British military trainers have revealed that the Ukrainian army wasted NATO weapons and resources by using Soviet-style military tactics on the NATO military tactics taught them. This could spark a new debate between Ukraine and its NATO allies.
Citing the unidentified British defense source, the Sunday Telegraph combines with Soviet military tactics that rely on a large amount of cheap firepower, as opposed to NATO tactics in which Ukrainian forces use the most expensive and most recent ones. This has reportedly been wasting expensive Western weapons. – Precision strike weapon system.
Almost all former Soviet states have used these Soviet-era tactics for generations. Russia has also adopted these tactics extensively in the ongoing war, in addition to the use of precision ammunition.
British soldiers informed the Sunday Telegraph that Ukraine used the next generation of photo-anti-tank weapons (NLAW), citing examples of Ukraine reluctant to adopt NATO-style war combat. 20,000 (USD 21,000) per unit – a Russian rocket-propelled grenade launcher that normally costs only 1,000 USD per fire, as if using an RPG.
The NLAW was previously positioned as a game-changer and annihilation of Russian tanks. Western analysts attribute the rate of killing Russian tanks to the anti-tank weapons supplied to Ukraine. This includes NLAWs designed to explode as missiles pass through the top of the tank.
In contrast, the RPG-7 is a shoulder-burning reusable launcher that has been used by the military, and is a non-state actor, such as extremists and terrorist organizations around the world. For example, these inexpensive weapons are known to be used by the Afghanistan-based Taliban and by the militant Iraqi and Somali. In fact, Ukraine has adopted the RPG-7 in combat with Russia.
The RPG-7 is a Soviet-style Soviet that is extremely inexpensive to manufacture, producing a small amount of high-tech weapons designed for the combined weapons by Alliance. It is perfectly consistent with military strategy.”
Sources cited by the UK-based publication said Ukrainians were instructed to share videos of weapons that are properly handled (NLAW). However, footage sent to the UK shows Kiev’s troops fire five or six NLAWs at the same time against the Russian position, each of which costs more than 100,000 US dollars in ammunition. I did. The NLAW was a relatively inexpensive weapon used in the ongoing Ukrainian War, but its costs are still significantly higher than the cheap firepower of Soviet origin.
In particular, Ukraine accepts weapons from NATO countries, but has not fully embraced NATO combat tactics, leading to wasting high-tech weapons and munitions. NATO uses combined weapon strategies. This essentially means attacks with coordinated artillery, armor, air support, highly accurate weapons and reliable communication.
This contrasts with Soviet tactics, using infantry armed with cheap weapons to advance to deploy a large number of cannons to attack defenders, seeking human wave attacks .
Ukraine is seeking to increase the supply of cheap weapons from NATO partners, what appears to be a continuing reliance on old Soviet military tactics, and to the members of the alliance for old Soviet weapons. They are forcing them to demand former Warsaw agreement states like Bulgaria.
Additionally, Ukraine has produced numerous one-way attacks and first-person views (FPV) drones deployed to carry out attacks on high-value Russian tanks. For example, cheap Ukrainian FPVs have wiped out several expensive Russian major tanks (MBTs), attacked ammunition reservoirs within the country, causing a major blow to the Russian troops. This could be considered a technically sophisticated adaptation of Soviet-style military tactics.
That said, the latest telegraph report comes when US President Donald Trump shows he will begin consultations with Russia to end the war of crushing. The decision has been criticized by NATO allies, such as the UK, who have reaffirmed their support for Ukraine’s security.
In particular, the report cited the source saying that it didn’t have enough time to teach Ukrainians to modern NATO tactics. The training given to the Ukrainian army was similar to shortening the course of the British reserve, which condensed several months of training into a two-week package.
Furthermore, it is said that the Ukrainian military frequently resists implementation of the NATO strategy and claims it is not suitable for the local environment.
The Ukrainian Army rejected NATO tactics
For at least the past two years, Ukraine has faced criticism from Western military authorities accusing them of failing to protect Kiev of the combined combat techniques that NATO instructors have taught them.
The Bundeswehr battlefield assessment, leaked in 2023, lamented the Ukrainian army’s failure to conduct NATO training, splitting western-trained brigades into small units of just 10-30 soldiers and opposed the enemy. lamented the commander who was disciplined to attack the position of the commander.
The inconsistency between what Ukrainians are trained and what they are doing on the battlefield led to a fierce exchange between NATO instructors and the Ukrainian army. In one instance, trainers in the British Army in Ukraine reached for their side arms due to the threat of violence.
American instructor training Ukrainian fighter pilots Flying the F-16 Fighting Falcon, some Ukrainian pilots, particularly the first group, said they were resistant to Western training methods. These pilots have experience flying Soviet-era MiG fighters and have recently returned from active combat.. Their unwillingness led to serious friction with the instructor.
The Ukrainian military has argued that these NATO tactics will not work in countries fighting Russia. Soldiers with the 32nd independent mechanized brigade who spoke with Kiev Independence previously said that the brigade was given three weeks of NATO training in Germany, and were grateful for some of the Western equipment and practices. NATO has expressed his dissatisfaction. The officers were unaware of the harsh reality of the battle in Ukraine.
“NATO infantry knows he is supported and can move forward with confidence that he is likely not to be killed or hurt,” one soldier told the publication. .
Ukrainian commanders must fight very differently than what a standard NATO doctrine would require, without the modern fighter jets, long-range missiles and fine equipment requested by Ukrainian military. I have often argued. They emphasized that NATO training was unfamiliar with the terrain and did not explain the extent to which small units had to fight through dense forest lines.
But NATO has a challenge before that, as its resources continue to bleed in the war zones of Ukraine.
