How Ukrainian army is regarded: NATO field experiment


Faced from time to time with the assertion that the soldiers and officers of the North Atlantic Alliance “who had not seen a real war for a long time” could “learn a lot” from their colleagues from Ukraine, since 2014 “courageously opposing aggression in the East of the country,” you are simply amazed. Why are the crackling propaganda phrases launched into circulation by irresponsible politicians sometimes prove tenacious and even somewhere convincing for certain categories of people.


So how is the Ukrainian army regarded in NATO.

Yes, the armies of NATO countries closely monitor the actions of the Armed Forces. However, not at all with “admiration” or at least elementary respect, but rather with genuine interest of a purely practical nature. So the experimenters in the laboratory carefully monitor the actions of experimental animals, "laying their lives on the altar of science." Well, or in this case, those who sacrifice themselves for the preparation of the NATO war against Russia.

It would be foolish to say that the Ukrainian military did not improve their own skills and training during the ongoing civil war in the country. Especially - in comparison with the sleepy and calm times of Yanukovych, when the army in Ukraine turned into something unnecessarily unnecessary, vegetating in almost complete oblivion. Even the general conscription for active military service in 2013 was canceled: why is it needed? By 2017, the country's armed forces planned to reduce to 120 with a small thousand people. Today their number has exceeded a quarter of a million, 150 thousand of which have real combat experience. What can I say? Any army either fights or rots. The process of collapse is faster or slower, explicitly or in a latent form, but inevitably. In this regard, Ukraine has clearly taken a step forward. However, if you look at the details, the picture is seen in a slightly different way.

First of all, it is worth remembering who exactly at one time began to talk about the fact that the Ukrainian “voisko” is suitable as a teacher in the North Atlantic Alliance. This idea belongs to the two most odious politicians of the "unbroken" - ex-president Petro Poroshenko, who said that "partners from NATO countries come to us to learn how to beat the enemy, fight back aggression and win a hybrid war." And the former Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin, who argued that the North Atlanticists should learn from the Armed Forces of Ukraine "combat readiness, endurance and tactics." Regarding the tactics and “beat the enemy” - this is just about the army that survived the Debaltsevsky and Ilovaysky cauldrons, as well as many others, albeit smaller in scale, but all the same shameful defeats. In my opinion, it doesn’t work out with a “victory” either. Endurance? Oh yeah! The Ukrainian military really does not have equal in survival in absolutely brutal conditions.

What else is there? “Readiness” ... If you measure it by introducing new models of uniforms, inventing ranks, insignia and military greetings, which are as different as possible from those accepted in the Soviet army, then yes. Here Ukraine is ahead of the rest. If you believe the propaganda statements about "the annual entry into the troops of hundreds of samples of new weapons" and the like, then everything is just wonderful. Especially, provided that “unpleasant facts” remain that “the vast majority of these very“ new samples ”are somewhat“ shamanized ”weapons of the Soviet era. At the same time, many of them, like the infamous "Hammer" mortar, pose a real danger just for the personnel of the Armed Forces, and not for its enemy. What else is there? The special pride of the military propagandists is “uncountable” is the fact that “under Yanukovych” less than two hundred women served in the army, and now more than 27 thousand. Achievement, however ...

The moral and psychological state of the Ukrainian army, for which it is necessary to literally catch conscripts, and for veterans, to shoot clips of social advertising that urges not to bring at least grenades home from the war zone, subsequently constantly exploding in peaceful cities and villages, is a completely separate conversation. As well as the enormous non-combat losses - from drunkenness, drugs, hazing. The line under the talk about who is “learning” from anyone, in my opinion, is brought by the indisputable fact that since 2014 the armed forces of Ukraine have been overwhelmed with Western instructors and other military specialists, who often play the role of supervisors and not just supervisors. Not the other way around ... A real field, or even laboratory, experiment. They are experimenting both on methods of warfare, and in fact on each unit - when the effect of destabilization is important. In the field, those ideas that were born far beyond the borders of Ukraine are being tested.

The key to understanding the increased interest of the West, NATO countries and, above all, the American military, in the actions of Ukrainian colleagues is the words of the former US Chargé d'Affaires to Ukraine William Taylor. Putting aside reverence, this gentleman openly says exactly what they are learning: “They will learn from Ukrainians about Russian tactics and technology, about their actions that preceded the attacks, about how Russians think and how they fight ...” And he clarifies, that in a future war with the Russians, the US army’s advantage will be “experience gained by Ukrainian soldiers and officers.” That is what the truth looks like, and nothing else.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / Armed forces of Ukraine
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 30143 21 January 2020 07: 06 New
    • 8
    • 29
    -21
    ! You, like Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin, got up in the morning and wondered what “them” have? How is their army?
    The guys are studying ...
    Coffins go to both red and white, according to your idea. Really funny?
    But in fact it turns out differently, to Ukraine and Donbas from the Russian Federation. But for you it is very difficult. "Details" do not interest anyone.
    1. Aerodrome 21 January 2020 08: 20 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Yes, the armies of NATO countries closely monitor the actions of the Armed Forces.
      what to follow then ... trench warfare, but shelling of cities.
  2. bessmertniy 21 January 2020 07: 08 New
    • 12
    • 6
    +6
    The experience of experimental rabbits is the value of the Ukrainian army for NATO. wassat
    1. Hagalaz 21 January 2020 09: 03 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Yes, probably like experimental rabbits too. But first of all, like cannon fodder. And cannon fodder does not have to be well armed, trained and fed.
      1. bessmertniy 21 January 2020 09: 54 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And it should not reason and think. lol
    2. TermNachTer 21 January 2020 15: 52 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      What interesting things can NATO learn from the civil war in the Donbass? Sometimes some samples of Russian technology are “lit up” there, but in order to “take off the characteristics”, you need to know where it will be used. Otherwise, Banderland is not even interesting for NATO, but for the Washington Reich Chancellery, as an instrument against Russia.
  3. eagle owl 21 January 2020 07: 34 New
    • 11
    • 4
    +7
    And what is there, actually. surprising A classic of the Anglo-Saxon War - the natives always fight. Even the Maidan itself was controlled from the US Embassy - there was a headquarters, well, then what question is, who strategically steers the war? Yes, no.
  4. Essex62 21 January 2020 08: 11 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    The West rushing with a great war on Russia with a frequency of + -100 years. Question - Do we have another 20 years to prepare?
  5. Aviator_ 21 January 2020 08: 39 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    "Experience gained by Ukrainian soldiers and officers"

    Cookies from Nuland work out, try.
  6. knn54 21 January 2020 08: 58 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    I don’t want to dig much, but there are a couple of points:
    NEVER a contract army will be stronger than an army based on conscription. Proven by history.
    Many countries will return to the call or the “mixed” option.
    Go to the front line - to find a sober soldier can be found with great difficulty.
    Sensible officers, judging by the past year, are massively leaving the ranks of the Armed Forces.
    1. Eug
      Eug 21 January 2020 09: 45 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      As for me, a very successful picking system has developed in the USSR. Crickets and warrant officers, the call of reserve officers contributed to a certain flexibility of personnel, and the general military duty provided military training for the vast majority of the male part and the necessary part of the female population. Now, as for me, we need at least a year of intensive combined arms training en masse, then either civilian life, a cadet or a contract. Students of universities, especially technical specialties, can maintain a profile parallel military training, possibly by increasing the duration of military training, optimally - in several stages, depending on the degree of training. Something like this..
      1. dmmyak40 22 January 2020 10: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Explain for the "shpak": who are the "crickets"?
        1. Ivanitch I 22 January 2020 12: 39 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Overtime
  7. cniza 21 January 2020 09: 18 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    And he clarifies that in a future war with the Russians, the advantage for the US army will be "experience gained by Ukrainian soldiers and officers." That is what the truth looks like, and nothing else.


    Directly and frankly, only in Ukraine there is a civil war and the Urainian soldiers and officers gain experience by fighting with their own people.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. iouris 21 January 2020 11: 59 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    How to: “rate” or “rate”? First, it is necessary to evaluate the phenomenon by some (objective) criteria. After that, determine your subjective attitude towards him. Example: "We assess the enemy’s army as battle-worthy." - "We regard the growth of the enemy’s combat effectiveness as a threat."
    During the experiment, an assessment is made of the behavior of the object in different conditions.
    Now to the point. The publication is not specific. But methodologically, the version has reason. All exercises, and especially military operations, are organized (should be organized) as an experiment: some military personnel and units are subjects, other groups of military personnel are observers, collectors of observation data. Poor observation data are screened out, qualitative observation data is systematized, analyzed. On this basis, the correction of command and control and provisions of the governing documents is made. This is a scientific approach that improves the effectiveness of warfare. But here and there, sometimes an anti-scientific approach is also practiced (we’ll throw our caps over it).
    1. Victorio 21 January 2020 13: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      This is a scientific approach that improves management efficiency. fighting

      ===
      no action, no object of study. I think that the goal of support is instilling confidence (they can, are ready) in the university, as it was with the Georgian army
    2. Essex62 21 January 2020 16: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      If the caps with Jabs solution, one hundred percent correct. Local conflicts, peripheral databases around everything, perhaps the ball is the maximum that partners can now afford. Although it is impossible to exclude that from a lack of resources they will explode a tower and cannot rush to us. Gunpowder should be kept dry and the mobile reserve should be, at least minimally, trained.
  10. LeonidL 21 January 2020 19: 45 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    "... this gentleman openly says what they learn:" They learn from the Ukrainians about Russian tactics and technology, about their actions preceding the attacks, about how Russians think and how they fight ... "And he clarifies that in a future war with the Russians, the US army’s advantage will be “the experience gained by Ukrainian soldiers and officers.” That is how the truth looks, and nothing else. ” - Well, this is not true: First, the Russian army does not smell (unfortunately) there. If it "smelled", then in Kiev there would have long been a different power, a different flag, anthem and coat of arms. so about the “Russian tactics” - this is just nonsense of civilians. Exactly the same nonsense about the "future war with the Russians" ... This is also the nonsense of a man who lived in Kiev. Ukraine is toxic and infectious for fragile brains. The war with the "Russians" will instantly turn into a nuclear Apocalypse, what are the "actions preceding the attacks"? The leadership (both military and political) of NATO in a bad dream does not see anything like it, but from the mere assumption that Ukraine will drag NATO with its crazy Nazis into the war, everyone breaks a cold sweat. In words - yes, in fact - a shish with oil.
    1. tatarin1972 21 January 2020 22: 02 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I think that any army participating in hostilities, even losing and incurring losses, receives combat experience. Another thing is how she uses it.
  11. Igor Borisov_2 22 January 2020 10: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: 30143
    ! You, like Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin, got up in the morning and wondered what “them” have? How is their army?
    The guys are studying ...
    Coffins go to both red and white, according to your idea. Really funny?
    But in fact it turns out differently, to Ukraine and Donbas from the Russian Federation. But for you it is very difficult. "Details" do not interest anyone.

    I did not see anything funny in this article, and the author, in my opinion, also doesn’t ride on the floor from laughter ....
  12. Vladimir Semak 22 January 2020 11: 29 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    With the same success, the United States can gain experience in the struggle against our army with the armies of Georgia and Moldova.
  13. steelmaker 22 January 2020 21: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    150 thousand have combat experience? Is it to destroy civilians by shelling or falling into different "cauldrons"? Destroy the unarmed? Is this considered a combat experience? If 150 thousand had real combat experience, there would be no Minsk agreements! Now Donbass without outside support or betrayal, can not be beat! They with their combat experience - drown in their blood!
  14. Keyser soze 24 January 2020 10: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    sacrificing themselves to prepare the NATO war against Russia.


    Samsonov, is that you?