Now that we have had a couple of days to observe the new Ukrainian cross-border attack into Kursk, I wanted to offer a quick assessment of what we know, as well as Ukraine's potential objectives and the challenges it faces. 1/23 🧵( (Image: @DefenceU)
2/ Surprise is an important continuity in human competition and warfare. The aim is to shock an adversary and overwhelm them when they are their weakest or when they least expect it. That shock, and the accompanying break down in enemy cohesion & ability to effectively respond, can then be used to seize ground and destroy enemy formations.
3/ It appears that yet again, the Ukrainians have surprised Russia, and observers in the west, with their latest operation. Over the past 72 hours, we have watched as Ukraine has launched a significant cross-border assault into Russia’s Kursk region.
4/ Initially viewed as another raid into Russia, similar to the previous Ukrainian operations in May 2023 and March 2024, it has become clear that this is something different. Despite our ability to only see a small part of what is occurring in Kursk, there are several aspects of this new Ukrainian operation which are apparent.
5/ First, this is a multi-brigade operation. At least two Ukrainian brigades have been identified so far: the 22ndMechanized Brigade and the 82nd Air Assault Brigade. These are both quality formations. It appears that unlike in the 2023 southern counteroffensive where fresh brigades were employed, the Ukrainians have allocated experienced formations to this attack.
6/ Second, the Ukrainians have attacked with a highly mobile, mechanised force. This is different to the Russian dismounted attacks into Kharkiv in recent months. A high level of mobility is essential to creating or exploiting gaps in enemy defences, and rapidly exploiting such gaps. Speed and shock action are vital.
7/ Third, the Ukrainians appear to have deployed a significant amount of air defence capability. At least one Russian fighter aircraft and two helicopters have been claimed to have been shot down by the Ukrainians. There has been, as of this point, limited reports of Russia being able to use glide bombs or even large numbers of drones to counter the Ukrainian assault. This is indicative of a more effective air defence environment for the Ukrainians than was created for their 2023 counter offensives.
8/ Fourth, Ukraine has penetrated a good distance into Russia on at least two axes of advance. Main and supporting efforts are unclear. However, the situation remains very unclear and Ukrainian forces could be much deeper into Russia than we know. This constitutes the biggest advance by any side in this war since late 2022.
9/ Fifth, Ukraine has achieved surprise. This is an important theme to note given the obsession of some with describing this war as a ‘transparent battlefield’. This, again, shows that the battlefield is far from transparent, and that deception activities, good intelligence, and surprise are crucial elements of modern war.
10/ More importantly, the Ukrainian cross-border attack shows that surprise is still possible, and that offensive operations are also possible despite the prevalence of the defence in the past year.
11/ So, what might Ukraine's objectives - tactical, operational, strategic and political - be for their Kursk operation?
12/ At the most basic tactical level, this operation will be about seizing ground and destroying Russian ground and aerial forces. That is the central role of ground forces in war. But it is the operational and strategic purpose of conducting operations to seize ground and destroy the enemy that is interesting.
13/ There are a couple of possible operational objectives for this Ukrainian attack. First, Ukraine may be seeking to draw Russian forces away from its attacks on the Niu-York and its advances on Toretsk and Pokrovsk. This might be possible, but given Russia’s advantage in manpower, one would have to assess that this outcome is probably unlikely.
14/ Another operational objective, which is more likely to be realised, is to force the Russians to reconsider their force dispositions elsewhere on the front line. The Russians will have to respond, and even they do not have a bottomless pit of resources to do so. To respond to the Ukrainian attack on the Kursk region, they will have to stop defending somewhere else.
15/ Ukraine may have some specific operational objectives in mind which are related to ground. The Kursk nuclear power station may be one objective, but that still lies 60 kilometres from the border with #Ukraine, well beyond where Ukraine is currently thought to be operating. Key road and railway lines might also be interrupted.
16/ The strategic objectives of this attack can only be estimated at this early stage. First, the attack might be an attempt to slow or kill Russian momentum in its offensives which have lasted for the duration of 2024. Ukrainian planners will understand that even Russia can’t remain on the offensive forever.
17/ A 2nd strategic objective might be to shift the narrative on the war to one more positive for Ukraine and counter Russian misinformation about their ‘inevitable victory’ in Ukraine. The 2022 offensive in Kharkiv not only stunned the world but shifted the narrative on Ukraine’s ability to prosecute the war and resulted in a significant change in the west’s approach to providing aid.
18/ A 3rd strategic objective may be to boost morale in the Ukrainian population. Given the past 8 months of defensive operations, constant aerial attacks on infrastructure and ongoing power shortages, the will of the people will be at the forefront of the Ukrainian government’s considerations about the trajectory of the war.
19/ A 4th strategic objective for Ukraine might be to do what the Russians are doing in eastern Ukraine at the moment – grab as much territory as possible in case Ukraine is forced into some kind of negotiated settlement at the end of 2024 or in early 2025. Negotiating with some of your enemy’s territory is much better than negotiating without it.
20/ Ukraine faces a daunting array of issues as it moves forward with this operation. These include tactical, operational, strategic and political challenges. I explore these in detail in my new (free) article at Futura Doctrina, which can be read at the link. mickryan.substack.com/p/the-battle-o…
21/ Time will tell whether using these Ukrainian brigades to attack into Russia rather than defending eastern Ukraine has been the most strategically effective use of their forces.
22/ At a time when Ukrainian defenders in the east are being pushed back on several axes, the use of highly capable Ukrainian combat forces in Kursk is either a brilliant countermove to shift the momentum in the war, or a strategic error which compounds the challenges in Ukraine’s eastern Ukraine defensive operations.
23/ There is no way yet to make this assessment, however. As with all war, there is an abundance of uncertainty at the early stage of this Ukrainian offensive. Not only are we unsure about just how far the Ukrainians have penetrated, but we are also unsure of the strategic & political objectives of this operation. There is much more to learn in the coming days. End.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“The advantages of threatening an American ground intervention are real. The advantages of actually committing boots on the ground are also real but more limited. The disadvantages could be numerous.” My weekly update on Iran, Ukraine and the Pacific. 1/6 🧵
2/ Ukraine has achieved something significant in the south. Ukrainian attacks there have disrupted Russian offensive planning, consumed Russian reserve forces, and demonstrated that Ukrainian combined arms operations can impose genuine operational costs. But there is also a trade-off in these southern operations. Gains in the south have come at some cost to northern Donetsk, and Russian forces retain the initiative on what is Russia’s main effort on the ground: the envelopment of Ukraine’s fortress belt and the remainder of Donetsk.
3/ In Iran, the oldest lesson in strategy keeps surfacing: military success in the air and at sea does not automatically translate into political outcomes on the ground. Iran has not been beaten. The question being probably being considered in the Pentagon, Congress and the White House is whether ground forces would ensure that the military campaign achieves a decisive political outcome - or whether it would lead to a larger and more difficult American military commitment to the Middle East with uncertain results.
The latest update on drone and missile attacks on the UAE has just been released. With this as context, I thought I would share some initial insights arising from this Iranian retaliatory campaign and the overall war against #Iran. 1/9 🧵
2/ First, the battlespace is not transparent. It is highly visible but high visibility is not the same as high wisdom about what is seen. And we must not fall into the trap of assuming that we actually are seeing everything we need to see rather than what the enemy wants us to see. Finally, no tech can see into the hearts and minds of soldiers and combat leaders, especially when they are functioning under conditions of existential threat.
3/ Second, Understanding the enemy, and how resilient it is, matters. The Iranians have been preparing for this fight for decades, will have many caches of weapons and have strategised how this might play out. And assuming that a few bombs from the sky topple a regime (especially when it has never been achieved before) badly under estimated the Iranians.
"America & Iran are fighting two very different wars and have two different theories of victory. China & others in the authoritarian learning & adaptation bloc are observing closely & learning." An assessment of where we are, & who is learning from the Iran War. 1/6 🧵
2/ This assessment examines the two wars in and around Iran: the military campaign that Washington is fighting, and the economic campaign that Tehran is waging. It then asks the following question: what are the respective theories of victory, and how does that theory play out differently for each belligerent?
3/ A theory of victory is not simply a list of military objectives. It is a coherent account of how the application of military force produces a political outcome that endures. The Trump administration entered Operation Epic Fury with a theory of the means, and a range of constantly changing ends (at least in public). It might be able to use the military to win the war, but it is unclear whether it has a longer-term plan to win the peace.
Wars are never simple. Despite the efforts of governments, war resists the clarity, certainty & clever narratives supported by AI slop videos, we wish to impose on them. The #Iran war & developments in #Ukraine, were exemplars of this during the week. 1/7
2/ Welcome to my weekly update on war and strategic competition. This week, shifting strategic initiative in Ukraine, the war in Iran, politics in the Pacific & my Big 5 reading recommendations.
3/ In #Ukraine, Ukrainian forces achieved some of the most operationally significant gains of the past year, reclaiming territory in the south while striking deep into Russia’s military-industrial complex. Diplomacy continued its chaotic and erratic journey.
"At some point, Putin will have to reckon with the failure of his strategic bombing campaign against Ukraine’s cities to shift Ukraine’s political posture, and the slow-rolling military failure that is Russia’s bloody ground campaign." A comprehensive update of the big #Ukraine & Pacific issues this week. 1/6 🧵🇺🇦
2/ In Europe this week, the annual Munich Security Conference was held. Lots of interesting speeches, but not a lot of progress on ending the war in Ukraine.
And as Zelenskyy stated: "A lot of time now is spent on negotiations. We truly hope that the trilateral meetings next week will be serious, substantive, and helpful for all of us. But honestly – sometimes it feels like the sides are talking about completely different things."
3/ In Ukraine, the armed forces were able to undertake opportunistic counter attacks against Russian forces deprived of Starlink.
But otherwise, as I describe in my assessment of the trajectory of the war in 2026, "the brutal calculus of the past four-years will continue into 2026 unless there is a significant breakthrough in technology, tactics or strategy that changes the deep, close and rear aspects of the overall battlefield dynamic.
The only other thing that might significantly change the trajectory of the war is if there is a significant shift in political will in Kyiv or Moscow."
America has just released its 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS). Not seeing much press activity from the Dept of Defense/War on this. While I need time to ponder the deeper implications of the document, a few things stand out on first reading. 1/11 🧵
2/ First, the document is consistent with the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) released by the Trump Administration in November 2025. Key priorities in the NDS align with the NSS, as you would expect. However, while the NSS has priorities, the NDS has "Lines of Effort". whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
3/ There are four Lines of Effort in the new NDS:
1. Defend the U.S. Homeland. 2. Deter China in the Indo-Pacific Through Strength, Not Confrontation. 3. Increase Burden-Sharing with U.S. Allies and Partners. 4. Supercharge the U.S. Defense Industrial Base.