[Mick]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-com...52123.html

There has been significant criticism of the NATO supplied training for Ukrainian soldiers. Much of that criticism is justified. IMO the most important factor is this:

NATO forces also train Ukrainian soldiers to overwhelm their enemies with the type of firepower that it does not possess.

Since the end of WW I, the US has always traded firepower for lives. We deliver overwhelming suppressive fire to allow our troops to advance without  crippling casualties. Ukraine doesn't have that firepower and simply can't do that. As the article points out, NATO hasn't fought a war against a near-peer adversary since WW II.  We haven't fought a war where we didn't have air supremacy essentially ever. Even in WW I, by the time we got to France the German side was at a critical disadvantage in the air. The war in Ukraine just isn't "our type of war".

In addition, it must be said that the duration and repetition of the training provided to the Ukrainians is by NATO standards seriously inadequate. We don't send troops into battle with 30 days training. We also don't field battalions composed entirely of troops with such minimal training. Ukraine, by necessity, does this. It isn't "apples and apples". That said, the current training efforts do need a serious "lessons learned" upgrade and more Ukrainian trainers who have experience "in country". Hard to do in the middle of a war, but it is needed IMO.

It is always hard in the middle of a war. It was certainly hard during the latter period of the Vietnam War when the 90 day wonders were delivered to theater mostly  unready for what they got.  It became the luck of draw. When the demands of the war exceed the ability to provide properly trained replacements you get what you get and hope.

This statement reminds me of the Rumsfeld quote: “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” If only there were another option...

[Mick]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-com...52123.html

There has been significant criticism of the NATO supplied training for Ukrainian soldiers. Much of that criticism is justified. IMO the most important factor is this:

NATO forces also train Ukrainian soldiers to overwhelm their enemies with the type of firepower that it does not possess.

Since the end of WW I, the US has always traded firepower for lives. We deliver overwhelming suppressive fire to allow our troops to advance without  crippling casualties. Ukraine doesn't have that firepower and simply can't do that. As the article points out, NATO hasn't fought a war against a near-peer adversary since WW II.  We haven't fought a war where we didn't have air supremacy essentially ever. Even in WW I, by the time we got to France the German side was at a critical disadvantage in the air. The war in Ukraine just isn't "our type of war".

In addition, it must be said that the duration and repetition of the training provided to the Ukrainians is by NATO standards seriously inadequate. We don't send troops into battle with 30 days training. We also don't field battalions composed entirely of troops with such minimal training. Ukraine, by necessity, does this. It isn't "apples and apples". That said, the current training efforts do need a serious "lessons learned" upgrade and more Ukrainian trainers who have experience "in country". Hard to do in the middle of a war, but it is needed IMO.

It is always hard in the middle of a war. It was certainly hard during the latter period of the Vietnam War when the 90 day wonders were delivered to theater mostly  unready for what they got.  It became the luck of draw. When the demands of the war exceed the ability to provide properly trained replacements you get what you get and hope.

This statement reminds me of the Rumsfeld quote: “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” If only there were another option...