[dabigv13]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/p...ve-ukraine

I thought this was a good article. I have said from the beginning that the West should anticipate this being a many year conflict. I think the US and west at the outset was concerned about Ukraine's initial ability to resist, but after that phase they have provided arms in type and quantity that would enable Ukraine to mostly blunt Russian offensives, but perhaps not enough to enable Ukraine to pursue large scale offensives of their own, probably because of US doubts about their effectiveness.

The downside to a strategy of defense and containment, is the necessity of multi year commitment from the west. Even if it is the most likely strategy to succeed (if a successful end state might be the survival of the Ukrainian state controlling most of their prewar territory), it is dependent on the political winds in foreign countries continuing to blow in the right direction.

Obviously this tension was the impetus for the Kursk offensive. Unsure of future US support, they made a big gamble for a bargaining chip. Perhaps one that will not be worth it in the end, but the motivation to try something/anything rather than be slowly chewed up is understandable.

Here's another good article specifically on Kursk from Michael Kofman and Rob Lee-

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-gamble

[dabigv13]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/p...ve-ukraine

I thought this was a good article. I have said from the beginning that the West should anticipate this being a many year conflict. I think the US and west at the outset was concerned about Ukraine's initial ability to resist, but after that phase they have provided arms in type and quantity that would enable Ukraine to mostly blunt Russian offensives, but perhaps not enough to enable Ukraine to pursue large scale offensives of their own, probably because of US doubts about their effectiveness.

The downside to a strategy of defense and containment, is the necessity of multi year commitment from the west. Even if it is the most likely strategy to succeed (if a successful end state might be the survival of the Ukrainian state controlling most of their prewar territory), it is dependent on the political winds in foreign countries continuing to blow in the right direction.

Obviously this tension was the impetus for the Kursk offensive. Unsure of future US support, they made a big gamble for a bargaining chip. Perhaps one that will not be worth it in the end, but the motivation to try something/anything rather than be slowly chewed up is understandable.

Here's another good article specifically on Kursk from Michael Kofman and Rob Lee-

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraines-gamble