"Poorly Trained Ukrainian Recruits to Blame?" Topic

…While Ukraine presses on with its incursion into Russia's Kursk region, its troops are still losing precious ground along the country's eastern front — a grim erosion that military commanders blame in part on poorly trained recruits drawn from a recent mobilization drive, as well as Russia's clear superiority in ammunition and air power…

Military: link

This was always going to be a war of attrition and about weaking Russia, so we only had one major power to deal with…

That is always the situation with a war of attrition. The new troops are Green, and the learning curve is steep.

as well as Russia's clear superiority in ammunition and air power…

Again, the US should have sent Ukraine what it needed sooner and in large numbers. IMO the US leadership has blood in its hands … again …

Am I wrong thinking it wasn't 'the leadership', but a hang up in Congress which delayed supplies to Ukraine?

Andy Maloney +1

It seems like both executive branch and legislative branch have faltered in their support towards Ukraine (in different ways). The executive branch, from what I have read, hasn't taken full advantage of assistance available in the PDA and has placed restrictions on how certain things can be used.

The legislative branch has held up funding for a variety of reasons.

I recently read an account of a Western veteran who is fighting in the foreign legion with a Ukrainian brigade. He seemed to think the big issue was that many Ukrainian brigades don't know how to properly build earthworks and entrenchments (he said it is worse on the Russian side). Because of this, the artillery and manpower issues are exacerbated.

Ukraine was still in the process of an ongoing military reorganization that began in 2014 when the invasion occurred. It seems some brigades were further along on in this remodeling than others and the invasion has made that transition less than smooth.

"Poor training of.." might be a better way to phrase the title, in fairness to the new recruits.

Am I wrong thinking it wasn't 'the leadership', but a hang up in Congress which delayed supplies to Ukraine?

The legislative branch does count as leaders too, IMO … They influence much that goes on across the board.

It seems like both executive branch and legislative branch have faltered in their support towards Ukraine (in different ways). The executive branch, from what I have read, hasn't taken full advantage of assistance available in the PDA and has placed restrictions on how certain things can be used.

The legislative branch has held up funding for a variety of reasons.

👍👍 Many of our elected and appointed officials have dropped the ball on many occasions. In the last 3 years or so …

I would like to know which countries today could have done a better job of defending their territory against a wave of enemies that attacked them by surprise and that until their treacherous action were considered among the three most powerful military powers on Earth.

To top it off… their "allies" force them to fight with one hand tied behind their back and one leg immobilized and permanently keeping them in suspense that this help can be suspended at any moment… does anyone in the governments of the well-regarded, hackneyed West know how to consider what can happen if Ukraine falls?

It would seem not…

Armand

Yes, Ukraine's Military has done pretty damn good overall. Seems they bested the Russians most of the time in any engagement. There should be no question about the West/NATO, etc. supporting the Ukraine against the Russian invasion. But Some world leaders may not see how important this is.

Have to agree with Tango 100%. The Ukrainians have performed magnificently considering the power imbalance.

Herkybird +1

Yes, I figured they would have been steamrolled in 30 to 60 days. Three months at the outside.