Veteran Dykyi explains why Ukraine is ending overseas training for troops

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 We do not publish this data, but I can say it is a genuinely low percentage.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 Our frontline medical practices were quite outdated, and Western partners significantly helped improve them during the first year of the war.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.

Today, our army — and, unfortunately, our enemy — are the two most experienced militaries in the world. They are the only armies with real experience of 21st-century warfare involving the mass use of all types of drones.

This is something our Western partners do not have. As a result, they have fallen behind these realities, and training of our troops there has effectively turned into us training them.

If so, it is more logical for them to send their personnel here. They may still call them instructors, but in reality, they will come to learn rather than to teach.

Several joint NATO exercises involving Ukrainian units have already clearly demonstrated this. We fight in a fundamentally different way, and they are not prepared for this kind of warfare. Each time, they are surprised and discover something new. Let them discover it here.

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.