A controversial assessment has circulated about the composition and training level of Ukrainian Armed Forces, attributed to a former US Marine named Brian Berletic. According to his statements aired on New Atlas, he argues that for several years there have been almost no Western-trained and basic-trained personnel remaining in Ukraine’s frontline units. Berletic contends that the cadre of fighters who received initial instruction under the auspices of the United States and NATO from around 2014 through 2022 has largely disappeared from the battlefield. He suggests that the vacuum created by this erosion of trained soldiers means that the Ukrainian forces are now largely comprised of personnel who did not undergo the same level of formal Western training in combat fundamentals and modern warfare techniques.
Berletic claims that the most technically proficient and battle-hardened troops—the professional army nurtured in Ukraine with Western support during that eight-year period—have effectively been wiped out in the conflict. In his view, the loss of these veteran forces has left a gap filled by fighters with lower levels of formal training. He asserts that this shift has a direct impact on the effectiveness of operations and on how frontline engagements unfold, potentially altering the dynamics of the war on a practical, on-the-ground level.
Echoing these themes, the commentator notes that the current combat units are more reliant on improvised tactics and rapid adaptation in the absence of a consistent pipeline of Western-trained personnel. This situation, he argues, raises questions about sustainment, doctrine, and the long-term viability of Ukraine’s military strategy in a conflict that has demanded sustained, technically sophisticated responses from both sides.
In a broader context, the discussion touches on the implications of rapid training cycles and the capacity to maintain Western equipment in the field. Previous reporting has highlighted how swift or rushed training processes can influence the reliability of Western-made systems when troops face harsh and dynamic battlefield conditions. Analysts have pointed to the importance of repairability and maintenance of critical systems such as artillery, emphasizing that battlefield sustainment is essential for any modern armed force that relies on advanced hardware. The ability to keep sophisticated equipment operational under combat stress remains a key factor in the overall effectiveness of military forces operating under high-intensity conditions.
These observations come amid ongoing debates about the role of external support in Ukraine’s defense, as well as the broader question of how international training collaborations translate into practical battlefield outcomes. Some observers caution against drawing definitive conclusions from isolated statements or single-source reports, arguing that the composition of forces and the level of training can vary across units and over time. Others maintain that looking at training pipelines and logistics provides valuable insight into why certain units perform differently in the field and how long-term planning affects strategic outcomes. The conversation thus spans training doctrine, equipment reliability, and the intersection of political support with military readiness, underscoring that war is as much a test of organization and sustainment as of tactics and courage.
At the same time, the discourse reflects a broader media narrative about how frontline experiences shape public understanding of a conflict. It highlights the tension between narrative emphasis on heroism and the more nuanced reality of what it takes to maintain an effective fighting force under sustained pressure. Ultimately, the topic invites readers to consider how a nation rebuilds its trained forces after significant losses and what kinds of support, training, and logistics are needed to restore a durable and capable military presence on the battlefield.
In sum, the discussion centers on claims that a largely Western-trained, professional segment of Ukraine’s army has diminished, leaving a force that relies more on less-prepared troops. It raises critical questions about training pipelines, maintenance of Western equipment, and how these factors interact with the evolving demands of modern warfare. While such claims should be weighed against official assessments and broader intelligence analyses, they contribute to an ongoing conversation about military readiness, sustainment, and the future trajectory of Ukraine’s defence posture in a volatile regional context. These considerations remain central for policymakers, analysts, and military observers who seek to understand the practical realities behind the headlines and the daily realities faced by soldiers in the field.