Russia recaptures Kursk: Strategic shifts and global repercussions

Department of Research, Studies and International News 14-03-2025

In a significant turn of events, Russian forces have successfully reclaimed most of the territory in the Kursk region that had been under Ukrainian control for the past seven months. This rapid military advancement has sparked debates about the impact of a recent U.S. intelligence and military aid suspension to Ukraine, which coincided with the Russian offensive. The evolving battlefield dynamics raise critical questions about the effectiveness of Western support, the resilience of Ukrainian forces, and Russia’s broader strategic objectives.

The Russian Gains Momentum

The Russian military launched a series of attacks starting on March 6, a day after the United States halted intelligence-sharing and military assistance to Ukraine. According to Ukraine’s general staff, Russian troops launched 32 attacks in the Kursk region alone. Reports from Russian military sources indicate that Moscow had concentrated some of its most skilled drone operators and electronic warfare units in the area to counter Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.

The attacks gained further traction on March 7, when Russian forces initiated attacks on the Sumy region, marking the first such engagement there since the full-scale invasion began in 2022. This maneuver aimed to encircle Ukrainian forces in Kursk by cutting off their southern supply routes. By March 9, Russian troops had seized multiple settlements near Sudzha, the primary Ukrainian stronghold in the region, and began direct attacks on the town itself. One particularly strategic operation involved Russian troops infiltrating an industrial zone via a gas pipeline.

Western media reported that Ukraine was considering a tactical retreat to prevent encirclement, though Ukrainian commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskii dismissed this claim. While denying any immediate threat of entrapment, he did acknowledge the severity of the situation by deploying reinforcements, particularly in drone warfare and electronic countermeasures.

Russian Gains and Political Symbolism

By March 12, Russia’s defense ministry declared that its forces had regained over 100 square kilometers (approximately 40 square miles) in Kursk, including several key settlements. The Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, later confirmed that Russian troops had liberated Sudzha. President Vladimir Putin’s subsequent visit to the region underscored the political significance of this victory, reinforcing Moscow’s narrative of reclaiming lost territory.

For Russia, reclaiming Kursk is not only a military achievement but also a symbolic victory. Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive last year had put significant pressure on Russian forces, with a single Ukrainian division managing to hold back an estimated 78,000 Russian troops. This had led to considerable embarrassment for Moscow, forcing it to seek reinforcements, including reported mercenary support from North Korea.

According to the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Russian forces had reclaimed around 655 square kilometers (250 square miles) of lost territory by February 2025. Analysts believe that Putin may have set a deadline of May 9, a date marking the Soviet victory in World War II, for a complete victory in Kursk. If Russia fails to achieve this objective, it could represent a significant ideological setback for the Kremlin.

The Role of U.S. Intelligence Cutoff

One of the most contentious aspects of this battle has been the temporary suspension of U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. This interruption coincided with the Russian counteroffensive, leading to speculation that it played a crucial role in Ukraine’s vulnerabilities on the battlefield. A Ukrainian government source told Time magazine that without U.S. intelligence, Ukraine struggled to track Russian bomber and fighter jet movements and could not effectively target enemy positions with precision weapons.

The implications of this intelligence blackout were evident. In November, the Biden administration had authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-made ATACMS missiles to strike deep inside Russia, a move that had provoked strong reactions from Moscow. Russian officials had condemned it as direct Western involvement in the conflict. The intelligence cutoff in early March may have been a strategic recalibration, but its timing undeniably contributed to Ukraine’s difficulties in defending Kursk.

Escalating Drone and Missile Strikes

Despite the intelligence setback, Ukraine has continued deep strikes inside Russian territory. On March 12, a large-scale Ukrainian drone operation targeted Moscow and the Diaghilev air force base in Ryazan. Russian media reported that 337 drones were used in the attack, with 91 of them striking the capital. Additionally, Ukraine’s forces successfully hit Russian refineries and industrial sites, including the NLMK metallurgical plant in Kursk, which produces materials for military equipment.

Meanwhile, Russia has escalated its own drone and missile campaigns against Ukraine. On March 7, a devastating attack on the town of Dobropillya resulted in 11 fatalities. Russian forces launched a coordinated strike using ballistic missiles, multiple rocket systems, and Geran drones. These attacks were part of a larger nationwide offensive, involving 67 missiles and 194 drones.

In response, Ukraine deployed French-supplied Mirage fighter jets to intercept Russian missiles. Analysts have noted that since the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump, Russia has intensified its missile and drone attacks, possibly as a tactic to strengthen its position ahead of potential peace negotiations.

The Road Ahead: A Shifting Battlefield

The battle for Kursk has highlighted the complex and rapidly evolving nature of the war. Russia’s successful counteroffensive has demonstrated its ability to regroup and reclaim lost ground, while Ukraine’s continued resilience, despite setbacks, signals its determination to maintain strategic footholds. The temporary U.S. intelligence cutoff has sparked debates about the West’s commitment to Ukraine and has pushed Europe to take a more active role in military support.

As both sides prepare for the next phase of conflict, the situation in Kursk may serve as a turning point. Whether Ukraine can rebound from these territorial losses and whether Russia can maintain its momentum will shape the trajectory of the war in the months to come.