A potential challenge awaits Russia as Ukraine’s recent cross-border incursion may strain their defenses and force the diversion of troops from the front lines, potentially dealing a psychological blow, according to military analysts.
While Kyiv denies any involvement, experts suggest that the largest cross-border raid from Ukraine since Russia’s invasion 15 months ago was likely coordinated with Ukraine’s armed forces, as they prepare to recapture territory. Neil Melvin, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), explains that the objective is to pull Russian forces in different directions, creating gaps that require reinforcements.
As Ukraine plans a major counteroffensive to reclaim occupied territory, Russia has already constructed extensive fortifications in the eastern and southern regions of its neighbor.
The incursion occurred far from the main battleground in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region and around 100 miles (160 km) from the front lines in the northern Kharkiv region. Despite the incursion’s location, Melvin notes that Russia will need to respond by deploying troops to the area and reinforcing the entire border region, even if that may not be the anticipated route of the Ukrainian forces.
On Tuesday, Russia’s military claimed to have repelled militants who attacked its western Belgorod region with armored vehicles, resulting in the deaths of over 70 “Ukrainian nationalists” and pushing the remaining attackers back into Ukraine. Kyiv, on the other hand, attributes the attack to Russian citizens, portraying it as internal strife within Russia. Two groups operating in Ukraine, the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC) and Freedom of Russia Legion, have claimed responsibility.
According to Mark Galeotti, head of the London-based Mayak Intelligence consultancy, these groups consist of anti-Kremlin Russians representing a range of ideologies from liberals and anarchists to neo-Nazis. While these groups hope to contribute to the downfall of the Putin regime, Galeotti emphasizes that they are not independent forces but rather controlled by Ukrainian military intelligence.
Ukrainian officials, including presidential aide Mykhailo Podolyak, maintain that they had no involvement in the operation. The United States asserts that it does not support Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory, but ultimately, the conduct of military operations is determined by Kyiv.
While there have been several similar incursions into Russia in recent months, this week’s event, though the largest known so far, remains relatively minor compared to frontline battles.
Alexei Baranovsky, a spokesperson for the political wing of the Freedom of Russia Legion, indicates that he cannot disclose the number of troops involved in the operation, but mentions that the legion consists of four battalions. He denies significant losses and dismisses Russian reports of casualties as disinformation. Baranovsky asserts that the unit is part of Ukraine’s International Legion and, therefore, part of its armed forces, but denies any coordination with Ukrainian authorities.
Galeotti suggests that the incursion appears to be a Ukrainian battlefield “shaping” operation in preparation for the planned counteroffensive. The objective is to unsettle Russia, instilling concern about potential uprisings among its own people and dispersing Russian troops.
Melvin points out that the operation also serves to boost morale in Ukraine.
Ukrainian officials have mirrored the Kremlin’s rhetoric from the 2014 annexation of Crimea, initially denying the involvement of Russian troops. Podolyak attributes the Belgorod incursion to “underground guerrilla groups” comprising Russian citizens and remarks that tanks are easily accessible in Russian military stores, echoing Putin’s response in 2014 regarding the presence of men wearing Russian military uniforms without insignia in Crimea.
Ukrainians have taken to social media, referencing the “Belgorod People’s Republic,” reminiscent of events in eastern Ukraine in 2014 when Russia-backed militias declared “people’s