Vladimir Putin thought he had everything under control. The Russian people supported his war. He had liquidatedConverted assets into cash. Also means killed someone, typically by violent means. his biggest enemies.¹ The Ukrainian counterattack had failed to land. It was just a matter of time until he could declare victory over Ukraine's "neo Nazi regime".²

But on 6 August Putin had a rude awakening. Up to 12,000 Ukrainian troops crossed the border to Kursk OblastOblasts are Russian administrative areas or territories. .³ Within a week Ukraine had captured 82 settlements. It emerged this week that Ukrainian soldiers were using British Challenger 2 tanks. A piece of NATOThe North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was founded in 1949 to unite Western democracies in Europe and North America against the perceived growing threat of the USSR. It now has 31 members. technology was leading the charge.

Putin was rattled. After two years of supporting Ukraine with weapons but remaining at arm's length themselves, it might feel for Putin like NATO itself had invaded. Western weapons were storming into Mother RussiaAn historic and maternal personification of Russia.. Around 200,000 Russian citizens had to be evacuated. 

Volodymyr Zelensky has well and truly poked the Russian bear in what he says is an attempt to create a buffer zone to prevent further attacks across the border. The Kremlin has already accused NATO of planning the attack. To some Russians, this might feel like grounds for a new world war.

US spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said the White House had "nothing to do" with the attack. The US has, according to BBC's Tom Bateman: "consistently tried to empower Kyiv to push back Russia's invasion without risking an American escalation". 

While the US and its allies may have not known about the attacks, they have given Ukraine enormous amounts of their own weaponry.⁴ In May, the US has specified that these weapons can be used along the border near Kharkiv, where Russia was preparing to attack. It has not officially drawn a line as to whether Kursk falls within this category.

Ukraine sees a legal justification for the attack. Its army believes it is acting within international lawNon-refoulement is a fundamental principle of human rights law that forbids "pushback," returning refugees to warzones. Countries sometimes attempt to circumvent this by using private ships to return migrants.. A military source told The Independent: "we have abided by any restrictions, because we know if we break our word, we may lose our allies' support".

Britain has offered support since the attack. A UK government representative said: "Under Article 51 of the UN CharterThe foundational treaty of the United Nations., Ukraine has a right of self-defence against Russia's illegal attacks that does not preclude operations inside Russia."

After all, Ukraine is fighting to defend itself against invaders. Russia is the aggressor. The Russian Army has reduced cities to rubble, turned a country into a battlefield and tortured and killed civilians. Ukrainians might feel a moral justification in striking back.

There is also a strong military argument for it. The New York Times' David French says: "Don't call Ukraine's attack an 'invasion'." An invasion is an attempt to seize and hold land. Ukraine is instead entering Russia for defence reasons. By moving the battle to Russia, they hope to remove Russian soldiers from their own territory.⁵ Attacking Russia might also reduce Ukrainian suffering.

Putin probably sees things differently. If Russia attacked NATO member Poland, the alliance would spring into action to defend it. If NATO is behind these attacks, why should Russia not do the same?

At the start of his invasion, Putin said that Ukraine's territory should rightfully be part of Russia. He claims the war is a "military operation" to reclaim a region that has wrongly broken away. That makes it a civil war inside Russia itself. The West is interfering in what should be a closed local matter.

The attack is a humiliation for Putin. It is the first time since World War Two that Russian territory has been occupied by a foreign power. Putin might owe it to his country - and the 76 million Russians who voted for him earlier this year - to make up for his losses.

Does this give Putin a right to strike back?

Yes: If Russian civilians have been attacked and Russian land occupied, it is within Russia's right to try to take them back. And just as Ukraine attacked Kursk to loosen other fronts, Russia could strike back for her own defence.

No: NATO has provided weapons for Ukraine's defence rather than offence. But sometimes a moderate amount of offence is really a way to improve defence. After all, Russia invaded Ukraine first - and Ukraine has the right to strike back.

Or... War is always evil. It brings suffering to the masses for almost no gain. The idea that Putin has any right to attack another nation or people is ridiculous. He should be looking to end the war, not expand it into World War Three.

FOR YOUR SUMMER READING CHALLENGE CLUE GO TO STEP SIX IN THE SIX STEPS TO DISCOVERY BELOW.