Ukraine Ends Foreign Troop Training: "They Now Have More To Learn From Us"

When the Russian invasion began, Ukraine's military, steeped in Soviet military doctrine, had fallen far behind other countries and needed all the help and training it could get. The Ukrainians acknowledge that training in the UK, France, Germany and elsewhere helped them become more professional, successful in battle - and saved lives. 

But four years later, Ukraine possesses what is arguably the most experienced and advanced military in the world. There is more they can teach the Europeans, Americans and others than those countries can teach them. As a result, Ukraine will no longer send troops to be trained outside the country, except, perhaps for learning donated complex new weapons systems. JL 

Yevhen Dykyi reports in New Voice of Ukraine:

At the beginning of the war, there was much we needed to learn, from medical practices to battlefield communications and command systems. Our frontline practices were outdated, and Western partners significantly helped improve them during the first year of the war. Over time, there has been less that they can teach us and more that we can teach them. Entire brigades were sent to NATO countries and back. Frankly, this is a luxury, one that does not justify itself. (And) there was a temptation to avoid returning to war, to remain in a well-fed, peaceful Europe, where refugee status is guaranteed. That only a handful from each unit gave in to this temptation speaks to their resilience. (But), this happened and created reputational losses for us. It is logical this (training) has been reconsidered.

First, it is logical. I think several factors contributed to this.

I will start with the most unpleasant one.

There was always a certain percentage of servicemembers who did not return from those trainings. In fact, the number of those who did not return to Ukraine was very small — truly very small. We do not publish this data, but I can say it is a genuinely low percentage. This likely reflects the moral resilience of our soldiers. 

Of course, there was a strong temptation — not only to avoid returning to war, but also to remain in a well-fed, entirely peaceful Europe, where refugee status is guaranteed. As paradoxical as it may seem, even servicemembers who fled from training are granted refugee status there. This is a paradox of overly liberal European legislation. The temptation is significant.

The fact that only a handful from each unit gave in to this temptation speaks to their resilience. However, this percentage existed each time and created certain reputational losses for us.

That said, I do not think this was the main reason. There are more important factors.

First, over time, there has been less that they can teach us — and more that we, in turn, can teach them.

If that is the case, those who need training should come to us. This process has always been one of mutual exchange, benefiting both Ukraine and our Western partners.

However, the balance has gradually shifted. At the beginning of the war, there was much we needed to learn — from medical practices to battlefield communications and command systems. Our frontline medical practices were quite outdated, and Western partners significantly helped improve them during the first year of the war.

There was a lot to learn. But times have changed. 

There is no point in sending our recruits and instructors abroad for this. It is better to invite them here.

There is also an economic aspect. Even if the costs are covered — whether by us or by partners — it is far more efficient to bring a limited number of their specialists to our training grounds than to transport entire units abroad.

Units of different levels require training. As shown by the unsuccessful example of the Anne of Kyiv Brigade, entire brigades were sent to France and back. Frankly, this is a luxury — one that does not justify itself. It is logical that this approach has finally been reconsidered.