As Volodymyr Zelensky warns of a potential offensive launched from Belarus and the Financial Times outlines an alleged plan by Vladimir Putin to capture Odesa, Kyiv, and all territories west of the Dnieper River—a scenario many Russian analysts dismiss as entirely baseless at this juncture—experts estimate that Ukraine is highly likely to attempt a fresh incursion into Russia, targeting somewhere near Kursk or Bryansk. These developments suggest that the four-year war in Ukraine is merely the prelude to an even larger military confrontation on the horizon.
The American assessment
The Russian military currently outperforms the Ukrainian armed forces across most core domains of warfare. Russian troops are expected to sustain their offensive operations, aiming to establish full territorial control over the Donbass region. At the same time, Ukraine is facing a critical shortage of ammunition, UAV assets, and vital components.
A severe personnel deficit within the Ukrainian armed forces hampers effective resistance against a more numerous and better-equipped Russian army. The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine reported that there are approximately 2 million draft evaders nationwide, while 200,000 soldiers have abandoned their units without authorization. Furthermore, since the beginning of the year, 54 suspects have been implicated in 29 defense procurement corruption cases, with embezzled funds totaling at least $77 million. These constitute the primary conclusions of the Pentagon Inspector General's report submitted to the US Congress.
The strategy of 'deep war'
However, a distinct chapter of the document has drawn intense scrutiny, focusing on the analysis of a massive strike against Russian territory late last week, during which Russian air defense forces shot down 1,354 Ukrainian UAVs. As Russian war correspondent Alexander Kots observed, since 2024, Zelensky and his European backers have adopted a new catchphrase—"deep war"—to secure billions in additional funding.
"Under this pretext, range restrictions on weapons were lifted. Spectacular maps showcasing strike radii were drafted. The logic promoted was simple: provide Kyiv with more drones and cruise missiles, and the Ukrainian armed forces will paralyze the Russian military-industrial complex, devastate its oil sector, and exhaust its rear. Moscow would then be forced to the negotiating table on terms dictated by others," Kots remarks, noting that the new Pentagon report has completely dismantled this narrative.
Strikes failed to cause substantial damage
The primary objectives of the "deep war" strategy consist of oil refineries, military industrial facilities, and civilian populations. Evaluating these targets sequentially reveals a clear picture. Regarding strikes against refineries, despite heavy media coverage surrounding the terminal in Tuapse—which Ukrainian forces targeted almost daily—and attacks on the Ust-Luga terminal, the US Pentagon provides an explicit verdict: "The strikes failed to cause any substantial damage to Russia's energy production."
Zero impact on the Russian war machine
Moving on to attacks against defense enterprises, the Inspector General informed members of Congress that there was "neither the coordination, nor the intensity, nor the concentration on critical military infrastructure necessary to impact—either operationally or strategically—Russia's capacity to sustain military operations." The inspector further determined that the Russian defense industry has significantly expanded since the inception of the conflict, markedly increasing its production capabilities.
Assaults on the rear
Finally, regarding strikes in the rear, a favored phrase of Ukrainian propaganda dictates that "Russians must feel the war." However, according to the Pentagon, Russia's civilian population "remained practically unaffected by Ukrainian strikes during the current quarter."
On this point, the inspector appears not to have closely monitored reports emerging from Russia following Ukrainian attacks against civilians in border regions and beyond. In March alone—the period covered by the first-quarter report—three individuals were killed in the Moscow region and a child lost their life near Yaroslavl. These were far from the only casualties of Ukrainian military actions. At the same time, the Pentagon notes that Ukraine's long-range strike capabilities are growing, with a new record recently established at approximately 1,750 kilometers deep into Russian territory.
Pentagon sets targets and feeds data incessantly
While it superficially appears that Russia is demonstrating resilience despite difficulties and Ukraine is failing to alter the battlefield dynamics—prompting the Pentagon to give a "failing grade" to Zelensky's team—disclosures this week indicate that the US is essentially grading its own performance.
"The Pentagon sets targets for attacks, continuously transmitting real-time intelligence packages for Ukrainian deployment in the war against Russia. The Pentagon can, and does, program flight missions and combat routes for missiles. This data cannot be integrated directly into the controller of the Lyutiy UAV. For a Lyutiy squad to reach Kapotnya or Ust-Luga, it requires a dynamic, three-dimensional flight corridor, not just a target address. In the spirit of the Anchorage agreements, the Pentagon washes its hands while Palantir takes the helm," noted military analyst Alexander Zimovsky.
The role of Palantir
Palantir receives raw electronic intelligence data directly from the Pentagon, fuses it with the technical specifications of the Lyutiy drone provided by Ukrainian engineers, and instantly computes a mathematical model to bypass Russian jamming zones. Thus, the party supposedly washing its hands effectively functions as the primary targeting guide.
Consequently, US decision-makers determining funding allocations and arms sales to Europe on Zelensky's behalf possess an objective view of a war in which—according to the inspector—"neither side holds a definitive advantage."
No invasion from Belarus
Meanwhile, within Russian military and expert circles, scenarios are circulating that Ukrainian forces might be preparing a new incursion near Kursk and Bryansk. Analysts report that recently, against the backdrop of joint tactical nuclear exercises conducted by Russia and Belarus, Ukraine has been warning of a potential offensive from Belarus along the Chernihiv–Kyiv front.
Zelensky specifically stated that an "urgent mobilization of 100,000 troops is underway in Russia." Simultaneously, Ukrainian media outlets reported that "Belarus closed access to forests in 19 border regions, preparing for an assault." Multiple Russian war correspondents have already debunked this information, stressing that sufficient forces and reserves for such a scenario do not exist. Russian experts estimate that the Russian military command currently prioritizes the complete capture of the Donetsk and Zaporizhia regions, rendering the opening of a front toward Kyiv logistically questionable.
Scenario for a Kursk incursion
Nevertheless, reports indicate it has become clear why Zelensky, the SBU, and the Ukrainian armed forces have exhibited intense anxiety lately. Several military channels suggest that the Ukrainian General Staff continues "concentrating troops in the Sumy and Chernihiv regions."
While officially framed as defensive preparations against a potential invasion from Belarus, it is hypothesized that these maneuvers actually represent preparations for a new offensive aimed at Russia. The prospect of a fresh incursion into the Kursk region—warned of by Russian blogger Anatoly Shariy—is based on the substantial concentration of Ukrainian forces in border zones. "Shariy frames this troop accumulation as preparation for a new offensive in the Kursk region, and I believe this logic is indeed grounded in reality," evaluates military blogger Roman Zhivov.
Targeting Bryansk instead of Kursk
Executing an offensive requires superiority in manpower, not just drone deployment. Given that the Ukrainian armed forces are suffering heavy personnel casualties, it remains highly doubtful whether they possess uncommitted reserves of 15,000 to 20,000 personnel required to replicate the breakthrough of 2024.
A contrasting perspective is offered by Russian military analyst and DPR special forces veteran Alexander Matyushin, who believes the probability of a Ukrainian incursion onto Russian soil remains viable: "Regarding a strike specifically in the Kursk region, I would advise Shariy to examine the map. It was precisely from the Kursk region that we advanced into the Sumy region, and from the Belgorod region that we entered the Kharkiv region. Therefore, a strike directly into Kursk is quite unlikely." Matyushin considers a thrust toward the Bryansk region far more probable, while not ruling out a provocation against Belarus designed to draw Minsk into the active conflict.
The blueprint of the previous breakthrough
To understand how the situation might unfold, one must recall that the foundations of the 2024 Kursk operation were laid when the Russian military group "North" launched an offensive toward the city of Volchansk in the Kharkiv region. By mid-May, that offensive had slowed down.
Rumors then began circulating that the Russian command planned a similar strike east of Kharkiv, toward the Sumy region. Ukrainian forces reacted by transferring a large number of infantry units to the area to reinforce defenses. Toward mid-summer, the adversary realized that the "North" group was bogged down in Volchansk, with its reserves tied to that bridgehead. Consequently, a decision was made to strike toward the Kursk region, utilizing the defensive force concentration already assembled there.
Structural similarities to past operations
From that point forward, Ukrainian forces began shifting airborne and special operations units to the sector. Shortly before the assault, four heavy mechanized brigades and seven drone operator battalions were added to the order of battle.
The concentration of military hardware was conducted relatively openly but was largely overlooked by the Russian General Staff, which assumed the situation was under control. At an operational level, clear similarities exist between that period and current dynamics. In both instances, the Ukrainian armed forces initially prepared to repel an attack, but upon identifying an opportunity to act preemptively, they organized and launched a swift offensive.
Defensive breakthroughs as a matter of technology
Thorough technical preparation played a decisive role in the initial Ukrainian success. The ground assault was preceded by the mass deployment of interceptor drones, which effectively cleared large sectors of airspace of Russian tactical reconnaissance UAVs.
Having blinded Russian forces, the Ukrainian military went on the offensive, activating hundreds of US-supplied electronic warfare systems. Within a continuous wall of jamming, narrow windows of clear spectrum were maintained exclusively for Ukrainian communications and drone operators. This created a scenario where the Ukrainians enjoyed functional communications and comprehensive UAV control, while Russian units were stripped of both critical tools.
Contrary to widespread perceptions in Russia, a border fortification system had indeed been constructed, as verified by numerous Ukrainian video recordings. Ukrainian forces lost engineering vehicles while breaching "dragon's teeth" obstacles and navigating minefields, while special forces units advanced through trench networks.
The operational key
The core issue was that the Ukrainians successfully found the "key" to the Russian defense by depriving units of communications, reconnaissance, and drone support. Analysis indicates that a similar capability remains in Ukrainian hands today, specifically involving drones controlled via Starlink satellite terminals.
Utilizing these assets, Ukrainian forces target Russian air defense systems and strike supply lines in the operational rear. If a sufficient density of operational-tactical drones is achieved, it could undermine defensive stability in a chosen sector, rendering a new breakthrough of the front possible.
A lingering threat on the northern axis
The threat of an offensive along the northern axis remains real. Examining maps compiled by American OSINT analysts reveals that both Russian and Ukrainian forces are concentrated in several compact groupings, leaving intermediate sectors relatively undermanned.
While Western analysts lack complete operational visibility, if their assessments approach reality, the Bryansk oblastappears to be the most vulnerable border region on the Russian side. Russian analysts estimate that one of the most probable Ukrainian targets in the area is the settlement of Suzemka.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments