Can Ukraine withstand the "hammer blow" of 50,000 Russian troops in Kursk?

Ukraine, after occupying a significant portion of Russia after a summer assault, claims to be engaged against 50,000 troops led by Vladimir Putin in the Kursk region. 

This is the largest Ukrainian incursion on Russian soil since World War II, surprising Moscow and Kyiv's allies.

Although Ukrainian troops were able to establish positions deep into Kursk, analysts had differing opinions about the offensive. Some questioned whether it was wise to divert critical defensive resources from the conflict in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, where Mr. Putin's forces have been making slow but steady progress for months.

Top Ukrainian officials told The Independent in August that they saw the Kursk offensive as an essential “psychological” tactic to get Vladimir Putin to the bargaining table. As a result, Kyiv’s soldiers have managed to stay in Kursk for a lot longer than some anticipated.

Moscow is pushing to retake Kursk after reports of thousands of North Korean troops stationed there. Ukraine's military claims Russia has suffered two consecutive days of record losses, indicating a new intensity in the conflict. 

Andrew Perpetua, who tracks Russian losses on the front line, has seen missing-in-action reports for the Kursk attack published by families, which usually takes two to three weeks.

The sudden speed of Russian losses in the conflict is not certain, but it could be due to the high number of deaths, increasing the chances of finding a low probability event. 

Historian Mark Galeotti believes these increased losses reflect Moscow's willingness to take casualties, as they are working to a timeline.

The push in Kursk is a result of the re-election of Donald Trump as US president, raising questions about Washington's future support for Ukraine and potential concessions to Moscow. 

The advantage the Ukrainians have had in Kursk is that they have focused on the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, where veteran troops have been. 

With the prospect of a potential ceasefire freezing the frontlines under Trump, Putin is determined to wipe out the Kursk salient by the time Trump is inaugurated. However, Dr. Galeotti notes that they cannot sustain that rate of casualties forever, but they are willing to take losses to push the lines further in the rest of the year.

Emil Kastehelmi, an open-source analyst for Finland-based Black Bird Group, predicts that Russia would likely continue to attack Kursk, even if Trump loses the US election. 

Kastehelmi believes that plans for a Kursk counteroffensive were likely already in place before the election. Ukraine's territory, which includes a few dozen villages and a small town, is not significant enough to threaten significant logistical routes, military installations, cities, or other infrastructure.

Russia has not had the immediate incentive to amass a large force in Kursk due to its previous success in seizing half of Ukraine's territory with lesser forces. 

However, the re-election of President Trump has made Russia's need to retake Kursk increasingly urgent, while also incentivizing President Zelensky to keep it under Ukrainian control. 

Bulent Gokay warns that keeping this land will be costly for Ukrainian troops. Dr. Galeotti believes that the success of retaking Kursk depends on resources and transferring forces from the Donbas front.

Dr. Galeotti suggests that Putin's determination to destroy the Kursk salient by early January and transfer necessary resources is crucial. The east Ukraine front aims to seize as much territory as possible by the beginning of the new year. 

Although Russia is unlikely to contest any further cities or major towns in Ukraine's east, Dr. Galeotti believes Putin would be satisfied with Russia's progress if the frontlines were temporarily frozen in 2025. However, further losses for Kyiv in Ukraine's east could raise political questions over the Kursk incursion's wisdom.

Dr. Patrick Bury, a former Nato analyst at the University of Bath, believes that President Zelensky's comments about a 50,000-strong force in Kursk align with Ukrainian officials' assertion that they are attracting Russian forces that would otherwise be deployed elsewhere. 

Bury warns that the Russians may have a five-to-one advantage in manpower and may face a major offensive there. However, he notes that this has not significantly weakened the eastern front lines.

Russia is expected to crush the Kursk salient with a "hammer blow" before potential negotiations, according to Dr Bury. The Ukrainians' prospects depend on the morale, quality, and cohesion of their troops stationed there. 

If they stand and fight, it would be bloody and costly, with incremental gains for Russia. If they are overwhelmed or their morale cracks, it could be more rapid. However, the past has seen attritional, heavy battles with Russians taking lots of losses but slowly grinding the Ukrainians back. 

Dr Galeotti suggested that any force of 50,000 in Kursk is likely to be a mixed bag of troops, ranging from scrapings of the military system to competent forces and the unknown factor of North Korean troops. 

Ultimately, Kursk can't hold, and the real question is how much it can inflict casualties on the Russians as the price for taking back the region and how far Putin is forced to deprioritize his push in the Donbas.