Not anymore. Almost all the battle hardened veterans from the first 18-24 months of the war are now dead. Another point, NATO tactics have proven to be questionable, the Ukrainians are the ones who should be teaching us how to wage war.
There’s been plenty of talk as to why the counteroffensive has been so painstakingly slow — and the most intriguing idea is coming from soldiers on the Ukrainian front lines.
www.politico.eu
Excerpt:
But some front-line veterans are now turning this criticism on its head, saying NATO prepared them for the wrong kind of war, and that the training they received was a mixed bag, and taken from manuals that weren’t adjusted for the realities on the ground in Ukraine. According to them, there was a clear schism between theory and practice, a disconnect that has cost lives.
Among the critics of NATO’s training is 10-year U.S. army national guard veteran Ryan O’Leary, who was on tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, and joined Ukraine’s foreign legion within days of Russia’s invasion. On arrival, he was almost immediately dispatched with other American and British volunteers to block Russian units from entering Ukraine’s capital from the north.
O’Leary argues the training for new brigades would have been better if “taught by Ukrainians who have experienced combat here and can bring with them the hard lessons they learned, so others don’t repeat them.”
It seems the training Ukrainian soldiers received was based more on what NATO forces have been most used to in recent years — counterinsurgency warfare, with some American-style “show-and-awe” thrown in. And while Ukrainians praise the drills on basic infantry tactics, reconnaissance and how to get close to the enemy unseen, as well as methods taught for storming trenches and buildings, they cite a lack of training on drone and mine awareness, explosive ordnance disposal and defensive combat.
When it comes to integrating drone warfare and how to overcome enemy drones, they received scant counsel — most likely because NATO forces have not yet caught up and adapted their own infantry training to the technology.
And if you think NATO will do better than the Ukraine, well, there's this from the US Army War College
Excerpt:
The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities
in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace
casualties. Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained
rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action
to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries.
With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will
require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained
about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same
number of casualties in two weeks.
3600 casualties per day is a bit over twice the current casualty rate that the Ukrainians are suffering.
The narrative that Ukraine was a poor defenceless nation with a crappy army that somehow stood up against the big bad Russians is bullshit. Ukraine was one of the largest and by far the most heavily armed and lethal military force in Europe. It's not some peasant army holding back the Russians, it's a giant, heavily armed Soviet style military that's fighting against the Russians and barely holding on while getting bled dry. Also, the Russians are a lot better than most people give them credit for, NATO can't do what they've done so far vs. the Ukrainians without suffering around twice as many casualties. We need to think very long and hard before sticking our hands even further into that mess.
