19 mins audio

Article/Blessing CALD Editorial；Photo/Internet

Recently, a news story drew attention to the fact that a 21-year-old autistic youth in Hong Kong was sentenced to eight weeks in prison for insulting the national anthem after he repeatedly raised his thumb upside down to make booing noises and sang an English song during the playing of the Chinese national anthem. This has led people to question the degree of protection for the disabled in Hong Kong, and whether reasoning outside the law should have been reflected in the case.

In pre-2019 Hong Kong, law enforcers seldom paid any attention to the ‘offence’ of insulting a disabled person, and most of them would just give a warning, and no one would even think of taking the case to court. No one ever thought that the case would be brought to court, and no one ever thought that a disabled person would be convicted and sentenced if the case was brought to court. The Hong Kong Government’s handling of this case today highlights the fact that Hong Kong is now a society ‘ruled by law’.

Conviction for insulting the national anthem
In June last year, during the World Women’s Volleyball League match at the Hong Kong Coliseum, an autistic and hyperactive young man, Chan Pak Ei, was accused of publicly and intentionally insulting the national anthem by booing, clenching his fists with his thumbs down, sitting down and covering his ears with both hands, and singing a song from the musical Les Misérables, ‘Do you hear the people sing? The Defendant’s behaviour at the time of the incident was videotaped by the off-duty Chief Inspector who was with him. The defendant’s behaviour during the incident was recorded by the off-duty Chief Inspector, who cautioned him that ‘I don’t like the Chinese team and the Chinese national anthem, so I just sing other songs and I don’t want to get up’.

During the trial, the defence pleaded that Chan was diagnosed with autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) when he was six years old, and that he was now remorseful and had reflected deeply on his actions and clearly understood the consequences. The defence cited an Australian case that mentally ill persons are entitled to a discounted sentence, saying that they know that their actions are wrong but do not know the seriousness of the consequences, that the deterrent effect is not applicable to mentally ill persons, and that mentally ill persons are subjected to a greater mental impact than the general public, and that it is hoped that the court would take into consideration that the defendant’s offence was short-lived and the number of people who witnessed it was small, and that he could be given a suspended sentence.

However, this plea of the defence did not have much effect on the outcome of the trial. Magistrate Lam Tze Hong said that the Defendant had no genuine remorse and did not see the basis for a suspended sentence. Moreover, the Defendant had stopped taking his medication two days before the offence, which had lowered his self-control, so this medical history did not have much impact on the deduction of his sentence. LAM agreed that the circumstances of this case were the worst amongst non-similar cases and that there was no premeditation or planning involved, but the seriousness of the charge did not mean that a sentence of non-immediate imprisonment was appropriate, even if the sentence was lower. A sentence of nine weeks’ imprisonment was set as the starting point. A discretionary deduction of one week was made on account of the Defendant’s medical condition and he was eventually sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment. The Defendant then lodged an application for leave to appeal and was granted bail in the sum of $8,000 pending appeal.

In his earlier ruling, Mr Lam emphasised that the event took place in an important stadium in Hong Kong, and that the singing of the national anthem was an affirmation of the national identity of the people, and an endorsement of the importance of the country, and that the singing of other songs in a loud voice during the playing of the national anthem constituted an insult, and gave the impression that the national anthem could be disregarded. The basis of this decision was not whether the Defendant was a patriot or whether he liked China or the Chinese team, but that the Defendant’s behaviour was entirely autonomous, and that he had publicly and intentionally insulted the National Anthem, undermining the dignity of the National Anthem as a national symbol and emblem, and that he had fulfilled the relevant intent in the offence of ‘insulting the National Anthem’, and he was found guilty of the offence.

Behaviour and Intent of Autistic Person
Mr Justice Lam’s analysis of the case was based on the defendant’s behaviour at the scene to determine that he had committed the offence, and from what he considered to be autonomous behaviour, he deduced that the defendant’s intention was in accordance with the ‘relevant intention’ of the charge. However, Mr Justice Lam did not have any training in psychology or psychiatry. Whether he derived the defendant’s intention from the defendant’s behaviour in accordance with the behavioural psychology of a normal human being, or with the endorsement of a professional psychologist or medical doctor, was not made clear in detail in the report of the case.

However, anyone with a little psychological training or common sense will know that it is not at all easy for an autistic person to deduce intention from personal behaviour. Moreover, in the past 20 to 30 years, most of the studies on autistic persons have focused on behavioural changes rather than on the intention of the person concerned, so I believe it is not clear whether Judge Lam’s inference on the intention of the defendant will really be endorsed by psychologists.

A judge should of course judge the intention of the offender from his behaviour, otherwise he will not be able to make a judgement in cases involving motive and intention. However, in this case, I believe the number of autistic people Judge LAM Tze-hong has come into contact with and his knowledge of autism will affect his judgement. From the judgement of this case, we can see that the logic seems to be ‘adults should be held legally responsible for breaking the law’ and ‘autistics should also be held responsible for their own behaviour’.

However, as this case involves patriotism and respect for the country, it is worthwhile for the society to discuss and pay attention to whether an autistic person, who is regarded as disabled, should be dealt with by the law alone. However, after the incident was reported, there were no alternative views in the media in Hong Kong, or social workers or psychologists who care about people with disabilities in other societies have openly expressed their different views or opinions. Is it because Hong Kong has become a ‘Hong Kong governed by the rule of law’ that they are unwilling to propose a different perspective to deal with patriotic criminal offences committed by autistic persons? Or do they all agree with Judge Lam that autistic people are just like other adults in understanding the meaning of their behaviour and bearing the criminal responsibility if they break the law? Does the indifference of these professionals reflect the changes in Hong Kong society today?

Perhaps we should try to understand this incident from a different perspective in a different society.

The Game of Law, Reason and Sentiment
Anyone can understand that emotion and reason cannot determine whether a person is guilty or not, it is the ‘law’ that can convict a person, but the ‘law’ is basic and not absolute. The law is not the highest standard of personal behaviour, but the moral standard is the standard of behaviour given to us by the society. The law also has to take into account ‘reason’ and ‘emotion’, which is why there is the saying that ‘the law is no more than a matter of human feelings’. Equality before the law is the basic principle, but there is room for interpretation on top of the principle: although it is not permissible under the law, it can be lenient under the circumstances, and even if it is necessary to transfer or prosecute according to the law (or to slow down the prosecution of a lesser degree of authority not to prosecute), the judge can still give a low degree of criminal responsibility under the circumstances and reason. For example, in this case whether the autistic person has sufficient knowledge of his own behaviour, and whether he has a clear understanding of the meaning of the national anthem? There is room for discussion.

Autism is a lifelong neurological disorder that begins in early childhood. The main characteristics of autism are unique social interactions, non-standard ways of learning, a strong interest in specific topics, a tendency to favour routine, general communication difficulties, and a special way of processing sensory information. The unique way of social interaction has led many people to explore whether the emotional world of autistic people is the same as that of other people. Therefore, it seems that experts do not have an opinion on whether autistic people have the same ability to understand patriotism and respect the national anthem and flag as other people do. What is even more worrying is that the stigma and discrimination associated with neurological differences in the community continue to hinder diagnosis, treatment, acceptance and tolerance of autistic people’s bizarre behaviours. In order to raise awareness of autism and eliminate stigma, the United Nations General Assembly has designated 2 April as World Autism Awareness Day, with the aim of helping to improve the quality of life of people with autism, so that they can lead full and meaningful lives as an integral part of society.

It is not easy to strike a balance between ‘law’ and ‘reason’ when the system will be rigid and unable to respond to individual circumstances, and social chaos when ‘reason’ is the only thing that matters and ‘reason’ is ignored. ‘Law’ and “reason” are the basis for regulating and guiding people’s behaviour, while humane considerations can enable people to make adjustments in their dealings, but the entire consideration should be based on the foundation of law and reason. If the two are more or less in line with each other, and if humane considerations are added to the equation, will not the whole society become more tolerant and harmonious? This requires the wisdom of the Judges.

The law should not be cold, and judicial work is also public work. In this case, the behaviour of the autistic young man, Chen Boiei, was indeed against the law; however, a judgement that does not take into account his personal circumstances cannot embody the highest spirit of the law – the law not only represents the way of the world and its rules, but also the hearts of the people and the human condition. On the basis of understanding the original intent of the relevant jurisprudential foundations, it would be a wiser choice to deal with the case in a lenient manner that embodies the basic intent.

Is welfare being abused?
The situation in Australia is in stark contrast to the attitude of the Chinese government towards people with disabilities. Many new immigrants from China think of people with disabilities as being wheelchair bound or visibly blind, deaf or dumb; Australia’s concept of disability is very broad, for example, people with mental illnesses, genetic disorders, physical disabilities, and even cerebral palsy, strokes, and disabilities resulting from cancer are eligible to apply for the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme). However, the strong protection of the welfare system has also brought about another problem – over-diagnosis and medical treatment.

Take autism as an example, over the past 10 years, the incidence of autism has increased significantly in developed countries, and the growth rate of autism in Australia is more pronounced than in other countries with comparable economies and health systems, such as the US, Canada, and the UK, and the prevalence rate is estimated to be the highest in the world, which seems to be attributable to financial incentives generated by government policies (especially the implementation of the NDIS). Currently, the NDIS provides a great deal of support resources for people with autism, especially for children under the age of 9. The NDIS emphasises the importance of providing monetary support for services to people with disabilities as early as possible, so that they can have room for improvement and development in the future. Such a strategy, many believe, could lead to a faster than average increase in diagnosis rates. In the past, NDIS Minister Thornton has pointed out that providing NDIS support to younger children is an investment in society. However, NDIS patients and developmental delays under the age of 14 now account for more than half of the users of the NDIS programme, making the NDIS programme an avenue for parents concerned about their children’s development to seek help.

Collectively, changes in standards and increased awareness over the decades have led to more people being diagnosed, and some doctors may be substituting the diagnosis of autism for conditions that overlap with it, such as ADHD and dyslexia, so that patients can easily access basic services. Analyses of autism prevalence over the past decade show that autism prevalence has increased faster in areas where the NDIS has been rolled out, suggesting that the program has had an impact on the number of people seeking a diagnosis. the funding and services of the NDIS do support and improve the lives of many people in need, but it is questionable whether they are all being used in a practical manner, to help those who are truly in need, rather than everyone. The Australian federal government’s intention in establishing the NDIS was to help increase the independence of people with disabilities, including their participation in social and economic activities. However, from policy to practice, due to over-diagnosis and over-medication, the NDIS has been plagued by abuse, misuse and fraud. The amount of funding is now largely based on documentary evidence, and there is a mismatch between the actual needs of many people with disabilities and the funding available to them. As a result, the Australian community has invested a significant amount of resources in this area, which has caused concern in the community and has led to the NDIS, which is in urgent need of a major reform in the future, with the future still unknown.

14 mins audio

Article/Blessing CALD Editorial；Photo/Internet

Australian breakdancer Rachael Gunn (also known as Raygun) has become a social media sensation after her performance at the Paris Olympics recently attracted a lot of attention.

Despite scoring zero points in the competition, her performance made her more recognisable than the Japanese athlete who won the gold medal. The event not only marked the debut of breakdancing as an emerging Olympic programme, but also triggered a re-examination of the dance form.

Jumping and crawling like a kangaroo
Breakdancing originated in the street culture of the 1970s, and is more confrontational than other dances. From its earliest days, breakdancing has had a tradition of Battles, in which two dancers take turns demonstrating their skills in order to determine the winner. The Olympic Games also use the Battle rule, which allows 16 people to divide into four groups to battle each other one-on-one to get to the top eight, and then two by two to get to the champion. Many of the first-time Olympic dance projects don’t get a lot of attention, but breakdancing is a big hit. And it wasn’t the winner, it was Australia’s Regan.

The NBC, BBC, AP and other foreign media reported that although not without skill, Regan’s creative dance steps still surprised netizens. She is seen standing on one foot, bending her arms towards her ears as she leans back, or lying on her side, touching her toes, rolling over and repeating the move.

Regan, 36, is a lecturer at Macquarie University with a PhD in cultural studies. Despite not winning a single competition at the points stage and failing to qualify for later rounds, she is widely regarded as one of Australia’s best female breakdancers and has represented her country at the World Championships in 2021, 2022 and 2023. As breakdancing is partly about creativity and the other competitors are much younger than her, Regan believes that her biggest strength is her unique routine, which she knows won’t get her high scores, but she still wants to be recognised by her fans. But the internet doesn’t seem to be buying it, with some critics suggesting that the Oceania qualifiers, held in Sydney last October, were set up to favour Regan. Some believe she not only made Australia the laughing stock of the world, but also stole the opportunity for truly talented athletes to compete at the Olympics and questioned the judges who qualified Regan. It’s just that breakdancing is on the Olympic stage for the first time, and there’s no sound system in Australia or around the world to assess the qualifications of the athletes, but that can’t be a valid reason for rioting against an athlete’s character.

Traditionally, breakdancing can be divided into four categories: Toprock, Downrock/Footwork, Power moves and Freezes. In recent years, many dancers have been adding flips to their steps, hence the term flips as a fifth category. Obviously, these moves are easy to perform when you are young and your body is soft and light, so most of the breakdancers are 10 years old, also known as B-Boy or B-Girl. It is not easy for dancers over 20 years old to compete with young people in their teens to perform these basic moves.

Unlike young dancers who excel in strength, stamina and explosiveness, older dancers bring a different level of maturity or artistry to the dance. Regan’s set of competition moves was full of her own style and creativity, rather than the lively or powerful movements of other dancers, which made her an internet sensation and even subjected her to abuse and ridicule.

Dixon, an African American from Australia, expressed his strong dissatisfaction with Regan’s performance at the Olympics. He felt that her performance was completely inconsistent with the cultural values of breakdancing. With breakdancing not continuing into the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, the incident has fuelled debate about cultural appropriation and respect for other people’s cultures. Dixon pointed out that the behaviour was extremely offensive to those who have been influenced by hip-hop culture. In her first post-Olympics statement, Regan said she gave it her all at the Olympics and was shocked that she was under fire, urging people to stop their rather destructive criticism of her.

Who’s in charge?
Breakdancing, which is diverse, spirited and has a strong personal identity, has seen two schools of thought when it comes to formal sports competitions. One side supports the idea of promoting breakdancing to a wider audience through the competition, while the other side believes that the rules limit the development of breakdancing and violate the nature of breakdancing. When the dance enters the Olympic Games, it inevitably becomes a form of rules and regulations – whether to reveal the attitude and freedom of street dance culture, or to prioritise how to dance in order to win, in order to get points to meet the judges’ aesthetics, this is an internal struggle exclusively for breakdancers.

The rules of Olympic breakdancing require competitors to go from being specialists to being the best of the best, which is not easy in itself. What’s even more difficult is the struggle between the competitor’s own style and the rules. Breakdancing is a daily occurrence. Breakdancing was born in the Bronx, New York, USA, and because it is not restricted to equipment, and because of the free, creative and easy-to-follow dance moves, breakdancing has attracted many young people with a low barrier to entry. Dancers of all ages come together and their different ideas collide with each other, making breakdancing innovative and changing all the time. Breakdancing is a competition, a performance and an art.

In order to pursue the objectivity of breakdancing, the Paris Olympics raised the number of judges from three to five to nine, and also required the judges to score breakdance performances according to five main criteria: technicality, versatility, execution, musicality and originality. –Breakdancing is still subjective and objective.

In most Olympic sports, there are objective criteria, such as running the fastest, jumping the furthest or highest, scoring the fewest strokes, scoring the most goals, knocking down an opponent or scoring the highest number of points, and performing the most difficult and beautiful moves. However, in breakdancing, there is no way to quantify the moves of individual contestants, and the judges can only use ‘forced choice’ from the subjective judging to determine the competitors, which resulted in the Australian contestants scoring zero because they were not as good at the basics as the others, even though they were recognised for their creativity and artistry. This may be a reflection of the fact that this ‘sport’ has yet to find a scoring method that can be objectively compared. If this is the case, then it would be hasty to put the event into the Olympic Games.

From Regan’s case, it is not difficult to see that although her style is unique and her moves are undoubtedly very original, she still did not get a single vote from the judges after three rounds of the competition. This may be due to the fact that she is so out of the ordinary that she was not able to get a buy-in from the judges, which highlighted the ambiguity in the judging criteria and reflected the dilemma of the dancers in the dilemma of ‘maintaining their style’ versus ‘obeying the rules’. The debate over Regan’s steps will probably receive a completely different evaluation in the near future, but it is just that today no one can yet understand and appreciate the dancer’s freedom of expression and attitude in dance. It’s just that those who are ahead of their time are always alone, even at the cost of being mocked, and perhaps that’s the greater sadness of being in an age where we are all free but trapped in another framework.

Just want to be myself
Regan’s kangaroo dance at the Women’s Breakdancing Cycle has been ridiculed after it became a hit online. Regan responded by saying that the dance moves were all her own and that she just wanted to be herself and not be influenced by anyone. She knows that her unexpected style may not get her high marks at the Olympics, but she hopes that the audience will be blown away by her unique performance. Despite the social pressure Regan feels as a result of her unique dance moves and internet popularity, she doesn’t feel alone.

The outpouring of support from people in Australia and across the globe has been heartwarming for Regan. She’s received solidarity from her team members, with some even honouring her by mimicking her solos in public. All this support represents not only a recognition of her personal values, but more importantly, a firm endorsement of the free-spiritedness and creativity that she preaches. Regan’s dance is like a mirror that perfectly reflects the public’s deep-seated desire and searching fire. Prime Minister Albanese also spoke out in solidarity, saying that the Games were about people taking part in sport, and that Regan’s attempt exemplified the Australian tradition of trying – what really counts is taking part. Meanwhile, the Australian Olympic Committee has called for the removal of a petition on change.org calling for immediate accountability and transparency over Regan’s eligibility to participate in the Olympics, claiming that it has incited public hatred without any factual basis.

For Regan, dance is not just about competition, it is also an effective way of communicating emotions and ideas. In the face of criticism from some audience and judges that her dance form is too abstract and does not conform to the conventions and aesthetics of breakdancing, Regan stood firm in her understanding of the concept of dance, advocating that dance should have a free soul and should not be bound by rigid rules. Although Regan’s performance on the international stage received a zero score, it allowed the world to see the unexpected sparks of cultural exchange. This is not just a discussion about dance technique, but also a dialogue about how to cross cultural boundaries and achieve true understanding and respect.

The Australian breakdancers’ performance may have been an opportunity to open up a discussion about differences in judgement and cultural understanding. Breakdancing as a competitive sport is judged not only on technical precision, but also on the ability of the dancers to convey the emotion and story of the dance. Perhaps the world can learn from this incident that when appreciating and evaluating art works from different cultures, it is important to keep an open mind and understand the cultural significance behind them in order to appreciate their value in a more comprehensive and profound way. The story of breakdancing is still going on, and cultural exchange and understanding is a common issue for all of us.

16 mins audio

Article/Blessing CALD Editorial；Photo/Internet

After nearly 30 months of stalemate, the situation of the Russian-Ukrainian war is undergoing an important change.

After a recent Ukrainian raid on Russia’s home state of Kursk on the border between the two countries, Russia has evacuated tens of thousands of residents from the border and announced an anti-terrorist operation in three areas of the border. The anti-terrorist operation is designed to give the military full control over local activities, including communications surveillance. Russia has also launched a counter-attack, and while more information on the actual fighting between the two sides is awaited, it is worth keeping an eye on the possible changes in the fighting situation, which may have a number of implications.

Beautiful Strategic Counterattack
A few days ago, the Ukrainian army pushed 30 kilometres into Russia, which is the deepest and most significant counter-attack since Moscow’s February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine’s surprise counterattack on the Russian mainland, successfully burning the fire into the Russian mainland and hitting the Russian army in the loosely defended (weak) Kursk region, is a major victory for Ukraine in the battlefield, which completely breaks Russia’s original rhythm of attack, reduces the pressure on the Ukrainian mainland’s defence, and at the same time, demonstrates to Russia that Ukraine has the military capability to cross the border and attack the Russian mainland to hit the Russian army hard. At the same time, it demonstrated to Russia that Ukraine’s cross-border attack on Russia’s territory was capable of dealing a serious blow to the Russian army. More importantly, this attack changed the existing battlefield situation: ‘If the enemy can go, we can also go’.

Although the Ukrainian attack was unexpected by Moscow, the Russian army has already started to reinforce its front line. Whether it can effectively counterattack the Ukrainian army and recapture the lost ground will let the outside world see clearly the strength of the Russian army at the moment. The Russians are wary of attacking Ukraine in the future, so they have to allocate a lot of military power and resources to strengthen the border defence work, while dispersing and weakening the military power of the Russian army to attack Ukraine. The military strength of this counter-attack, which can penetrate into the Russian mainland and severely damage the Russian army, will surely be an important bargaining chip for the Ukrainian side in the future Russian-Ukrainian armistice negotiation, so as to fight for a better armistice condition for Ukraine.

In addition, with Russia’s inability to revive its Black Sea fleet in the short term, it is also worth paying attention to whether Ukraine’s offensive in the south is likely to regain control of Crimea. The dominance of Crimea is also a bargaining chip for both sides in the coming negotiations. After all, not long ago, both Russia and Ukraine released their willingness to negotiate and their respective conditions. The Ukrainian army’s surprise attack at this time is clearly intended to use war to force the negotiations, and to accumulate more bargaining chips for the negotiations that may follow. The background of this strategic idea was the insistence of the Kiev authorities on the idea of recovering full sovereignty over all the lost territories, and Kiev’s desired outcome could only be realised if it could effectively consolidate and even expand its gains within Russian territory. However, Russia said on 14 August that it would withdraw its previous ‘generous’ peace terms because of the Ukrainian attack on Russia. However, Ukraine has always scorned Russia’s ‘favourable’ peace terms, and Russia’s withdrawal of these terms can be regarded as a totally powerless response.

The international situation has become more uncertain
In this new wave of war, the strength of Moscow’s counter-attacks against the Ukrainian army and the strength of its operational strength are of great importance. If the Russian army fails to counter-attack effectively or shows signs of military disillusionment, it may lead to the spread of the whole body, which may inspire Ukraine to take over more territories under the superior force, and it may also affect the attitude of the Western society towards the war. For Ukraine, the cross-border attack has greatly boosted public morale at a time when it is undermanned and underarmed, with a frontline of more than 1,000 kilometres facing relentless Russian attacks. It helps reverse the disappointment of domestic and international allies that it has been bogged down in a battle of positions over the past few months in a major counter-offensive in the east, and gives the outside world more confidence.

The Biden administration has supported the Ukrainian war effort for more than two years, but has been reluctant to let the Ukrainian army counterattack on Russian soil in order to avoid escalating the war and drawing NATO into the fray. Washington changed its position in the middle of this year, acquiescing to Ukraine’s use of U.S.-made weapons to counterattack the Russian mainland, mainly for the sake of more quickly in the battlefield to gain a clear advantage, if there can be a big reversal in the Biden presidency, the Democratic Party’s overall election in November will be favourable to the actual results of the war to offset Trump boasts of a day to solve the myth of the war. European countries are willing to accelerate their support for the Ukrainian counterattack, but they are also looking at the possibility of variables unfavourable to Europe once Trump takes office.

It remains to be seen how long Ukraine can hold out this time. But there is no doubt that the Ukrainian offensive has embarrassed China, Russia and North Korea. For Moscow, the attack has once again breached Putin’s red line, or even bottom line, which is the use of nuclear weapons in the event of an attack on the Russian mainland or the eastern states. Even in a conventional war, Putin faces a dilemma: if he goes all out to counterattack, he will smash his own cities and damage the image of love for the people that he has worked so hard to build; and if he responds slowly, he will let Ukrainian troops stay on the mainland longer, which will not be good for his image either. The Chinese Communists and North Koreans are also embarrassed – because it makes their commitment to Russia look like a double-edged sword.

Reaction of European Countries
All along, the European countries and the United States have been providing military equipment for Ukraine to fight against Russia in the hope that Ukraine would be able to withstand Russia’s attack, and eventually Russia would seek reconciliation when it could no longer support itself. However, the peace proposal demanded by the European countries is not easy to achieve. As China, North Korea or other countries keep supplying Russia with arms, and the economic sanctions against Russia are obviously ineffective, some European countries will have to re-schedule their long-term support to Ukraine after the election of a new government, and in the face of the possibility that Donald Trump may come back to power in the United States to bring about uncertainties, the European countries obviously welcome this attack by Ukraine.

The German government said it had no problem with Ukraine using weapons they supplied on Russian soil, and considered the attack an acceptable tactic in Ukraine’s fight against Russia. Other European countries have not made many public statements, it seems to depend on Russia’s response to the incident, and do not want to provoke Russia too much at this time. However, military analysts believe that Ukraine will not, and does not need to, occupy the Kursk region for a long time, but the outcome will depend on whether Russia can quickly drive the Ukrainian army out of the occupied area.

Dilemma
The Ukrainian counter-offensive against Russia may seem easy, but looking at the whole region, it doesn’t mean that the war will be over anytime soon. The Kursk region is an area of about 50 miles by 20 miles, insignificant in terms of the size of Russia and Ukraine, but far more important in terms of political implications. This counterattack is a testament to the effectiveness of the Ukrainian strategy over the past year of insisting on trading space for time to maximise the depletion of Russian military resources. The Russian army had been stretched so thin on the long front that it could not muster enough troops to stop the attack even a week after the mainland was taken.

The Ukrainian invasion of Russia’s Kursk Oblast and the rapid occupation of the territory humiliated Putin and boosted the morale of the Ukrainian army. The counter-offensive also changed the Russian perception of the war, which was no longer a distant ‘special military operation’ but a development with direct consequences. But Ukraine is now faced with a dilemma: is it worth committing more troops and military equipment to expand the war effort? The hardest part of the Ukrainian cross-border attack may begin now, with the entry of Russian reserves into the war. If the Ukrainians are to push further from where they are now, it will be an uphill battle, not unlike the beginning of this offensive.

The Ukrainians are still outgunned and outnumbered by the Russians in most areas. The main problem with this counterattack is that it does not change the fundamentals of the front line in eastern Ukraine – the Kursk operation will require significant resources, especially infantry personnel, which may be needed more urgently elsewhere. The next stage of this counter-attack will depend on what reserves the two sides have and how they are deployed. On a 1,100-kilometre front, Ukraine lags far behind Russia in terms of troops and firepower, but it has decided to risk creating a hotspot a few hundred kilometres away, to distract its opponents and shift some of the pressure away from the Ukrainian east and towards Russia’s Kursk region. The future for Ukraine may be a risky one, a risky victory.

What is the way forward?
Until now, Ukraine has had a positive impact from the raid. At least Putin’s claim that he would ‘use nuclear weapons if the Russian mainland is attacked’ has not come true. Russia’s response will become clear in the next week or two, and the West is waiting to see what happens.

Earlier on, many European countries have increased their military aid to Ukraine, and provided more offensive military equipment, whether it will be used more widely in the future is not yet known. In fact, Russia does not have a lot of military facilities and equipment in the Kursk region, and there is not a fierce dispute between Ukraine and Russia in this region. The situation would be complicated if Russia used gravity to drive out Ukrainian troops and Ukraine was unwilling to leave.

There is also the question of how much support the Russian people still have for continuing the Russian-Ukrainian war, and how they feel about the fact that Russia has not been invaded by a foreign country since 1941. It will be important to know how much support and confidence the Russians will give to President Putin if Russia is occupied, or if there are more losses, in what is supposed to be a ‘revival of Russia’.

Furthermore, whether China, which has been providing Russia with civilian and military resources, will continue to do so under the threat of U.S. sanctions is also a variable to be considered. If Russia is unable to continue its supply during this period, it is believed that Russia’s instability will increase and the international situation will change.

The US presidential election will be held in November. After the replacement of Emily Hogan by the Democrats, the electoral situation will immediately change, and the chance of the Democrats to continue to lead the White House will increase, while the situation of Trump’s original stability will change again, which is believed to be an important point of consideration for Russia and Vladimir Putin. Therefore, in the coming month, I believe there will be a breakthrough in the further development of the Russian-Ukrainian war.