That's because Russia took fuck all in 2023 when they were stuck at Avdiivka for months and months, way longer than expected by all sides. Once it fell, there were fewer natural choke points for Ukraine until Pokrovsk, and defense lines were not well prepared enough. So comparing taking a lot of fields to sending troops to capture a static point for a year is not really apples to apples imo.

Kursk is and always was a gambit. My view is that losses and disorganization on the frontline from Ukrainian's part on the Donetsk side, is independent from the results of the Kursk incursion, not because of it. As such, whether it was a overall good idea or not in hindsight, it appears that the primary objective of the incursion was met, as every troop, NK or Russian, stationed to recapture Kursk is one fewer re-inforcing the offensive in other areas.

[–] Draghetta@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I’m not sure that’s right.

Nobody knows alternate timelines of course, but I wonder if NK troops would have been at all engaged were it not for Kursk - and NK engagement is very favourable for both sides of the agreement, and really bad news for the rest of us.

Also I don’t know how many of the Russian Kursk troops are conscripts, but those would not have been in Donetsk anyway.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

and NK engagement is very favourable for both sides of the agreement,

Then NK troops was always going to happen. It's not a penalty for Kursk invasion, but a security partnership that should have been predicted.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago

I wonder if NK troops would have been at all engaged were it not for Kursk

It's a valid thought. I'd think Russia would find whatever excuse was convenient, even if it weren't for an incursion, something like "Western allies are supporting Ukraine", or whatever. At the end of the day, NK needs food and Russia needs warm bodies so that calculus on the deal doesn't change.