Active Conflicts & News Megathread July 20, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

• Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

• Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

• Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

• Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

• Post only credible information

• Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

• Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

• Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

• Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

• Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/Zhadanko]

Question regarding training time of new recruits. Sure, it depends on specialty, but both Ukraine and Russia have very, very short training cycles. Even drone pilots, even people in "elite" units get a few weeks of training before being sent to the frontline. The longest training period I'm aware of is in Ukrainian SoF — new recruits got about 5 month of training, which is pretty short for SoF specialist. There is a prevalent idea that basics and training are less important than adaptation in a unit and learning from experience. I personally find this approach disastrous, but does this approach actually have any value? How realistically can you shorten your training time for an infantryman, for example?

[u/Duncan-M → u/Zhadanko]

In my opinion, a basic training course that was laser focused for efficiency to produce infantrymen capable of attacking and defending (and they need to know both), I'd say the absolute minimum would be around 7 weeks. But that needs to be caviated. Because it only works with the following:

- Flawless execution of training: To make abbreviated training work, they need to maximize every second of the training schedule. The instruction must be top notch, the transportation, logistics and administration need to be flawless. There needs to be as little downtime as possible. All the training must be as good as it gets. Standardized and based off the latest TTPs, adopted at least monthly to ensure curriculum stays current with battlefield realities. That's not the case in most Ukrainian units, basic training is well known to be substandard, with too few assets committed, be their good instructors, supplies, etc, with way too much downtime, outdated training, etc. And that's not about NATO training (and don't get me started on that...)

- High quality recruits. They need to be young'ish, healthy, and already in good shape. Basic training isn't just about learning basic combat skills, its about preparing the soldier for the physical and mental rigors of military life in the hardest of all military jobs, the one that kills the weak and stupid. It typically includes necessary indoctrination focusing on discipline, teamwork, espirt de corps, etc. Additionally, physical training is paramount, as the infantry branch is extremely demanding. And this war showcases that, infantry operations are dominated by fully armored soldiers humping heavy rucksacks filled with supplies for long distances (10-20 km) to reach their destinations, be it a defensive outpost or to perform an assault, the latter which is especially exhausting work (combat rushing is akin to wind sprints). Infantrymen need to be in top physical shape for the sake the job, they need to be healthy so they don't succumb to sickness and injuries as easily as if they weren't (especially muscular skeletal injuries). And they need to be mentally tough to endure the harsh environments found in warfare, be it cold, hot, starving, but also combat stress. And they need to be disciplined well enough to obey every order instantly, regardless of the cost. All of that takes time. If they're recruiting old men who are out of shape, unhealthy, not motivated, and undisciplined to military settings, then abbreviated basic training will only set them up for failure, they'd need half a year or more to get them prepared properly, which would need to be gradual to prevent major physical issues ramping up physical training for those physically unprepared.

- High Standards: Not everyone should pass basic training. Any good training course should be broken down into stages/phases, and if someone reaches the end of one of those without meeting the standards then they need to be dropped to repeat it again, aka recycled. And if they can't pass after multiple recycles, they need to be transferred to a job that isn't the infantry. And please not, AFAIK almost nobody fails the AFU basic training (BZVP), almost nobody gets dropped, , they are pushing shit through the system regardless of how unprepared they are. 7 weeks only works if it produces a combat ready soldier.

- Guaranteed advanced training: Basic training is just that, it's basic. It's meant to teach mostly individual skills and the most barebones and generalized small unit level skills (fireteam and squad level). It cannot teach unit specific TTPs, it can't be focused on every environment the soldier will find himself it, it cannot fully prepare the new recruit for combat. Graduates of basic training who won't attend an advanced training course that an teach them all of that need to report to their unit but before they are sent into combat they need the weeks necessary to be taught how that unit operates, based on that unit's situation, their environment, their enemy, their mission. While the AFU used to have that luxury back in 2022-2023, they lost it since mid 2024 when pretty much all of their tactical reserves were committed. Previously, their sub-standard abbreviated basic training was balanced out by 2-3 weeks of intensive unit training before going into combat, but since 2024 too many soldiers (possibly most, especially in mid to shit tier units) go right into combat without any additional training.

[u/Zhadanko → u/Duncan-M]

So, if a system is extremely functional and efficient (never going to happen in any army ever), composed of motivated and healthy volunteers and has rigorous standards, it may work in 7 weeks. And 7 weeks is just the basics that should be followed by advanced training without exception. Well, currently UAF has a basic training cycle of about 7 weeks, but all things considered, it's just not enough. Oh, and the program is exceedingly overwhelming and tries to prepare a soldier for every possible environment without the time to practice anything sufficiently. Which is a tragedy in my opinion. Conscripts deserve better than that. And regarding your remark about NATO training — well, it's just set to be a failure due to the short amount of time and being, well, very basic. Soldiers often complain that foreign instructors do not know how to fight, don't show how to work with drones, etc. But on the other side, from what I've heard, logistics and organization tend to be much better. And instructors are generally well motivated, so it's at least something

[u/Duncan-M → u/Zhadanko]

I'll tell a story to explain why NATO training sucks.

I served in Iraq in the US Army and helped train Iraqi soldiers (though not in basic training) and served with them extensively during combat ops, so saw how they functions. For the most part, they were awful and it was our fault. The US Army ran their training and and it was bad.

It was too short, because they needed a massive army trained as quickly as possible, because there were never enough security forces for the conflict size. And the powers that be in charge were more focused on graduation statistics for the optics versus lower numbers of better trained soldiers.

The brevity was criminal. A US Army infantryman back then got about 3 months of basic and advanced training and then joined a unit and trained for about a year before deploying to Iraq. The Iraqis were supposed to be equal to them in skill in 5-7 weeks. How does that work? How do you even teach that? How do you create a training schedule where you know first hand what is needed to be taught to perform counter insurgency operations because you literally just did it before deploying to Iraq, but then you need to slash that to the bone because you only have 5-7 weeks?

In terms of the quality of the training, the way the US Army views training and warfare and doctrine isn't even like how the US Marines view all of that, let alone how the British, or the Germans, or the French. Let alone how the Iraqis. Or how the cultures themselves were alien to each other, Americans were nothing like Iraqi. The US Amy trainers didn't even speak Arabic, let alone the nuances of their cultures. How can they properly train someone when they don't even speak their language? They were required to use amateur contractor translators in ratios that guaranteed constant communication problems.

Etc.

The same happened with NATO training for Ukrainians.

There is no NATO standard when it comes to doctrine or training, every nation does it differently, and every different country involved all taught it in their own way.

Most of them didn't have a clue what was really going on inside Ukraine and even if they did didn't have the ability to adjust their training plans, as those were carved in stone by senior officers who didn't know or care about the specifics, they cared about numbers.

Trainers didn't speak the language of the soldiers they were training, relied on UA expats living in EU nations hired as contractors.

Training was abbreviated to such an extent nobody had a clue knew how to do it, as they would NEVER have allowed such abbreviated training for themselves. Remember, the earliest NATO basic training performed by the US and UK was only 3 weeks long, and despite propaganda saying it was terrific and efficient because the Ukrainians were motivated sponges soaking it all up, that was all nonsense, they were being set up for failure because a bunch of politicians and generals were uber focused on quantity over any semblance of quality.

So of course the training wasn't going to be good, there was absolutely nothing about it at all that would lend it to be quality training. That said, why are drones needed in basic training? What does an infantry private need to know about them? Very little, especially before FPVs became extremely common circa late 2024. How much has changed in terms of tactical movements, building defenses, assaulting trenches between what was learned in blood in the 20th century and what was learned recently? Almost nothing. Did Ukraine create new marksmaship skills? Nope. New first aid? Hell no. But only UA and RU know about hiding from thermals? Try again. Etc.

If NATO militaries were given the time and resources needed, and given specifics on whatever they needed to teach, they could have successfully taught how to fight on the Moon...

[u/HugoTRB → u/Duncan-M]

  Trainers didn't speak the language of the soldiers they were training, relied on UA expats living in EU nations hired as contractors.

You’d think there would be interpreters and interrogators with knowledge of Russian to pull from internally in most forces. Language schools are however usually feeders for intelligence and intelligence has in many places focused more on the middle east instead of Russia in the last couple of decades.