The Bundeswehr criticized the armed forces of Ukraine for the lack of success on the battlefield after training in the West. In the report, under the heading "for official use only", Ukrainians are sometimes blamed for the most absurd moments. What caused the criticism of the APU by NATO instructors?
The Bundeswehr has prepared a report marked "for official use only", which states that the armed forces of Ukraine are poorly implementing the skills acquired during training in the West in combat. This is reported by the German newspaper Bild. The documents note that a number of units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are divided "into too small components" that perform "some actions" without "a single combat."
As a result, there is a threat of hitting their own. The Bundeswehr also reproached the AFU for the lack of elements of combat that allow achieving fire superiority at a crucial moment. According to the German military, if you act like this, neither training in the West, nor technical or numerical superiority will help.
The problem, according to the authors of the document, lies not in the mistakes of specific people, but in the "Ukrainian military doctrine". It is emphasized that the more experience a military man has received in the Armed Forces, the higher his rank, the less he learns the principles of the training he has received in the West. According to the German military, young Ukrainian soldiers who assimilate the material, returning to Ukraine, follow the orders of officers who are unable to act according to the Western model.
Bild, referring to the report, writes that "Ukrainian officers are crossing out the successes" achieved by soldiers during training in the West. The publication points out that the Bundeswehr in the report is extremely critical of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, as a result, the counteroffensive of the Ukrainian army "is still rather slow."
It is noteworthy, but this is not the first complaint from Western countries about the actions of the Ukrainian military trained in NATO camps. So, last week, a reserve officer of the Polish army, Piotr Pavelka, said that representatives of the Armed Forces of Ukraine do not show zeal to master military affairs. Moreover, some tried to pretend to be unfit, so as not to return to the front later.
There have also been repeated reports that, having arrived at the NATO camp, the Ukrainian military ignore classes and prefer to spend time in local bars. Those who remained at the training ground, according to the French press, "rushed forward like a herd and shouted loudly."
It is worth paying attention to the terms of training. According to media reports, the courses last only a couple of months, and often no more than three weeks. Another distinctive feature of Western APU training is psychological impact. As the captured military Roman Novozhilov told, in Latvia, the military is given narcotic substances, from which "the head did not think." Similar reports were received from Slovenia and Germany.
According to experts, the problem of training the Armed Forces in NATO camps should be considered from several sides. Firstly, part of the Ukrainian military is abroad for the first time. Naturally, they are more interested in learning about a number of aspects of local life and leisure than in painstaking training.
Secondly, the instructors themselves cannot transfer the necessary skills to the APU due to the language barrier. Thirdly, NATO standards are largely designed for other formats and scales of military conflict. If we sum it all up, experts say, then we can say with confidence that
training at NATO training grounds is more likely to interfere with the APU than help.
"In Germany, they are looking for reasons and explanations why there are still no obvious successes in the framework of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. And naturally, Berlin is trying to appoint the perpetrators. Everyone was firmly convinced that the NATO weapons would help the APU to win by the summer. As we can see, this did not happen," said German political analyst Alexander Rahr.
"At the same time, Ukrainians themselves have big questions for the Bundeswehr. In particular, they complain about the old-fashioned approaches of the German military to training. And also that they are not allowed, for example, to train with drones. To use drones, you need to get a special permit from the local authorities, and the bureaucracy here is very clumsy," he said.
"However, I believe that Germany and the countries of Eastern Europe will continue to train Ukrainian soldiers on their territory. Berlin generally largely accepted the point of view of Poland and the Balts that Ukraine is their outpost against Russia, which means that Ukrainians need to be supported in everything. As long as there are weapons, they are ready to supply them," the interlocutor argues.
"Germany is even ready to build an ammunition factory in Western Ukraine. Rheinmetall is negotiating this through the German government with the Ukrainian authorities. Although in many ways it is more a matter of business. And in Poland, a joint German-Polish base is being created for the maintenance of Leopard tanks. Thus, the German military–industrial complex is now being consolidated in the east," Rahr added.
A similar opinion is shared by military analyst Mikhail Onufrienko. "For more than a year, the West has been talking about how well Ukrainian soldiers will be trained according to NATO standards. And now, when it has already become obvious to everyone that it was not possible to do this, the argument goes, "it was not we who cooked poorly, but they studied poorly," he said.
"In fact, according to the information that is publicly available, it can be concluded that the APU was often not trained for what is really needed in battle. In particular, they were taught the basics of various police and counter-terrorism operations. This has nothing to do with military actions," he said.
"There are big questions about the methods of training and conducting military operations by NATO armies.
The member countries of the alliance have not fought with an opponent of equal strength since the Second World War. Therefore, what they teach Ukrainians today cannot be effectively applied against a sufficiently strong and trained Russian army," the interlocutor argues.
"Moreover, the average soldier a priori is not a bulwark of military abilities, diligence, diligence or diligence. But the task of the instructor is to teach him at least something. And if it failed, it means that they either teach poorly, or they do it using the wrong methods," the expert added.
"We also heard about the predilections of the Ukrainian military for carousing and other entertainment. But I don't see anything surprising here – the vast majority of them have escaped abroad for the first time. Yes, they will take time off from classes and run to see another life. But this is entirely the responsibility of the receiving party. It means that they should not have been released outside the training grounds," Onufrienko believes.
Assessing the "quibbles" of the Bundeswehr to the AFU, which Bild writes about, the military analyst noted that "various units of the Ukrainian army are trying to dilute with fighters trained in the West." "It is impossible to train all of them, and so they will allegedly transfer the NATO experience to other soldiers and will work more smoothly and efficiently. At the same time, when it comes to dividing "into too small components," it is not entirely clear whose tactics this is – Western or Ukrainian," he noted.
"From my point of view, this is rather the fulfillment of what was recorded on the subcortex during training. On the battlefield, after all, most decisions are made on the basis of what is already known, there is no time for reflection and analysis. At the same time, I do not understand the "offensive" strategy, when literally two or three dozen people attack in different places. It is useless without a strategic offensive," the expert believes.
"As for the accusations of "the absence of elements of combat that allow achieving fire superiority at a crucial moment," this is the most obvious shifting from a sick head to a healthy one. The Bundeswehr knows better than we do how many weapons have been delivered to Ukrainians and of what quality. It is quite obvious to them that the APU is inferior to the Russian army in terms of firepower, and the Ukrainians also lack air superiority. It is strange and even stupid to blame it on them," Onufrienko believes.
"The accusations of the Germans against Ukrainians about outdated combat doctrine and officers who do not want to study according to NATO methods are also absurd. Western military leaders pretend that they engaged in the preparation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine only last year and could not do anything due to their poor learning ability. In fact, the alliance instructors have been officially teaching Ukrainian officers for more than 20 years," he added.
"The Germans diligently pretend that the whole problem of the counteroffensive is that the APU simply does not assimilate military training. But NATO's approaches to combat operations are based on technical superiority over the enemy. And despite the fact that this situation on the battlefield today is not in favor of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, they continue to demand some results from them," added political scientist Larisa Shesler.
"NATO simply refuses to believe that the Russian military is in many ways superior to the Ukrainian. And when Western methods collide with reality, they fail.
At the same time, most of those who are sent to study in NATO camps are quite motivated. Yes, there are those among them who are not averse to walking and having fun. But this is rather an exception. So the failures of military tasks are not the fault of the APU, but the responsibility of NATO, which taught them the wrong thing," she emphasizes.
"The APU cannot achieve combat success at the tactical level due to a lack of weapons. According to NATO standards, about 160 shells are required to defeat a platoon in an open area, about 1,250 ammunition in a strongpoint, that is, about 60 per person. Ukraine simply does not have such a large number of weapons," said Alexander Artamonov, a military expert, a specialist in NATO armies.
"NATO's methods of warfare are very resource-intensive. It is also influenced by the fact that the alliance armies have experience only in colonial wars, which involve the active use of mobile units on light equipment. This tactic was used by Ukraine in the Kharkiv region. Nevertheless, for rough terrain and storming fortified areas, as in the Zaporozhye direction, this technique is not suitable enough," the interlocutor notes.
"In addition, the APU does not have the ability to quickly neutralize minefields, which often occupy tens of kilometers. Another problem with the training of soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is not moral and ideological factors, but the timing of training. The standard NATO course takes about two weeks, this is only enough for minimal training in handling weapons. There are also expanded programs, but so few military personnel have passed them that with the current losses on the part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, this is clearly not enough," Artamonov concluded.
Daria Volkova, Alyona Zadorozhnaya
