Editorial | Ukraine wants to show that it is still capable of striking

Qun Russia has carried out various hybrid attacks in different parts of the world, their goals have sometimes been difficult to grasp.

It is precisely this vagueness and multiplicity of goals that have been the trump card of the attacks. Whatever the goal, all the confusion and uncertainty serves the hybrid attacker.

The attacker is served even by those attacks, the real perpetrator of which is not immediately clear. We don’t know who has done undercover work in Finland, but undercover work in itself spreads uncertainty and fear.

When the Balticconnector gas pipeline running at the bottom of the Baltic Sea broke, those looking for the culprit turned to look towards Russia. Russia did not admit to having done anything to the pipe. In the end, China said it was accidentally cut off by a Chinese ship.

However, the uncertainty in the energy supply caused by the broken gas pipeline served Russia. The West got another proof that energy can be used as a weapon and that energy supply routes are ultimately quite unprotected.

It seems that Ukraine is now giving potts in potts.

Ukraine has launched a surprise attack on Russian soil in the Kursk region. Ukrainian troops have advanced tens of kilometers, and they have taken Russian prisoners of war.

The operation has been successful, but those following it have been puzzled. Why is Ukraine doing this? What does it aim for? What is the benefit? With what weapon was the attack carried out?

The same will ultimately apply to this operation as to Russia’s hybrid operations. Whatever the explanation, the attack is causing confusion and uncertainty – especially in Moscow.

Anger has been noticeable, for example, in the nature of President Vladimir Putin: this was not expected and should not have been possible. Ukraine was supposed to be subdued in a couple of days, and now it is advancing on the soil of mother Russia as an aggressor.

“

It seems that Ukraine is now giving potts in potts.

Leven in foreign countries, the attack in Ukraine has surprised and a logic has been sought for it. Several options are available.

One is that if Ukraine is pushed to negotiate with Russia for a cease-fire or peace, Ukraine’s position is now at least mentally a little stronger, and it may even have something to negotiate about the pieces of land it has managed to acquire and keep for itself in the Kursk region.

Another explanation is that Ukraine is stretching the Russian armed forces when troops have to be driven to the Kursk region.

These two explanations are incomplete. The first would tie Ukrainian forces to hard-to-defend and hard-to-maintain positions for a long time. The second may be a futile wish, because the Russian armed forces have enough to stretch.

The third proposed goal is that Ukraine just wanted to show both Russia and the West its ability to harm the opponent. This demonstration of the ability to harm can serve as an indication to the West that since armed support is known and wanted to be used, it is worth giving. At the same time, it will be shown to the cautious West that even risky operations are worthwhile and can be successful.

For Russia, the blow is correspondingly proof that, although Russia has slowly advanced here and there, Ukraine is still strong and dangerous. The operation was clearly well planned and executed – better than most Russian military operations in Ukraine.

Ythe explanation is related to domestic pressures. War fatigue has grown in Ukraine. The attack on Kursk proves to Ukrainians that the country’s top political leadership and military forces can still be trusted.

Regardless of the explanation, the attack on Kursk works like a hybrid attack: regardless of the explanation, Ukraine will reap the benefits – if the attack does not end very tragically for the Ukrainian forces.

The editorials are HS’s positions on a current topic. The articles are prepared by HS editorial staff, and they reflect the journal principle line.