Washington reels as Ukraine’s bold Kursk assault reshapes war dynamic
Washington is grappling with the consequences of Ukraine’s unexpected and bold incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, as the scale of President Zelensky’s high-stakes gamble comes into focus.
U.S. officials are closely analyzing how this offensive might alter the political and military landscape of the ongoing conflict, as well as the potential impact on Washington’s evolving policy regarding Ukraine’s use of American-supplied arms. The audacious raid, which appeared to catch both Russian and Western leaders off guard, underscores one of the most precarious dilemmas in the West’s support for Ukraine: President Biden’s balancing act of empowering Kyiv to resist Russia’s invasion without provoking a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation. While President Putin has consistently framed the conflict as a war between Russia and the West, Biden has sought to defuse this narrative by imposing clear limits on U.S. involvement.
However, Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk—reportedly the largest foreign military operation on Russian soil since World War II, according to military analysts—raises urgent questions for the White House. Does this expand Washington’s established boundaries on how Ukraine can deploy U.S. and NATO weapons? Does it risk crossing Russia’s red lines regarding Western involvement in the conflict? Or has President Zelensky demonstrated that he can challenge Putin’s threats?
Despite the risks and uncertainties, there is an undercurrent of admiration in Washington for Zelensky’s boldness. U.S. officials maintain that Ukraine did not provide advance notice of the assault. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre emphasized that Washington had “nothing to do” with the operation.
As for the use of U.S. weapons in the assault, spokespeople from the White House, Pentagon, and State Department have not confirmed their involvement, though it appears highly likely given Ukraine’s heavy reliance on U.S. and NATO arms. Vladislav Seleznyov, a former spokesman for Ukraine’s armed forces, told Voice of America that U.S.-supplied HIMARS rocket launchers played a critical role in the advance.
While U.S. approval for Ukraine’s use of its weapons seems implicitly given, Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder stated that the assault falls “within the policy boundaries that we’ve set,” which have remained consistent since the conflict began. Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh reiterated, “We don’t support long-range attacks into Russia. These are more for crossfire. I’m not going to put a specific range on it.”
The U.S. remains Ukraine’s largest arms supplier, making this relationship crucial for Ukraine’s military prospects. Last week, the Pentagon authorized its 63rd tranche of equipment in three years, including Stinger missiles and artillery shells. However, President Biden’s approach has evolved, characterized by initial refusals to provide advanced weapons—such as HIMARS rockets, Patriot missile defense systems, and F-16 fighter jets—before ultimately relenting.
This evolution mirrors the White House’s policy on Ukrainian strikes within Russian territory. For months, President Zelensky lobbied for permission to target military sites in Russia that facilitated attacks on Ukraine. In May, Biden finally authorized the use of U.S. weapons for limited strikes across the border from the Kharkiv region. This permission was later extended to other border areas under threat from Russian forces.
Zelensky, along with some European allies and Democrats in Washington, has since pushed the U.S. to further “untie” Ukraine’s hands, specifically requesting long-range missiles like ATACMS to strike deep into Russia. Washington has so far refused these requests.
Looming over all these decisions are President Putin’s warnings, including his threats to use “all available means” if Russia’s territorial integrity is threatened, as well as his nuclear saber-rattling in response to perceived Western threats.
Ultimately, President Biden’s stance can be summarized as allowing Ukraine to defend itself using U.S. weapons, including strikes across the border, but within strict limits—such as not using long-range missiles. In June, Biden emphasized that these limits were confined to areas “in proximity to the border.”
The Kursk offensive, however, has pushed these limits into uncharted territory—both literally and figuratively. The cross-border ground assault reportedly involves between 5,000 and 12,000 Ukrainian troops. Some unconfirmed Russian reports suggest these forces have advanced up to 30 kilometers into Russia. By mid-week, Kyiv claimed control over 1,000 square kilometers of Russian territory, including more than 70 villages and towns, and reported capturing hundreds of prisoners of war. Russian officials said around 132,000 people had been evacuated from their homes.
As U.S. officials continue to assess the situation, they are still determining the broader implications for the battlefield, the future of the war, and how it might influence Putin’s calculations.
If Zelensky has been frustrated by what he perceives as excessive caution or slow decision-making from President Biden regarding arms authorizations, he may now be trying to demonstrate his ability to force both Biden’s and Putin’s hands. It is a daring gamble.
Credit: BBC
