Andrew E. Kramer, the Kyiv bureau chief for The New York Times, offers insight into Ukraine's bold military incursion into Russian territory, viewing it as a potential game-changer in the ongoing conflict. Anton Troianovski, Moscow bureau chief, provides a contrasting perspective on Russia's doubts and media portrayal of the situation. Key discussions include the chaos at the border, the emotional toll on civilians, and how this audacious move could reshape power dynamics and negotiations between the two nations.
Ukraine's military incursion into Russia, initially seen as symbolic, strategically aims to alter conflict dynamics and secure leverage for future negotiations.
The unexpected Russian response, characterized by a lack of military action, raises concerns about their preparedness and the impact on public sentiment.
Deep dives
The Turning Point of the War
Ukraine's military operation crossing into Russian territory marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict, representing the first significant incursion into Russia since World War II. Initially viewed as a symbolic gesture, this operation revealed a calculated move by Ukraine to not only challenge Russian military positions but also to secure control over strategic areas. The secrecy surrounding the planning and execution of the operation highlights its audacity, showcasing Ukraine's capability to effectively penetrate Russian defenses, which included poorly manned border regions. The success of this operation has not only altered the dynamics of the war but has also raised questions about Russia's military preparedness and the effectiveness of its border security.
Strategic Goals Behind the Incursion
Ukraine's incursion into Russia serves multiple strategic objectives aimed at reshaping the conflict dynamics. Primarily, it seeks to divert Russian military resources from Ukraine to defend its own territory, thereby alleviating pressure on Ukrainian forces engaged in fierce battles elsewhere. Moreover, capturing Russian territory positions Ukraine as a potentially critical player in any future peace negotiations, enabling it to leverage its gains for favorable terms. The operation also has a psychological component, aiming to demonstrate to the Russian populace the realities of warfare, thereby potentially influencing public sentiment against the war.
Russian Response and Implications
The Russian response to Ukraine's incursion has been characterized by a surprising lack of military counteraction, suggesting unpreparedness or reluctance to escalate the conflict. Russian state media downplays the situation, framing it more as a natural disaster than a significant military defeat, indicating a strategy of denial among the Russian leadership. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian advance into Russian territory has resulted in about 120,000 Russian civilians being displaced, further complicating the narrative for Russian authorities. However, as Russia continues to prioritize operations in eastern Ukraine, the overarching question remains whether Ukraine's bold strategy will lead to a shift in the war's trajectory or result in intensified conflict.
Warning: this episode contains descriptions of war.
When Ukrainian troops crossed over into Russia two weeks ago, it appeared at first to be a largely symbolic gesture. But in the time since, it has emerged as a potentially pivotal moment in the war.
Andrew Kramer, the Kyiv bureau chief for The Times, explains what’s behind the audacious Ukrainian operation, and Anton Troianovski, the Moscow bureau chief, explains how Russia’s response could reshape the conflict.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
