Foto:Depositphotos
Taking the war to enemy territory is a powerful tactic that can alter the dynamics of a conflict and shift the momentum on the battlefield. In the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine’s recent incursion into Russia’s Kursk region represents a significant escalation, challenging Moscow’s strategy and boosting morale among Ukrainians. However, this approach is not new. The Hill draws parallels between Ukraine’s move and Israel’s decisive counterattack during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which fundamentally changed the course of that conflict.
A Look Back: The Yom Kippur War of 1973
In October 1973, Israel found itself in dire straits. The country was caught off guard by a surprise attack from both Syria and Egypt during the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. Israeli forces quickly lost control of key strategic positions, and defeat seemed imminent. However, Israel mounted a strong counteroffensive, and to turn the tide of the war, Israeli commanders decided to shift the battle onto Egyptian soil.
The Israeli army crossed the Suez Canal and advanced into Egypt, isolating Egypt’s Third Army and posing a direct threat to Cairo. This bold maneuver drastically altered the war’s trajectory, forcing major powers — the Soviet Union and the United States, which backed Egypt and Israel respectively — to ramp up efforts to broker a ceasefire out of fear of being drawn into a larger conflict.
Modern Parallels: Ukraine vs. Russia
Similar tactics are at play in Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. By invading Russian territory, Ukraine has not only caused alarm in Moscow but also raised questions about the sustainability of the war for Russia. The Hill highlights that while few believe there is an immediate threat to Moscow itself, the proximity of the fighting to the Russian capital is undoubtedly unsettling for the Kremlin.
As in Israel’s case in 1973, the tactic of shifting the war to enemy territory could prove decisive in altering the balance of power in this conflict. Should Ukraine’s forces succeed in capturing and holding Russian territory, Russia may find itself in a position where it cannot recover lost ground, thus shattering the image of President Vladimir Putin’s invincibility and undermining his leadership at home.
However, as The Hill notes, Putin’s situation is far more precarious than that of Egypt’s leader at the time, Anwar Sadat. For Egypt, a negotiated peace offered a partial victory, after achieving some battlefield success and delivering a critical blow to Israel’s overconfidence. But for Putin, any form of compromise could spell disaster, as his prolonged war against Ukraine has already tested his political standing.
A New Dimension to the Conflict
Ukraine’s incursion into Russian territory introduces a new phase in the war, forcing the Russian leadership to reassess its strategic calculations and respond to fresh challenges. This tactic could prove pivotal in bringing the conflict to an end, much like Israel’s incursion into Egypt during the Yom Kippur War led to ceasefire negotiations.
By shifting the war onto Russian soil, Ukraine not only seeks to boost its own military and civilian morale but also to pressure Russia into rethinking its aggressive stance. Whether this move will ultimately succeed remains to be seen, but historical precedents suggest that such actions can have a profound impact on the course of a conflict.
