Ukraine’s August attack in Russia’s Kursk Oblast is being portrayed as a defensive operation, a public relations stunt to reassure its Western backers, and an act of justice (revenge, that is). All of this is partly true. But, essentially, the attack is about emotion. Ukraine has identified and is trying to emulate the kind of anger that Israel has been experiencing for the past year. If Russia is provoked as Israel was by Hamas, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—and Canada—could be drawn into the war.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a gifted politician. His greatest talent is certainly emotional diplomacy. It is hard not to agree with him when he makes an impassioned case for weapons and funding and for continued fighting. He appears, in person or via video conference, tired and tense in his drab olive T-shirt. Meanwhile, Western leaders and foreign ministers are dressed in crisp, clean suits and sit in comfortable air-conditioned rooms. Zelensky plays on this contrast. Pressure from Washington is also effective in convincing allies to support U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine.
Zelensky is rising to the occasion, but he still has limitations. He is inexperienced, having been president only since 2019. He also tends to overestimate his emotional intelligence. These weaknesses are reflected in his lack of political creativity and are at the root of his enormous — and potentially disastrous — misjudgment of human nature in the context of the Kursk attack.
This lack of creativity is evident in the political strategy of the Kursk attack. The attack was designed to invoke the same ferocious dynamics unleashed in Israel after the Hamas attack of October 2023. Hamas’s coup was so brutal, so shocking, that it led Israel to push the Gaza war to extremes.
Zelensky saw something in human nature, an emotional pattern, from these events that he assumed he could distill and deploy in Ukraine’s interests in the war with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is so driven by a desire for revenge that he is punishing Hamas (and Gaza) in the face of global protests, growing discontent in the United States and Europe, and despite indictments by the International Criminal Court, among other expressions of condemnation.
Netanyahu has a wealth of experience. It is not as if he was framed. He and his government felt deeply humiliated for failing to prevent the Hamas attack and for allegedly diverting their attention from security to divisive domestic political reforms. But their intense anger was not simply because of this accusation, or because of the military and civilian deaths and hostages in the Hamas attack. It was equally important because Israel considered Hamas an unworthy enemy.
Massive humiliation
It was because a perceived inferior enemy inflicted such pain on him that Mr. Netanyahu felt particularly angry and lost control. And if this could happen to Netanyahu, Zelensky must have thought, why not inflict the same medicine on Russian President Vladimir Putin? If Putin could be provoked into attacking NATO in the first invasion of Russia since World War II, then Ukraine could be saved.
This emotional dynamic is universal and powerful. It is therefore not surprising that many commentators perceive the Ukrainian attack on Kursk in the same light. Major Anglo-Saxon publications, such as the New York TimesTHE Washington PostTHE Toronto StarL’EconomistTHE Guardian and the Globe and Mailto name a few, describe the Kursk attack as a massive humiliation of Putin and Russia. More generally, emotion is their main means of giving meaning and significance to the Kursk attack: it is said to boost Ukrainian morale, reassure Western supporters, and make the Russians “feel” the cost of the war, so that they are forced to make peace.
Although humiliation, anger, prestige and revenge are part of human nature, this does not mean that they are experienced in the same way everywhere. These emotional and psychological forces are plural in their social manifestation. This is what Zelensky underestimated.
Indeed, Putin sees the risks of an extreme military response motivated by emotion. He understands that direct US and NATO involvement must be avoided. And he sees Ukraine as a serious adversary. He does not pretend that it is an unworthy adversary that is no match for Russia.
The Kursk attack did not prompt Russia to strike at Ukraine’s Western supporters. But the war in Ukraine continues, and as long as it does, the risk of escalation or a wider conflict will remain. This concern is also on everyone’s mind with regard to Israel and Iran. It should be with regard to Russia and Ukraine, where the challenges are just as great, if not greater (in terms of nuclear weapons).