Ukraine’s Kursk incursion: A fool’s errand that may allow a Russian victory

In his classic text “On War,” the great philosopher of war Carl von Clausewitz introduced the concept of the “center of gravity.”

The center of gravity in war is “the hub of all power and movement, on which everything depends. That is the point against which all [one’s] energies should be directed,” Clausewitz wrote. Political and military leaders should not imprudently disperse their military forces, sending them on fools’ errands beyond the decisive theater of conflict.

Unfortunately for Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky and the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces seem either not to have read “On War” or forgotten this key insight.

Ukraine’s Kursk operation has, unfortunately, devolved into a fools’ errand — a glorified light-cavalry raid or medieval chevauchée that has diverted Ukrainian energies away from the center of gravity in the war against Russia. Rather than drawing Russian forces away from more critical battlefronts in Donetsk, the incursion has dispersed Ukrainian forces, allowing the Russian military to focus on the current center of gravity in this conflict and accelerate its push towards the strategically vital city of Pokrovsk.

Initially conceived as a tactical maneuver to draw Russian forces away from more strategically crucial fronts, the Kursk operation now appears to have been a strategic miscalculation that could carry severe consequences for Ukraine’s broader military strategy.

Ukrainian leadership likely hoped that by striking into Russian territory, they could achieve several objectives: drawing Russian forces away from key battlefields in Donetsk; creating a psychological impact by demonstrating Ukraine’s capacity to attack Russian soil; and disrupting Russian supply lines.

These objectives have not been realized. Despite the incursion, Russian forces have not significantly redirected their efforts away from Donetsk. Instead, the Russian advance on Pokrovsk — a city of substantial strategic value — has only accelerated.

Pokrovsk is a crucial logistical and transportation hub in the Donetsk region, sitting at the crossroads of major road and rail networks vital for the supply and reinforcement of Ukrainian positions throughout the eastern front. If Russian forces capture Pokrovsk, they would effectively cut off these critical supply lines, isolating Ukrainian units defending other key areas in Donetsk.

The loss of Pokrovsk could have a cascading effect, leading to a broader collapse of Ukrainian defenses in the Donetsk region. Ukrainian troops in these areas rely heavily on the supply routes passing through Pokrovsk for ammunition, reinforcements and logistical support. Any disruption to these supply lines could severely compromise their ability to hold their ground against Russian advances, potentially allowing Russia to make further gains in eastern Ukraine and altering the course of the conflict.

From a military perspective, the incursion into Kursk has not yielded any significant gains for Ukraine. Rather than forcing Russia to divert substantial forces away from its main effort in Donetsk, it has resulted in the diversion of some of Ukraine’s best troops and advanced equipment away from the most strategically critical frontlines. This shift has not only weakened Ukraine’s defensive posture in the Donetsk region but has also exacerbated existing manpower shortages, compounding the challenges Ukrainian forces face in holding key defensive positions.

Moreover, the Ukrainian incursion has not achieved any substantial territorial gains. The operation has largely been confined to a series of skirmishes and localized engagements that have not shifted the balance of power on the ground. In a protracted war of attrition, such operations carry significant risks. Every soldier, tank and artillery piece is a vital asset, and the decision to commit these resources to an incursion with limited strategic value may prove costly for Ukraine in the long run.

For Ukraine, the Kursk operation represents a missed opportunity to consolidate its defensive positions in the east. And for Russia, the Kursk incursion may be viewed as a strategic victory, not because of any direct military engagement in Kursk but because it has drawn Ukrainian resources away from more critical fronts. By maintaining their focus on Donetsk, Russian forces have been able to press their advantage, potentially opening new opportunities to exploit Ukrainian vulnerabilities along the eastern front.

Although bold maneuvers and psychological operations may have their place, the primary objective for both sides remains control over strategically significant territory. This is why Ukraine must reassess its strategic priorities, focusing on defending key positions in the Donetsk region, particularly around Pokrovsk, where the outcome of the conflict could be decided. Ukraine cannot afford to overextend its forces on operations that do not yield tangible benefits.

The war has already taken a heavy toll on Ukrainian forces, and the risks of overextension are becoming increasingly apparent. By reinforcing key positions and ensuring that every move is calculated and purposeful, Ukraine can better withstand Russian advances and protect its territorial integrity.

For Russia, continued focus on strategic targets such as Pokrovsk reflects a broader strategy aimed at consolidating gains in eastern Ukraine. The capture of key logistical hubs and transportation networks would significantly bolster the Russian position and potentially pave the way for further advances into Ukrainian-held territory, perhaps leading to a decisive breakthrough.

The Kursk gambit violates the Clauswitzian principle of maintaining the focus on the center of gravity. While it may have been intended as a bold tactical maneuver, the operation has instead diverted crucial resources away from more important fronts. Ukraine must instead prioritize the defense of its most strategically important positions, strengthening its center of gravity with every action. Only thus can it hope to withstand the pressures of a prolonged conflict and protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C.