Losing foothold in Kursk Oblast would be 'politically significant,' experts say
As Russian troops are set to push Ukrainian soldiers out of Kursk Oblast, experts say Kyiv's withdrawal from the region could be "politically significant."
Ukraine's seven-month-long hold of a small portion of Russia's Kursk Oblast might be ending. On March 12, Russian troops entered the town of Sudzha, which served as Ukraine's main stronghold in the region.
Fearing encirclement, Ukrainian troops have begun to pull back closer to the border.
The news comes a day after Ukraine had agreed to the U.S. proposal for a 30-day-long ceasefire. The Kremlin said "it was studying the proposal."
"It feels like we're getting to a position where people are trying to settle the front lines in anticipation that we might have a set of negotiations," said Scott Lucas, a political scientist and professor of American Studies and International Politics at University College Dublin's Clinton Institute.
Read also: Do US-Russia talks on Ukraine mark a reappearance of colonial power play?
Western and Ukrainian experts who spoke to the Kyiv Independent said that Ukraine has already achieved certain political objectives by invading Russia in the first place and holding onto parts of Kursk Oblast for months. Kyiv will now have to decide whether it should reinforce the Kursk salient by sending more troops and resources that could be deployed elsewhere, or organize a retreat to avoid what could be a disastrous scenario on the ground.
"Ukraine wants to be able to show that it continues to stand and to resist, even as the Trump administration walks away," Lucas said, referring to the U.S.' cutting off its military aid and intelligence sharing earlier in March.
The U.S. on March 11 agreed to lift the ban on intelligence sharing following talks with the Ukrainian side in Saudi Arabia. However, the future U.S. support — and Europe's readiness to take the lead in providing Ukraine with military aid — remains uncertain.
And losing a foothold in Russia may have an impact on the mood both inside and outside Ukraine.
Kyiv has repeatedly pointed out the success in Kursk Oblast even as Russian troops advanced significantly along the front lines in Donetsk Oblast, capturing long-time Ukrainian strongholds of Vuhledar, and Kurakhove.
Both Kyiv and Western countries have labeled the partial occupation of Kursk Oblast as a crucial bargaining chip for possible peace negotiations when the time comes.
"(Ukraine's) position in Kursk is an important one because certainly it's something that would factor in any negotiation that may come about in the coming year," then U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters in January.
Russia's inability to protect its own territory last August and its decision to pursue further invasion of Ukraine at the cost of keeping safe its own territory resulted in "negative sentiments" domestically, according to Oleksiy Melnyk, the co-director of foreign policy and international security at the Kyiv-based think tank Razumkov Center.
"It's not about the city of Sudzha or square kilometers, but about Russian territorial integrity," Melnyk said. But it may have been a poor decision for Kyiv to publicly discuss its openness for trading the Kursk salient for Ukrainian territory, he added.
Earlier in February, President Volodymyr Zelensky told the Guardian that he planned to play the Kursk card in potential negotiations to "swap one territory for another" without clarifying which part of Russian-occupied territory Kyiv would ask for in return.
Disclosing Ukraine's negotiation position has likely served "as a digger" for Moscow to concentrate its effort to deprive Ukraine of such a leverage, he stressed.
Moscow is currently accelerating its push in Kursk Oblast, with the Russian Defense Ministry claiming on March 11 that it recaptured 12 settlements and 100 square kilometers (40 square miles) of territory there. Ukrainian troops on the ground have told the Kyiv Independent in recent days that the situation is ever more critical, as the logistics were hampered.
"Losing Kursk, people begin to question whether or not you just have to simply give up."
Russian forces have gained ground south of Sudzha, potentially cutting off some Ukrainian positions from the rest of the salient. Ukraine's Commander-in-Chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi, denied threats of encirclement.
Losing the Kursk salient would likely not result in a further decline of U.S. support as "we can't get into negative numbers in that sense," according to Steven Horrell, a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis.
Hanging onto the Kursk Oblast territory is an important bargaining chip "in the international eyes," with the operation allowing Ukraine to show Western countries that it can still strike back despite battlefield setbacks, Horrell said.
"I think the surge of (Western) support after the Kursk offensive was concrete proof of that," he added.
Now, with the operation seemingly dying out slowly, Ukraine's potential retreat from Kursk Oblast can reinforce U.S. President Donald Trump and his team's point that "there is no way Ukraine can win," Horrell said.
"Losing Kursk, people begin to question whether or not you just have to simply give up," Lucas said.
Read also: Temporary ceasefire or redrawing borders? What 'territorial concessions' mean to Ukraine, Russia, and the US
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Bill Clinton urges Trump to ‘defuse' Israel-Iran crisis, end ‘outright constant killing of civilians'
Former President Bill Clinton called on President Donald Trump to 'defuse' the current conflict between Israel and Iran during an appearance on 'The Daily Show' on Tuesday. So far, the U.S. has stayed out of direct action in the conflict, but it has helped Israel shoot down missiles from Tehran. Advertisement There are some indications, however, that the Trump administration could move to get more directly involved in the conflict. While the former president expressed skepticism about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump's intentions regarding peace in the Middle East, he urged the current president to calm the situation and end the 'outright constant killing of civilians.' 'First of all — they're not talking about negotiating peace in the Middle East because the Israelis have no intention of… under Prime Minister Netanyahu, of giving the Palestinians a state. And now, they're too divided and crushed to organize themselves to achieve it,' Clinton said. He continued, maintaining that Trump agrees with Netanyahu in believing that the Palestinians 'shouldn't have a state.' Advertisement However, he added that neither leader wants to trigger a full-scale regional disaster. 3 Former President Bill Clinton made an appearance on 'The Daily Show,' calling on President Donald Trump to resolve the Israel-Iran conflict. The Daily Show 'Mr. Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office forever and ever. I mean, he's been there most of the last 20 years,' the former president said. 'But I think we should be trying to defuse it, and I hope President Trump will do that.' Advertisement Clinton emphasized the importance of the U.S. protecting its allies in the region, while simultaneously advocating for restraint. 3 The U.S. has not been involved in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, though the Trump administration could get involved. AFP via Getty Images 'We have to convince our friends in the Middle East that we'll stand with them and try to protect them,' he stated. 'But choosing undeclared wars in which the primary victims are civilians, who are not politically involved, one way or the other, who just want to live decent lives, is not a very good solution.' Advertisement Clinton conceded that the U.S. needs to try and stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but again stressed the importance of saving innocent lives in the region. 3 Clinton also said that the 'outright constant killing of civilians' has to end. IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER'S WEBSITE/GPO/AFP via Getty Images 'Do I think that we have to try to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon? I do,' he declared. 'But we don't have to have all this outright constant killing of civilians who can't defend themselves, and they just want a chance to live.' Fox News' Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

Associated Press
15 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Israel's military warns people to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Israel's military warned people Thursday to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor. The warning came in a social media post on X. It included a satellite image of the plant in a red circle like other warnings that proceeded strikes. The Arak heavy water reactor is 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran. Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. That would provide Iran another path to the bomb beyond enriched uranium, should it choose to pursue the weapon. Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to relieve proliferation concerns. In 2019, Iran started up the heavy water reactor's secondary circuit, which at the time did not violate Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Britain at the time was helping Iran redesign the Arak reactor to limit the amount of plutonium it produces, stepping in for the U.S., which had withdrawn from the project after President Donald Trump's decision in 2018 to unilaterally withdraw America from the nuclear deal.


New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
An Iran Strategy for Trump
Nobody, perhaps even President Trump himself, knows for sure whether the United States will wind up joining Israel in launching military strikes on Iran. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' he said on Wednesday. But with a third U.S. aircraft carrier on its way to the region and the president calling for Iran's 'unconditional surrender,' the chance of war seems higher than ever — particularly now that Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has gruffly rebuffed Trump's demand. If the U.S. does attack, the most obvious target will be the Fordo nuclear site, a deeply buried facility where Iran enriches uranium and which, by most reports, can be knocked out only by a 15-ton bomb known as a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. Less well known but surely on the U.S. target list is a new, still unfinished subterranean facility south of Iran's main (and now largely destroyed) enrichment plant at Natanz. American pilots would also almost certainly join their Israeli counterparts in attacking Iranian ballistic missile launchers and bases. And then what? Nobody doubts the U.S. can do a lot of damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities, at least in the short term. What comes afterward is harder to predict. Proponents of an American strike believe that we have no realistic choice other than to help Israel do as thorough a job as possible in setting back Iran's nuclear ambitions not just for months but years — more than enough time to allow benign forces to shape events, including the possibility of Iranians overthrowing their widely detested rulers. By contrast, skeptics fear that the lessons Iran's leaders will draw from an American attack is that they should have gotten a bomb much sooner — and that the appropriate response to such an attack is to be more repressive at home and less receptive to diplomatic overtures from abroad. Skeptics also expect that Iran will respond to an attack by ramping up its malign regional activities, not least to embroil the U.S. in another Middle East war the Trump administration desperately wants to avoid. I'm with the proponents. A nuclear-armed Iran, fielding missiles of ever-growing reach, is both an unacceptable threat to U.S. security and a consequential failure of U.S. deterrence. After years of Iran's prevarications, which led even the Biden administration to give up on diplomacy, to say nothing of Iran's cheating on its legal commitments — detailed last month in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency — the world had run out of plausible nonmilitary options to prevent the regime from going nuclear. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.