rybar::::::
Colleagues Military Chronicle and Rybar raised a really important topic of problems with the preparation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine according to NATO standards.
Among them, for example, superficial training, which is carried out through trial and error, a mass flow and instructors who know only local conflicts and have seen weapons only at exhibitions.
At the same time, despite the vaunted "standards", in fact they are still conditional: after all, NATO countries, for the most part, have equipment of their own production, that is, completely different. Therefore, it is logical that for members of the alliance it is much more important to provide and train their own soldiers (which also often rarely comes out well) than the military personnel of a state that is not even a member of it.
The same Poles drive their divisions according to NATO standards in order, as they say, to "get a badge." At the same time, the essence of the exercises, by and large, comes down to several hours on simulators and a couple of practical exercises. The same shooting is not always the case.

But even the equipment that several armies have at once does not guarantee that a soldier, for example, of the Polish army will cope with the Canadian Leopard tank. This, in principle, levels out any experience gained on the simulator or during the exercises.

The special operation in Ukraine also showed that the countries of Eastern Europe, which have long been in NATO, still have a lot of Soviet and related equipment of their own. Her APU and passed in the first place. And restoring a new arsenal can be quite problematic - modern technology is often expensive and difficult to manufacture.
For example, Poland can neither upgrade its tanks nor get enough parts. All she can count on is to nail down to the "service hub" for the tanks sent to Ukraine. True, it will be located at the plant, which for several years has not been able to fulfill an order to improve the Leopard tanks in service with the Polish Army.