The Lawfare Podcast — Lawfare Archive: Ukraine Invades Russia
Host: Benjamin Wittes
Guests: Anastasiya Lapatina, Eric Charamella
Date: August 16, 2025 (Original episode from August 14, 2024)
Episode Overview
This episode of The Lawfare Podcast, hosted by Benjamin Wittes, dives deep into a stunning reversal in the Russia-Ukraine war: a significant Ukrainian military incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. With 1,000 km² reportedly under Ukrainian control, Wittes is joined by Lawfare’s Anastasiya Lapatina (reporting from Ukraine) and national security expert Eric Charamella to unpack the military, political, and geopolitical implications of Ukraine’s first large-scale offensive on Russian territory since World War II.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. What Happened in Kursk?
[03:18]
- Ukraine launched a surprise, large-scale military incursion into Russia’s Kursk region on August 6, 2024.
- Approx. 1,000 Ukrainian troops with heavy armor captured several dozen border villages.
- Kursk Oblast is adjacent to Sumy, Ukraine; this is the first cross-border state invasion since WWII.
- Ukraine maintained a strict public information blackout throughout the operation.
2. Military Objectives of the Incursion
[05:26, 20:57, 23:28, 26:25]
- Diversion: Forcing Russia to shift troops from offensive operations near Donetsk (the Donbass) to defend its own territory, potentially relieving pressure on critical Ukrainian fronts.
- POW Bargaining: Capturing Russian soldiers to use as leverage in prisoner exchanges, especially important for recovering soldiers and civilians, including kidnapped Ukrainian children.
- Buffer Zone: Creating distance between Russian staging areas and Ukrainian border regions like Sumy, safeguarding against relentless attacks on civilian infrastructure.
- Tactical Trades: Potential for territory exchange—offering captured Russian land (in Kursk) for Russian withdrawal from positions threatening Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city.
- Uncertainty remains about Ukraine’s ability to hold and reinforce the territory (“Occupation force is much larger than an incursion force.” — Eric Charamella [23:28]).
3. Political Objectives
a) Domestic Morale & Agency
[09:49, 29:23, 30:33]
- The operation serves as a significant morale booster, reversing a narrative of setbacks and showing Ukrainians they still have agency.
- Social media filled with memes and optimism reminiscent of early 2022.
“It looks like Russia is just completely lost and has no idea what to do. There has definitely been a morale boost.” — Anastasiya Lapatina [32:31]
b) Signaling to Russia: Bringing the War “Home”
[05:26, 43:25]
- Psychological warfare: transferring the experience of invasion and insecurity to average Russians.
- Shows Putin’s regime as unable to defend its territory, threatening the “strongman” narrative domestically.
c) Messaging to Western Allies
[17:28, 19:19, 19:47, 48:09, 52:36]
- Demonstrates that Western fears of escalation are often overblown: Ukrainian tanks, using Western hardware, rolled into Russia with no nuclear retaliation.
“We are now using your Western-provided heavy armor to roll into Russian territory [...] There is no nuclear war. There is nothing radical happening.” — Anastasiya Lapatina [19:19]
- Aimed at pushing Washington and others to drop further restrictions on Ukrainian use of Western weapons and allow broader strikes within Russia.
4. Media Blackout & Operational Security
[10:04, 12:12, 13:44]
- Unlike past “PR-stunt” border raids by Russian volunteer units, this was a regular Ukrainian military operation, conducted with strict information discipline.
- Even well-resourced Ukrainian journalists withheld known details for OPSEC, a marked contrast from previous operations.
- All available public info came mainly from panicked, often contradictory Russian sources.
5. US and Western Reactions
[17:28, 19:19, 53:05, 56:06, 66:28]
- US: Not a “full-throated Go Girl,” but notably tolerant. No new red lines, even tacit acceptance of Western equipment being used in Russia.
“If part of the point here was, let’s see what happens if we push this policy to its absolute limit, the answer from the US is you get a pat on the back.” — Benjamin Wittes [53:05]
- US policy evolving by “guess-and-check” — escalating support step-by-step based on Russian reactions, driven by escalation management doctrines from the Cold War.
- Europe: Especially among Germany, France, Italy, the response was even less squeamish than before; Germany’s defense committee encouraged weapon use in Russia.
“The closest the Germans are ever going to come to a victory in Kursk.” — Benjamin Wittes [69:27]
6. Russian Response: Chaos and Dysfunction
[43:25, 69:51, 70:28, 74:21]
- Russian official response was incoherent: delayed counteractions, infighting among agencies (FSB, regional governors, ministries).
- Regional officials blamed by Putin; videos surfaced of panicked Russian civilians pleading for help, reinforcing the regime's unpreparedness.
“There was this video of a bunch of Russians [...] pleading for Putin to come and save them because local authorities aren't doing anything.” — Anastasiya Lapatina [32:31]
- Reports of planned evacuations not to neighboring Russian regions, but to occupied Ukrainian territory, raising questions about Moscow’s expectations for holding Kursk.
7. Broader Strategic Impact
[45:52, 48:23, 66:28]
- The move’s success (or lack thereof) could determine whether Ukraine gains meaningful leverage in future negotiations.
- Both guests note that sustaining control over Kursk territory is critical; if Ukraine “raids and leaves,” the impact will be fleeting.
- Timing with US domestic distraction (election turmoil) possibly reduced scrutiny or American resistance.
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- On US-Ukraine Dynamics:
“The boundaries of the American doctrine have of course been extremely frustrating for Ukraine...now Ukrainians are saying: ‘Guys...we are now using your Western-provided heavy armor to roll into Russian territory...There is no nuclear war...how after this are you going to tell us we still can’t have long range strikes on Russian airfields?’”
— Anastasiya Lapatina [19:19] - On Russian Civil Society:
“That just highlights again, the difference between Ukrainians and Russians. When Russia invaded Ukraine, everyone began helping everyone immediately...There is all of this self-organization, like, screw you, the government...and that’s just not at all happening in Russia.”
— Anastasiya Lapatina [32:31] - On Operational Planning:
“Ukraine managed to almost mimic the surprise that Russia thought it was achieving in the early days of the full scale invasion…”
— Eric Charamella [02:59, 74:21] - On Institutional Inertia in Washington:
“Escalation management is an art, not a science…You have to use kind of context and historical examples and our knowledge of how the Russian system operates to make our best possible guess.”
— Eric Charamella [56:06] - On European Response:
“I’ve been actually much more surprised by the European response...even the Germans said...go ahead and use German weapons and we should send you more.”
— Eric Charamella [68:57]
Timestamps for Key Segments
- 01:46 — Introduction to the context: Trump-Putin meeting, concerns about concessions, Zelensky not invited.
- 03:18 — What and where is Kursk? Why is it strategically significant?
- 05:26 — Details of the Ukrainian incursion & speculation on objectives.
- 10:04 — Info blackout & why this incursion is a turning point.
- 17:28 — Discussion on evolving US weapon restrictions and policy boundaries.
- 23:28 — Eric’s four hypotheses for the military objectives.
- 29:23 — Political objectives: morale, leverage, and signaling.
- 32:31 — Memes, morale, and the psychology of domestic reaction.
- 43:25 — Bringing the war into Russia: psychological effect, historical analogies.
- 53:05 — Analysis of US government reaction and incrementalism.
- 69:51 — Russian dysfunction: evacuation plans, local panic, Putin casting blame.
- 74:21 — Russian military’s slow and confused response.
- 78:42 — Plug for Lapatina’s Substack, “Yours Ukrainian.”
Summary Table
| Topic | Timestamps | Key Points | |----------------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------| | Kursk Incursion | 03:18–05:26 | Surprise Ukrainian offensive, significant territory taken | | Military Objectives | 05:26–26:25 | Diversion, buffer, POW leverage, possible bargaining chips| | Political Objectives – Morale | 29:23–34:05 | Critical morale boost after months of setbacks | | Political Objectives – Signaling | 17:28, 43:25, 48:09 | Proving to West that Russia’s threats are hollow | | Media/Info Security | 10:04–14:00 | Strict Ukrainian/OPSEC, Russian side reporting | | US/Western Reaction | 17:28–62:38 | Evolving red lines, “guess-and-check,” supportive but cautious| | Russian Response | 69:51–78:12 | Chaotic, blame-shifting, civilian panic, disorganized |
Tone and Takeaways
The tone is urgent yet analytical, often laced with witty asides and gallows humor characteristic of Ukrainian and Lawfare podcast cultures. All three participants bring unique perspectives: legal/national security (Wittes), in-country political and civil society (Lapatina), and US government/analytical (Charamella). The central takeaway is that Ukraine’s Kursk offensive marks a strategic—if risky—shift in the war, fundamentally challenging Russia’s sense of control, redefining what the West sees as escalatory, and boosting Ukrainian morale at a critical juncture.
For more on Ukrainian society, politics, and culture, check out Anastasiya Lapatina’s Substack at yoursukrainian.substack.com