How Kursk Defies Kremlin, Ukrainian, and U.S. War and Peace Strategies

In recent days, Vladimir Putin has intensified his focus on reclaiming the Kursk region from Ukraine, setting a symbolic deadline of January 20th. This date aligns with the potential inauguration of Donald Trump, who has promised to end the Ukraine conflict by this date if he returns to office.

Russia. Putin’s theatrical signaling of independence from any externally driven peace plans reveals the vulnerability behind his aggressive stance. On one hand, he faces the high-stakes challenge of maintaining his position amid economic pressures, the mounting costs of military operations that have strained resources, and the reluctance of many Russians to continue sacrificing lives in the war. On the other hand, the war helps consolidate society around a leader perceived as strong. This image of strength could collapse if a frozen conflict leaves Russian-claimed lands under Ukrainian control. The only way for Putin to resolve this dilemma is some form of ceasefire, with Kursk retaken by force rather than through territorial swaps.

Ukraine. Kursk has taken on a dual role in this complex power struggle. For Ukraine, the battle for Kursk is more than a morale boost and a successful military exercise. Controlling a piece of Russian territory has become a safeguard against a potentially unfavorable or humiliating ceasefire. This position provides Ukraine with leverage in negotiations, offering some assurance that a ceasefire, if achieved, would not come at the cost of unacceptable territorial concessions.

However, this safeguard brings challenges. By prioritizing the goal of reclaiming Kursk before any substantive negotiations, Putin effectively delays the timeline for peace, postponing the prospect of a ceasefire. Ukraine’s ability to defend and potentially maintain control of contested regions prolongs the active conflict, intensifying pressure on both sides. While this standoff prevents Ukraine from prematurely capitulating to Russia’s demands, it also delays any meaningful ceasefire, leaving Ukrainian forces to endure continued hardships on the frontlines.

The U.S. If not for Kursk, many in the West might willingly sacrifice parts of Ukrainian territory for peace, even if temporary. However, Ukrainian control over parts of Kursk demonstrates both Ukraine’s military capability and its resistance to abandoning either Kursk or other Ukrainian lands occupied by Russia. For the U.S. and its allies, Putin’s apparent disregard for Trump’s hypothetical peace promises signals that he is unlikely to end the conflict unless it upholds Russian dominance. Ironically, Putin’s insistence on projecting strength may encourage a potential Trump administration to increase military aid to Ukraine. With adequate support, Ukraine might reclaim more territory, while Russian society—frustrated with Putin’s refusal to accept a peace plan—could grow increasingly discontented with his leadership.

Conclusion. The Kursk operation was an extremely successful move by Ukraine, as it has proven to be Ukraine’s primary leverage against Russia. Trump will most likely propose a peace plan, and if Russia does not accept it (and it probably won’t until part of Kursk is occupied), the U.S. may be inclined to provide even greater support to Ukraine. If Ukraine refuses the plan, the U.S. is unlikely to halt its support altogether, as Ukraine’s fall would symbolize a major geopolitical loss for the U.S.—an outcome Trump would want to avoid. As Kurt Volker pointed out months ago, Trump would not want a "collapse moment" similar to Biden’s experience in Afghanistan.