Ukraine's Kursk Incursion Is Over. Was It Worth It?

A bold raid deep into Russian territory became a months-long occupation—and a brutal retreat. Was it worth the lives, losses, and lessons learned? The true impact of the Kursk incursion, explained.

Stay ahead of global conflicts with WarFronts Weekly! Get sharp, no-nonsense military analysis straight to your inbox.

Love content? Check out Simon's other YouTube Channels:

Simon's Social Media:

[facelessman]

When you said "It depends on where you get your news from." I automatically started skipping because I thought it was a ground news ad. I had to backtrack when I realized it wasn't.

[NDependentColts]

If you’re in between a “mild success” or a “unqualified disaster”…. It wasn’t worth it.

[rifleman]

This Kursk operation was a bigger gamble than Ukraine thought, and losing it was honestly more negative than positive.

[IK_MK]

Let me save you 21 minutes and 50 seconds...


No, it was not worth it.

[joshmccarty]

Russia burned Moscow to the ground to stop French invaders. I think you are over playing the embarrassment.

[mariusvanc]

To anyone who's been paying attention, this has been Russian strategy for a long time. Create a pocket/salient, narrow the supply routes, then just sit there and pick off the reinforcements/resupply, knowing Zelensky and top Ukrainian generals won't order a retreat until the position is totally lost.

[aldovk]

Love how you completely ignore the pipe operation that preceded the kursk collapse

[Overlord-cz]

You failed to mention the Ukrainian objective was to capture the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant. After the first 5 days it was clear this wasn’t going to happen but still stayed occupying potato fields on the barrens of Kursk. Russia was absolutely fine with allowing them to hold said territory and continue to push valuable resources into the region that had zero military value as it took away from the true front. The UAF should have retreated as soon as their objective wasn’t achieved and that would have still sent a message that Russia needed to better defend the border in that area. This is the second bigger blunder of the war; the first is the 2023 Ukrainian offensive.

[brooklynslaughterhouse]

70.000 troops for PR campaign
Not a good trade

[Byzantine-Revolt]

Short answer: No
Long Answer: Hell nah

[haider-hh]

Sending a lot of your top quality soldiers and equipment to get surrounded on 3 sides, bogged down and attrited in Russia for useless land. While losing land in the east during that incursion is a desperate move for a political win. If those troops were sent east Russia would had made less progress overall. Russia just stopped and contained those Ukrainian forces and mopped them up slowly over time, with little rush. Also the Ukrainians didn’t want to withdraw from that land at this time they were defeated and pushed out. Saying they weren’t is cope.

[eddebrock]

One of my big grievances with the coverage of the war is how hard it is to find anyone that covers all of it. Most just report on the Ukrainian wins, and it's always told like Ukraine absolutely dunking on Russia. If you were to just believe them you'd think Ukraine was winning effortlessly.

[shaun]

You gave it a good attempt bro. But no amount of propaganda will make Kursk a success.

[georgiabowhunter]

The Kursk offensive was a huge waste of Ukrainian lives and resources with nothing gained.

[aznhomig]

It was obvious to anyone with even a modicum of military strategy that the entire Kursk offensive was merely for PR and morale and will be judged as a strategic failure.

[Silentheaven]

no it wasnt worth it. it was for PR and for russia to divert their forces and they didnt take the bait. ukraine lost its best men and best nato equipment for nothing.

[messertl]

This was stupid from the beginning. Nen Hodges probably thought it was genious... which is evidence of how stupid it was.

[bloodwynn]

It's very hard to translate morale into numbers. But I remember back then when it started, it hugely boosted morale and enthusiasm.

[larseriksson]

The Kursk invasion was a fiasco from day 1.

1) You don't open a new front when you're outnumbered.

2) Kursk is a potato field and has no real value except for Russian history.

3) Invading another country must always be based on secure and stable logistics.

4) Should you prioritize your country's rich supplies and assets before trying to take someone else's potato field?

[onri_]

"Humiliated Moscow" Did Moscow say that or the New York Times type that garbage.