Three weeks following Ukraine’s audacious strike in Russia’s Kursk region, analysts are still assessing the potential long-term effects of this conflict, which has persisted for more than two and a half years.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy remarked that the operation has established a “buffer zone” designed to protect Kharkiv and Sumy from Russian advances, while also depleting Russian resources. Despite these aims, Russia proceeded with a large-scale missile and drone assault across Ukraine on Monday, resulting in the deaths of at least five individuals and leaving millions without power and water in the war-torn nation.

“Like most of the previous Russian strikes, this one was equally despicable, targeting crucial civilian infrastructure,” Zelenskyy stated.

Prior to Monday’s attacks, residents in parts of the Donetsk region were evacuating as the Russian military pushed further east. Nevertheless, Ukrainian forces that moved into Kursk detained hundreds of Russian soldiers and maintained control over nearly 500 square miles, a small section of a region housing over 1 million Russians.

Russia feels ‘taste of its own medicine’

Zev Faintuch, Research and Intelligence head at Global Guardian international security firm, told YSL News that the offensive carries a “taste-of-your-own-medicine” rationale. While he questions the strategic advantages, he notes that the operation has raised Ukrainian spirits and lowered those of the Russians.

This offensive also indicates to Western allies that with additional support, Ukraine could significantly damage Russia’s military and economic infrastructure, according to Faintuch. It may also stoke internal dissent within Russia and open pathways for territorial negotiations.

The Institute for the Study of War, based in Washington, has assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be pressuring his military to regain the lost territory without compromising the security of his regime or slowing the advance into eastern Ukraine. Additionally, “firing his inept but loyal commanders” is not an option, the analysis suggests.

The outcomes of such a strategy remain uncertain, the analysis concludes.

Putin assigns blame to US and the West for Kursk attack

Putin has accused the West for the unexpected breach, despite U.S. officials stating they had no prior awareness of the incursion. He labeled it a “major provocation” and reiterated his accusations against the U.S. of using Ukrainians as pawns. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a prominent adviser to Putin, suggested that Russia should revise its objectives to encompass taking over all of Ukraine and “crushing and annihilating” the opposition.

Joe Chafetz, an intelligence analyst at Global Guardian, notes that even though this incursion is not a turning point, it compels Russia to confront difficult decisions. It might also suggest that Putin could struggle to conclude the war on favorable terms for himself, Chafetz mentioned.

“At the very least, Kyiv’s move into Kursk has shown that Ukrainian forces can carry out complex mechanized operations,” he noted. If Ukraine can continue to achieve similar successes, the Russian strategy of gradual and irreversible advancement could falter, he asserted.

Pavel Luzin, a senior fellow at the Democratic Resilience Program with the Center for European Policy Analysis and a former adviser to Putin critic Alexei Navalny, who died under suspicious circumstances in a Russian prison six months ago, expressed his uncertainty over reports claiming that Ukraine is currently controlling over 90 villages in Kursk. He posed the question of whether if a few Ukrainian troops entering a town means they truly control it if no one intervenes.

“Villages and cities  are now influenced by the Ukrainian military because the local governments have largely evacuated,” he explained at a recent forum, stating that “it’s unclear if we are at the beginning, midst or conclusion of this military operation, which will only be understood with time.”

Russian public may show little concern for Ukraine conflict

Luzin further articulated that the apparent apathy exhibited by Russian society towards the Ukrainian offensive could signify a lack of interest in Putin’s objectives to capture the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and maintain control over Crimea, which Russia annexed roughly ten years ago while Ukraine fights to reclaim it.

Such indifference raises questions about the extent of sacrifice Russian citizens are willing to make regarding the situation in Ukraine.

“What does this imply for us? What does it mean for Ukraine?” Luzin asked. “It indicates that if Russians are indifferent to Kursk, they will likely not care about Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, or any other occupied territories in Ukraine.”