Andrew Latham argues that Ukraine's offensive into Russia represents a misallocation of military resources and a strategic error, potentially undermining the country's efforts to defend itself and reclaim occupied territories. Latham presents valid points about the risks and limited strategic benefits of the incursion, but his viewpoint relies on a straw man that fails to represent the full rationale behind Ukraine's decision.

1. straw man • The author misrepresents the Ukrainian offensive by downplaying its potential benefits and exaggerating its risks, making it seem like a reckless and futile endeavor. ​

This reckless gambit, more akin to a desperate stunt worthy of a second-rate actor than a seasoned statesman, diverts critical resources from the primary battlefield while offering negligible strategic gain.

This significantly distorts the strategic decision behind the military incursion, misrepresenting it as a mere publicity stunt rather than engaging with the potentially valid strategic reasons for the action. Other reasons for the decision could include: ​

1. Pressure on Russian Supply Lines: Kursk is an important logistical hub for the Russian military. An incursion into this region could disrupt supply lines, weaken Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and hinder their ability to maintain a sustained military presence. ​
2. Diversion of Russian Forces: By forcing Russia to defend its own territory, Ukraine could compel Russia to divert troops and resources away from the front lines in Ukraine. This could relieve pressure on Ukrainian forces in other areas and create opportunities for counter-offensives. ​
3. Psychological Impact: Striking inside Russia would likely have a psychological impact, demonstrating Ukraine's ability to take the fight to Russian territory. This could boost morale among Ukrainian troops and civilians while potentially undermining Russian domestic support for the war. ​
4. Negotiation Leverage: A successful operation in Russian territory could provide Ukraine with leverage in any future negotiations. It could signal to Russia that Ukraine is capable of offensive operations beyond its borders, which might lead to a recalibration of Russia's strategic goals.

2. slippery slope with appeal to fear • The author suggests that a prolonged incursion into Russia could lead to a "catastrophic global confrontation."

A prolonged incursion into Russia could escalate the conflict, drawing in other nations and potentially leading to a catastrophic global confrontation.

This appeal to fear is used to discourage supporting the Ukrainian offensive without providing evidence of the likelihood of such a scenario. The author's slippery slope argument ignores the possibility of de-escalation measures, diplomatic interventions, or the self-imposed limits of the involved parties to prevent an uncontrolled escalation to a "catastrophic global confrontation."