How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Aragorn2002]

Time for conscription. 

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Gawd, I hate all economist.  A quick internet search and one can get the full spectrum of “Russian economy is doin fine” to “It is collapsing right now.”  

I guess the thing I worry about in all this is where are people getting the data from?  Objective numbers on the Russian economy appear hard to find.  The rest are supplied by Russia.  For example, how much is Russia spending on this war a la GDP?  Well that number is not going to come from an outside audit.  It is going to come from Russian sources.  And Russian sources are notoriously full of crap.  If I was in Russian leadership I would want nothing more than to project an ability to outlast Heaven and Hell themselves in this war.

We can get objective reality data - exchange rate of ruble, imports and exports.  But any internal metrics are going to be heavily skewed by Russian information ops.

The economic end of this war is like everything else as far as I can tell…we will know when it happens. 

...I suppose the general idea is that we must regretfully put a Russian Home Front Collapse (((((Dolchstosslegende)))) in the 'nice to hope for, and not entirely outside the realm of the possible, but I wouldn't bet on it', category of causative dei ex machini for an early cease fire. Until it happens, sure.

Adam Tooze is pretty sound; no particular ideological brief I can discern in a decade of reading him, and his historical work on Weimar/pre-WW2 Germany political economy alone makes his views on these topics well worth considering... IMHO. But sure, he has no better direct line to Gawd than any of us mortals. YMMV.

@billbindc (our go-to for the Permanent Establishment Party line ) Tooze is fair dinkum by you, amirite?

Edited September 16, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[akd]

Confirmation of Samum listing and not underway under own power (edit: although being towed by tugs into this port is not unusual, still pretty clearly down by the stern):

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by akd

[Centurian52]

27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Cheap bowmen rendered very expensive knights obsolete.

No, they did not (there is a lot of myth around the Battle of Agincourt, but suffice it to say that the successful employment of archers against knights in one battle did not portend the successful employment of archers against knights in every subsequent battle). Granting it's a bit ambiguous when knights stopped being knights, but they were going strong for at least another century after Agincourt (if a "knight" is "a warrior in service to a lord", then it was the professionalization of armies that rendered knights obsolete), and expensive heavy cavalry of some kind continued to be in use right up to the beginning of the 20th century.

59 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

A single machine gun has to be cheaper than a squadron of cavalry.

Sure, but it's also cheaper than a platoon of infantry. And the machine gun didn't stop cavalry from proving their worth in 1914. At least in the British army, which had a sensible doctrine for how to use cavalry in the early 20th century (they almost always fought dismounted, unless a particularly tempting target for a charge presented itself). The British retreat from Mons would have been a lot more difficult if they didn't have a cavalry rearguard. They were admittedly pretty useless during the static warfare phase from late 1914 to early 1918 (they could still fight just as effectively as infantry, but without contributing mobility they were basically just more expensive infantry). But they proved their value again when mobility was restored in 1918. What killed cavalry once and for all wasn't the machine gun, but the realization (in the interwar period) that mechanized units could perform every mission that a cavalry unit could perform, but better.

35 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Not sure the cost of muskets versus pikemen.

Pikes were used alongside muskets for centuries (the "pike and shot" era is a fascinating period). They ceased to be of any value when bayonets were invented. The bayonet essentially allowed every last soldier to be both a musketeer and a pikeman, eliminating the need to bifurcate the infantry into two roles. As a side note, though no one reputable has ever told me so, I strongly suspect this is why muskets are so absurdly long by the 18th century (with the butt on the ground, the muzzle will reach up to your shoulder, and with the bayonet attached it will be about as tall or taller than you are). They are specifically designed to be a hybrid firearm/polearm. They are far longer than it makes any sense for a firearm to be, while being well short of the optimal length for a polearm. But they are about the perfect compromise length between a firearm and a polearm.

 

I don't think I strongly disagree with anything in the rest of your post. I think we both agree that the tank isn't dead yet, but it's on the way out the door. I think it's further from the door than you do, and that it's on the way out for different reasons. 

[akd]

3rd Assault Brigade clearing the rubble pile that was Andriivka:

 

[cesmonkey]

https://t.me/operativnoZSU/114716
 

Quote

The command of the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade has changed

Lieutenant Colonel Oleksandr Sak was removed from the command of the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade "Magura". Instead of Sak, the brigade will be headed by Colonel Oleksandr Pavliy.

 

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

...I suppose the general idea is that we must regretfully put a Russian Home Front Collapse (((((Dolchstosslegende)))) in the 'nice to hope for, and not entirely outside the realm of the possible, but I wouldn't bet on it', category of causative dei ex machini for an early cease fire. Until it happens, sure.

Adam Tooze is pretty sound; no particular ideological brief I can discern in a decade of reading him, and his historical work on Weimar/pre-WW2 Germany political economy alone makes his views on these topics well worth considering... IMHO. But sure, he has no better direct line to Gawd than any of us mortals. YMMV.

@billbindc (our go-to for the Permanent Establishment Party line ) Tooze is fair dinkum by you, amirite?

Tooze is acceptable.

[LongLeftFlank]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

Tooze is acceptable.

Not as much fun as Ed Luttwak at parties though (and that's no disrespect to the good fellowship of either gent).

[holoween]

delete please

Edited September 16, 2023 by holoween

[Astrophel]

4 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

As things seem to be standing now, the question of succession wouldn't be that problematic. Oldest son of Ramzan, Akhmet already travelled to Kremlin to obtain precious personal picture with Putin, which was received by people knowledgeable about region as first step towards succession.

On the other side, Ramzan during this war pictured himself much more often with other son, Adam. This chubby little brat seem to be more resembling his father- there are accusation that being 15-years old, he already took part in fighting in Ukraine (ofc. tik-tok way), tortured (or at least humiliated) prisoners and "defended" islam by assaulting somebody who reportedly tried to burn Quran (and "accidently" being Ukrainian living in Russia...):

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/08/16/7415816/

So it isn't impossible that we just see small Kim Dzong Un in statu nascendi. There also a possibility that Kremlin would like to assert his power in Chechnya, bring Russian governor and break monopoly there of Kadyrov clan. Muscovite population would love that, as Chechens are hated in Russia almsot universally. But it is a risk and given current situation, Putin may choose easier path of preserving current system.

What I wouldn't count for is some wide anti-russian sentiments int he form of uprising. This chapter seem to be over, as first generation of Ichkerians is scattered abroad, dead or too old. And second one took heavy beatings after ISIS fall; there were rumours that quarter of Pankisi valley in Georgia was covered in mourning after Mosul and Raqqa fell...

It is a shame that the CIA seems to be a shadow of its former self, otherwise we might be welcoming revolutionary coups happening throughout this new russian empire.  As the CIA is today we witness less than nothing, not even in Georgia.

Edited September 16, 2023 by Astrophel

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Not as much fun as Ed Luttwak at parties though (and that's no disrespect to the good fellowship of either gent).

Luttwak is a profoundly silly person.

Edited to add yet another dumb thing he uttered today: 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by billbindc

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

No, they did not (there is a lot of myth around the Battle of Agincourt, but suffice it to say that the successful employment of archers against knights in one battle did not portend the successful employment of archers against knights in every subsequent battle). Granting it's a bit ambiguous when knights stopped being knights, but they were going strong for at least another century after Agincourt (if a "knight" is "a warrior in service to a lord", then it was the professionalization of armies that rendered knights obsolete), and expensive heavy cavalry of some kind continued to be in use right up to the beginning of the 20th century.

Sure, but it's also cheaper than a platoon of infantry. And the machine gun didn't stop cavalry from proving their worth in 1914. At least in the British army, which had a sensible doctrine for how to use cavalry in the early 20th century (they almost always fought dismounted, unless a particularly tempting target for a charge presented itself). The British retreat from Mons would have been a lot more difficult if they didn't have a cavalry rearguard. They were admittedly pretty useless during the static warfare phase from late 1914 to early 1918 (they could still fight just as effectively as infantry, but without contributing mobility they were basically just more expensive infantry). But they proved their value again when mobility was restored in 1918. What killed cavalry once and for all wasn't the machine gun, but the realization (in the interwar period) that mechanized units could perform every mission that a cavalry unit could perform, but better.

Pikes were used alongside muskets for centuries (the "pike and shot" era is a fascinating period). They ceased to be of any value when bayonets were invented. The bayonet essentially allowed every last soldier to be both a musketeer and a pikeman, eliminating the need to bifurcate the infantry into two roles. As a side note, though no one reputable has ever told me so, I strongly suspect this is why muskets are so absurdly long by the 18th century (with the butt on the ground, the muzzle will reach up to your shoulder, and with the bayonet attached it will be about as tall or taller than you are). They are specifically designed to be a hybrid firearm/polearm. They are far longer than it makes any sense for a firearm to be, while being well short of the optimal length for a polearm. But they are about the perfect compromise length between a firearm and a polearm.

 

I don't think I strongly disagree with anything in the rest of your post. I think we both agree that the tank isn't dead yet, but it's on the way out the door. I think it's further from the door than you do, and that it's on the way out for different reasons. 

So basically older capabilities took a long time to die?  And yet they still died.  I know the myths of Agincourt but in the end cheap mass won out that entire argument.  And kept winning it right through to about WW2.

The fact that cavalry held on by fingernails in WW1 is not proof that they somehow were still a viable arm of manoeuvre.  In fact the narrowing of cavalry over the centuries could be what we are seeing in armour in much quicker time.

Firing line formations died at the Civil War, and yet militaries held onto them (and their ridiculous bayonets) for decades (we already argued this on that other thread).

One can “whatabout” it all one wants but military capabilities clearly have a failing trajectory.  There are elements of cost, effectiveness, utility and decisiveness at play in that calculus.  Large armoured cavalry as an example.  Its decisive role began to fade, arguably, in the Middle Ages.  Its utility was definitely compressed by the 19th century and by early 20th century they had been relegated to logistical support and flank security.  By mid 20th they were pretty much only logistical and after that ceremonial.  

You can trace any obsolete capability along similar tracks.  They take time to die…but they do die.  Cost effectiveness is a significant factor and cheap that can kill or deny expensive is on the right track to render it obsolete.  However, it is not the only factor at play.  Tanks look to me like they are in the beginnings of a death spiral, particularly if we are talking long term attritional warfare.  They take too long to produce, and cost too much for what they are able to deliver right now.  As Steve notes, they are also being supplanted by a lot of other things that are a lot cheaper to manufacture.

”Well infantry are easy to kill and have not gone obsolete”.  Well 1) they are a lot cheaper than armour, 2) they are actually really hard to kill.  They may be soft squishy humans but they are like sand and get into everything.  Hard to find and fix, and extremely replaceable. 3) They are also nearly impossible to fully deny..see sand, and 4) they have not been supplanted, in fact they have been dramatically augmented with modern UAS and ATGMs.  

Tanks on the other hand are really expensive, getting more so just trying to keep them alive. East to spot…big lump of hot metal and ceramic. Easy to deny.  Hard to replace at scale.  And now they are being supplanted.  However, like a lot of military capabilities they will take some time to die.  On could argue that have been dying since the 80s but I am not so sure.  This war has definitely not been good news for amour or mech and everyone knows it.  In fact it has not been good news for manoeuvre warfare itself.

Now modern militaries have a couple choices: adapt or hang onto legacy capability for “reasons”.  We are really good at that last one.

Edited September 16, 2023 by The_Capt

[kimbosbread]

4 hours ago, poesel said:

Is unmanned a way out of this?
Just by the name of it you need less people because its not manned (d‘oh). But you still need people to operate it, but I have no idea if the total logistic chain for an UGV is more or less than a comparable tank.

UGV is much smaller, so much smaller maintenance and logistics footprint. Hopefully some of that can be unmanned too. And more precise weapons mean a smaller logistics footprint as well. I think I mentioned this earlier, but Amazon’s goal per my buddy’s in supply chain is to reduce warehouse personnel by an order of magnitude each decade or so via automation.

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

As a side note, though no one reputable has ever told me so, I strongly suspect this is why muskets are so absurdly long by the 18th century (with the butt on the ground, the muzzle will reach up to your shoulder, and with the bayonet attached it will be about as tall or taller than you are). They are specifically designed to be a hybrid firearm/polearm. They are far longer than it makes any sense for a firearm to be, while being well short of the optimal length for a polearm. But they are about the perfect compromise length between a firearm and a polearm. 

Yeah I’ve wondered about this too and I’m certain you are right. There are probably similar evolutions you can trace with other weapons systems that replace older ones. We’ll likely see this with the UGV version of a tank, where initially the replacement might look similar, maybe have a big gun, but soon it might turn into a breech loading mortar with smart shells, or something even cooler.

48 minutes ago, Astrophel said:

It is a shame that the CIA seems to be a shadow of its former self, otherwise we might be welcoming revolutionary coups happening throughout this new russian empire.  As the CIA is today we witness less than nothing, not even in Georgia.

Or less than less than nothing in Turkey, where they burned themselves in a fit of stupidity in Erdogan’s fake coup a few years ago. Full retard is the only suitable description.

[Phantom Captain]

3 hours ago, akd said:

3rd Assault Brigade clearing the rubble pile that was Andriivka:

 

It's just unreal how that guy remains so calm as the mortar rounds come down around them.  I just don't think I could sit there and not run.  Which, of course, would be the absolute wrong thing to do.

Edited September 16, 2023 by Phantom Captain

[holoween]

On 9/15/2023 at 4:34 PM, The_Capt said:

This whole NATO "everyone is doing it wrong except us" is a really bad way to go in my opinion.  

 

So is ukraine does everything right.

What im interested in is what exactly causes their attacks to fail or succeed and how does it do that so i can draw conclusions on what needs to be done to be successful.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

Luttwak is a profoundly silly person.

Edited to add yet another dumb thing he uttered today: 

 

 

How embarrassingly stupid.  I agree completely w your take on this, BillBinDC.  Next thing he'll do is the old "romans had arena sports and fell, america has arena sports and so will fall also, just look at all the similarities".

[kimbosbread]

4 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

How embarrassingly stupid.  I agree completely w your take on this, BillBinDC.  Next thing he'll do is the old "romans had arena sports and fell, america has arena sports and so will fall also, just look at all the similarities".

People like him are the reason I try to frame economic discussions in terms of Douglas Adams, ex the "shoe event horizon" which I think is a very good analogy for all sorts of stuff.

Edited September 16, 2023 by kimbosbread

[Battlefront.com]

55 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

UGV is much smaller, so much smaller maintenance and logistics footprint. Hopefully some of that can be unmanned too. And more precise weapons mean a smaller logistics footprint as well.

Yup, the compounding savings (financial and manpower) go way, way, way beyond the actual vehicle vs. a traditional vehicle.  A great example of this are Ukraine's UAV units.  They have a small number of personnel, a couple of standard radios, a standard SUV (or car!), standard munitions with very small modifications, and off the shelf drones.  There's no massive industrial military complex making this possible, there's no 4 guys in support for every 1 guy at the front.  No motor pools, no maintenance facilities, no refueling capacity set aside for them, no nothing.  And yet these units can impact a battle as much, if not more, than a fixed or rotary wing aircraft.  Incredible.

Back in 1990 I saw an interview some news org (probably CNN) did with a some logistics officer in Kuwait.  In back of him he had racks of portable computers purchased from Radio Shack.  The reporter asked about them and why they were COTS.  "Doesn't the military have their own?  The response was that the military does indeed have their own, but they are so expensive that they don't have as many as they need.  Since the need is what the need is, they used COTS to fill the gap. 

"But aren't the COTS ones less robust and more likely to break than the military ones?"  Why yes, of course they are, but the super expensive military ones still get left on the roof of a Humvee that's driving away, get dropped too many times, get shot up, etc.  When that happens it takes an Act of God to get a replacement and that takes time.  When a COTS computer is lost, we have a shelf full of replacements ready to go.  So we can satisfy a greater demand and have an easier time sustaining it.  What's not to love?

We are seeing this with drones every day in Ukraine.  We will eventually see it with the vehicles that replace tanks and the other super big, super expensive, super needy systems that are currently in service.

Steve

[Seedorf81]

1 hour ago, Astrophel said:

It is a shame that the CIA seems to be a shadow of its former self, otherwise we might be welcoming revolutionary coups happening throughout this new russian empire.  As the CIA is today we witness less than nothing, not even in Georgia.

You may be right, but the best intelligence-work is done when we, "the public", do not know about it. (Until decades later, perhaps.)

I bet they ain't doin' nothin'.

[kimbosbread]

30 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, the compounding savings (financial and manpower) go way, way, way beyond the actual vehicle vs. a traditional vehicle.  A great example of this are Ukraine's UAV units.  They have a small number of personnel, a couple of standard radios, a standard SUV (or car!), standard munitions with very small modifications, and off the shelf drones.  There's no massive industrial military complex making this possible, there's no 4 guys in support for every 1 guy at the front.  No motor pools, no maintenance facilities, no refueling capacity set aside for them, no nothing.  And yet these units can impact a battle as much, if not more, than a fixed or rotary wing aircraft.  Incredible.

And then the training. Standing up this unit isn't hard. And that's before the next small evolutionary step, which is autonomous guidance from the base station, so you don't even need to train the operator other than select a target on the screen and drone goes there.

EDIT: I make the distinction on guidance, because onboard autonomous guidance requires a bit more computing power, vs just doing it on the base station requires no extra hardware on the drone at all, which simplifies the roll out substantially.

Edited September 16, 2023 by kimbosbread

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Adam Tooze is pretty sound; no particular ideological brief I can discern in a decade of reading him, and his historical work on Weimar/pre-WW2 Germany political economy alone makes his views on these topics well worth considering... IMHO. But sure, he has no better direct line to Gawd than any of us mortals. YMMV.

@billbindc (our go-to for the Permanent Establishment Party line ) Tooze is fair dinkum by you, amirite?

The issue I have with most specialists is that they are too specialized.  They can see the trees through the forest, but not the logging company gearing up to mow it all down.

It is the same problem we had with people like Kofman before and at the start of the war.  A solid guy in his field.  Well respected, fair minded, and capable of presenting complex material in a way that is understandable.  But my GOD was he wrong about just about everything that turned out to matter the most.  It's not because he was biased, it was because he wasn't thinking broadly enough about how things like corruption, lack of investment in professionalization, etc. negatively affected Russian capabilities while also not understanding that a pissed off Ukrainian volunteer with a Javelin could hold up a company sized Russian advance.

So, as I said about Tooze, I think his analysis is not wrong, but rather it is incomplete.  He needs to take his narrow analysis of Russia's economic factors and intertwine them with the social and political before he starts stating "worst case" scenarios.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, akd said:

3rd Assault Brigade clearing the rubble pile that was Andriivka:

 

What a mess.  It is amazing to think of how these guys can move around in that crap without breaking an ankle.

Steve

[Fernando]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So basically older capabilities took a long time to die?  And yet they still died.  I know the myths of Agincourt but in the end cheap mass won out that entire argument.  And kept winning it right through to about WW2.

The fact that cavalry held on by fingernails in WW1 is not proof that they somehow were still a viable arm of manoeuvre.  In fact the narrowing of cavalry over the centuries could be what we are seeing in armour in much quicker time.

 

Since horses have been used for war there has been a constant struggle for predominance between infantry and cavalry (and initially chariots) where on some occasions the infantry has predominated and on other occasions the cavalry has predominated. Infantry are slow, difficult to maneuver but usually very solid. Cavalry is much more mobile, easier to maneuver, and can have appreciable shock power that can be applied at the most favorable point.

Even in cases of clear predominance of one of the forces (in the case of infantry, the Macedonian Phalanxes, the Roman Legions, the Swiss pikemen or the Spanish Tercios; in the case of the Cavalry, the Byzantine and Persian Cataphracts, the medieval knights or the Mongolian cavalry) it has always been necessary for every army to have elements of the arm that do not predominate.

After the Second World War and the mechanization of modern armies, everything de facto became cavalry, that is, mobile, fast units with great shock and maneuver capabilities. Even the infantry became de facto dragons. For this reason, the traditional foot infantry had to rediscover the Phalanx, in this case exchanging the traditional pikes for all types of increasingly sophisticated anti-tank weaponry and tactics to minimize the advantages of the new and predominant "heavy cavalry" forces (armored units and mechanized infantry units, i.e. dragoons)

Even in the 16th century, when the Tercios of pikemen and harquebusiers, that is, the infantry, dominated the battlefield, light and heavy cavalry were necessary. Although tactics changed and adapted to each situation over time, the need for fast, shock units continued even today. Horses were used at the time, but as soon as something better became available (tanks, trucks, APCs, etc.), they became mechanized forces. That's why I don't think the tank or armored units are dead. They are the modern cavalry whose functions (shock, movement and maneuver) have never disappeared. Some of the means used may change (perhaps UGV), but there will still be what cavalry has functionally been for centuries, and even millennia.

And here comes the other point, I do not believe that the war in Ukraine is a preview of what World War III would be like. It seems more like the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) to me. Modern and cutting-edge weapons were used, but the SCW was not a preview of World War II. Everyone drew conclusions (the Germans for example  that tactical aviation was essential and that they did not really need specialized strategic air forces), but they were not necessarily always correct. And hence the surprise caused by the German Blitzkrieg. Few people expected it.

Russia may be acting with its traditional incompetence, and Putin's failure to use his traditional numbers advantage by not mobilizing may be misleading. Ukraine is unfortunately NOT NATO, nor does it have in any way the resources that NATO has. It lacks air and naval superiority, its doctrine is different (like the Russian one, it is an artillery army), it has more men only because Putin has not carried out a real mobilization yet, but in almost everything else it was or still is inferior. Western aid, the wear and tear suffered by the Russian incompetence and the Ucranian hard work, the lack of early mobilization of all Russian resources, and the use of new weapons such as drones, have allowed the gap between both armies to be closed, but Ukraine is somehow still fighting a poor man's war.

In my opinion, believing that a next war fought by NATO would be the same as the one being fought in Ukraine seems to me to be a mistake, and I think  that sometimes the analysis is being taken too far, generalizing what are sometimes particular cases, as sometimes happened in the case of the Spanish Civil War too.

Edited September 16, 2023 by Fernando

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

 

So is ukraine does everything right.

What im interested in is what exactly causes their attacks to fail or succeed and how does it do that so i can draw conclusions on what needs to be done to be successful.

I don't think the Ukrainians are close to getting everything right. They are also understandably reluctant to just broadcast there problems on twitter, at least usually. The larger problem is that NATO has been way to standoffish about attaching observers to Ukrainian units. So WE are missing a lot of things we shouldn't be

There was a long post about this a month ago. Put on twitter by Constantine. I just can't seem to get back to it in the time I have to look. The thing I recall very specifically is that all of a certain Ukrainian unit's training had been for offense/assault, and that this was huge problem when they had to go on the defensive. The other thing that has been brought numerous times is that drones are omnipresent on the Ukrainian battlefield, and that western training has not caught up with this fact. In particular learning how not to be spotted by drones is EXTREMELY important.

Edited September 16, 2023 by dan/california

[holoween]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I don't think the Ukrainians are close to getting everything right. They are also understandably reluctant to just broadcast there problems on twitter, at least usually. The larger problem is that NATO has been way to standoffish about attaching observers to Ukrainian units. SO we are missing a lot of things we shouldn't be

Not sure how other nations are doing it but the german trained and equiped units keep constant lines of communication back to the german army.

3 minutes ago, dan/california said:

There was a long post about this a month ago. Put on twitter by Constantine. I just can't seem to get back to it in the time I have to look. The thing I recall very specifically is that all of a certain Ukrainian unit's training had been for offense/assault. and that tis was huge problem when they had to go on the defensive. The other thing that has been brought numerous times is that drones are omnipresent on the Ukrainian battlefield, and that western training has not caught up with this fact. In particular learning how not to be spotted by drones is EXTREMELY important.

Ive seen it and it seems to me entirely a product of too short time to train and wrong expectations on what the trainees would be doing.

Usually if you train up units you go from simple to difficult. First you learn basic soldiering skills, then you learn your specific job, then you do defensive fighting then offensive fighting then delaying actions.

And i cant speak for whoever trained that bunch of ukrainians but i havent had an exercise since the war started where we didnt have drones overhead all the time.