Kyiv’s allies are largely withholding judgement over the Ukrainian offensive into Russian territory amid uncertainty over the ultimate goal of an operation that has sought to redraw the map of the Kremlin’s two-and-a-half-year war.
Several NATO allies have backed Ukraine’s decision to send troops into the western Kursk region — the first occupation of Russian soil since World War II — and called the operation a legitimate form of self-defense against Moscow’s war of aggression.
However, some have voiced misgivings publicly and privately, citing the risk that the escalation in fighting could divert badly needed troops from a fragile front line and potentially sow division among Kyiv’s backers, Western officials said, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Italian Minister of Defense Guido Crosetto was the highest-level official in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization so far to openly criticize the move, which he called an escalation that would push a ceasefire “further and further away.”
However, the comments drew a swift rebuke from his boss, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose government said Italy’s pursuit of a truce did not alter Rome’s full support of Kyiv. She is now enforcing a strict muzzle on public statements on the conflict in an effort to prevent divisions in her governing coalition being exposed, people familiar with her thinking said.
A dominant factor is the lack of clarity over the objectives of an offensive that caught Ukraine’s allies by surprise this month.
One senior official said that if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s aim is to secure a bargaining chip, the timing of the assault might not play to his advantage.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government has been reserved in its reaction. Deputy government spokesman Wolfgang Buechner avoided weighing in on the merits of the attack, noting that it was “prepared apparently in great secrecy and without feedback.”
An assessment from Berlin on the use of hardware for the incursion — which included German-made Marder infantry-fighting vehicles — would be part of an “intensive dialog” with allies, Buechner said on Monday last week.
So far, Ukraine has touted the maneuver as a tactical victory. Since its troops stormed across the border on Aug. 6, Ukraine’s military said it has seized more than 386m2 of territory and accepted the surrender of the largest single group of Russian soldiers since the war began in Feb. 2022.
Early reports show that some Russian units have been redirected from Ukraine to the Kursk area to help stymie the effort, US Department of Defense deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh said.
The incursion is consistent with Washington’s policy on Ukraine’s use of US-supplied weapons, Singh said earlier.
The US was “still trying to learn more” about Ukraine’s objectives, she said on Thursday.
NATO allies consider it unlikely that Ukraine would be able to hold Russian territory, a Western official said. Beyond Kursk, Ukrainian forces have launched attacks on energy facilities well inside Russian territory, while Kyiv has also overseen raids into Russia’s Belgorod region, next to Kursk, although with Russian anti-Kremlin volunteers.
Some of Kyiv’s strongest backing came from eastern European NATO members. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said this week that the incursion did not change Warsaw’s support “one iota.”
“We support Ukraine in a war that is a defensive war and there is nothing to discuss here,” Tusk said, brushing off concerns over Kyiv’s use of Western weaponry inside Russia. “I am aware and we all know what the risks are.”
The offensive again raised the issue of Ukrainian allies imposing restrictions on the use of their weapons in Russia. Lithuanian Minister of Defense Laurynas Kasciunas called the Kursk operation a “good sign.”
“Another good sign would be permission to use long range capabilities and what you have for hitting the targets deeper in the enemy’s territory — and we will lobby for that,” Kasciunas said.
While the Baltic states and the UK have been among NATO members to push for allowing Kyiv to hit targets deep within Russia, others including the US and Germany have resisted such requests.
More broadly, the strike within Russia’s borders could change perceptions about Ukraine’s fighting force.
The sense that Ukraine was losing the war has now changed “in one breathtaking swoop,” said Donald Jensen, a senior advisor for Russia and Europe at the US Institute of Peace.
“We see that the Ukrainians are creative, they’re efficient, they’re well managed,” Jensen said. “They very skillfully picked out a weak place in the Russian deployment around the country and have exploited it.”
With assistance from Courtney McBride, Natalia Drozdiak, Alberto Nardelli, Michael Nienaber and Natalia Ojewska
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS