation in a televised meeting on August 12, his comments were brief, focusing on blaming the West for what he described as a “provocation” and calling for Ukrainian forces to be expelled from Russian territory.

In subsequent remarks, Putin framed the incursion as part of a broader effort by Russia’s “enemies and adversaries” to destabilize the country. His focus on external threats rather than the specifics of the Ukrainian advance seemed designed to maintain the image of control and minimize the perception of vulnerability. During this period, Putin even traveled to Azerbaijan for a two-day state visit, further signaling that he did not view the Kursk situation as a critical national emergency.

Meanwhile, other high-ranking officials, including the acting governor of the Kursk region, avoided visiting the areas affected by the fighting. This absence of federal leadership on the ground contributed to a sense that the Kremlin was downplaying the seriousness of the situation.

However, behind the scenes, Russia took significant measures in response to the incursion. A federal emergency was declared in both the Kursk and neighboring Belgorod regions, and a counter-terrorist operation regime was introduced across a broad swath of territory, including the Bryansk region. These measures, which affected millions of people, were the largest such operations in modern Russian history. Official reports indicated that more than 120,000 residents of Kursk were evacuated from areas under Ukrainian control.

A Shock to the Russian Elite

According to sources within the Russian government, the Ukrainian incursion came as a genuine shock to the Russian elite. The boldness and speed of the operation caught Moscow off guard, and it took time for the Kremlin to formulate a coherent response. One source explained that the initial shock faded within two weeks, and officials began to frame the situation as the “new normal.” The key message from the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus has been that, while enemies have broken into Russia, they will inevitably be defeated, though this may take time.

This framing reflects Russia’s broader strategy of managing public perception by minimizing setbacks and focusing on long-term resilience. The Kursk incursion, however, presents a unique challenge, as it represents not just a military defeat but a symbolic blow to the image of an invincible Russia.

Strategic Motives Behind Ukraine’s Incursion

Ukraine’s decision to invade Kursk has sparked debate among analysts about Kyiv’s broader strategy. One plausible explanation is that the incursion was designed to stretch Russian forces across multiple fronts. With Russian troops heavily concentrated in eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donetsk region, the Kursk operation may have been intended to divert resources and undermine Russian momentum in Donbass.

By forcing Moscow to defend its own territory, Ukraine may have hoped to relieve pressure on its forces elsewhere, while also delivering a morale boost to its own military and civilian population. The audacity of the incursion has undoubtedly captured international attention and reaffirmed Western support for Ukraine.

Another possible motive is that President Volodymyr Zelensky sought to strengthen his position in any future peace negotiations. Shortly before the Kursk operation, Zelensky suggested that there could be a “real foundation for a fair end to this war this year.” The seizure of Russian territory, even if temporary, provides Ukraine with a stronger bargaining position. However, Putin’s response to the incursion has been to dismiss the possibility of meaningful negotiations, especially given the Ukrainian strikes on civilian infrastructure.

Russia’s Red Lines: A New Reality

One of the most significant aspects of Ukraine’s Kursk operation is the way it challenges Russia’s “red lines.” Throughout the war, Putin has repeatedly warned of severe consequences, including nuclear retaliation, for Western support of Ukraine. However, as the conflict has dragged on, many of these red lines have been crossed with little or no response from Moscow. Western countries have gradually escalated their support for Ukraine, providing increasingly advanced weaponry, from Javelin missiles to F-16 fighter jets.

By invading Russian territory, Ukraine has once again called Moscow’s bluff, demonstrating that many of Putin’s threats are hollow. This has important implications for Western policymakers, who may feel more confident in ignoring Russia’s rhetorical posturing in the future. If the West continues to hesitate in providing military aid to Ukraine out of fear of provoking Russia, the Kursk incursion serves as a powerful reminder that such fears are often unfounded.

Russia: A Resilient Facade?

While the Kursk incursion represents a significant military and symbolic victory for Ukraine, it has not yet translated into domestic pressure on the Kremlin. Public opinion data in Russia suggest that the majority of Russians remain supportive of Putin and the ongoing war effort, though there are signs of growing weariness.

Before the Kursk operation, a survey conducted by the independent Levada Center showed that 75% of Russians supported the war, though a majority (58%) also expressed a desire for peace negotiations. Support for continuing the war had declined to 34%, the lowest level since the conflict began, while 17% explicitly opposed the war. These numbers reflect a complex and evolving public sentiment, with many Russians expressing a preference for peace while still supporting Putin’s leadership.

Demographic analysis of the survey results reveals that support for the war is highest among older men, those who trust state-controlled media, and wealthier Russians. In contrast, younger Russians, women, and those who rely on alternative sources of information are more likely to oppose the war or call for peace.

Following the Kursk incursion, state-funded pollsters reported a slight increase in public anxiety but no significant shift in Putin’s approval ratings, which remained above 80%. The Kremlin’s ability to control the narrative through its propaganda apparatus and the lack of a viable political opposition have helped maintain public support, even in the face of military setbacks.

The Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk region marks a turning point in the war, challenging Russia’s military capabilities, public image, and geopolitical strategy. While the Kremlin has downplayed the significance of the operation, the reality is that Ukraine’s bold move has exposed vulnerabilities in Moscow’s defenses and undermined the aura of invincibility that Putin has cultivated.

For Ukraine, the incursion represents a strategic victory that may help shift the momentum of the war, while also sending a clear message to Western allies that they should not be deterred by Russia’s threats. For Russia, the Kursk operation raises uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of its military and the sustainability of its public support for the war.

As the conflict continues to evolve, the Kursk incursion may prove to be a defining moment, both on the battlefield and in the broader struggle for control of the narrative. For now, Ukraine has demonstrated that it can not only defend its own territory but also strike deep into Russian soil, challenging the very foundations of Moscow’s war effort.