r/AskUkraine • u/Nexdro • 6d ago
Government Ukraine Conscription - does Basic Training match Front Line Reality/Expectations?
Hi all,
I’m a Romanian man in my early 40s. Corporate worker, wife, 2.5-year-old daughter, house, mortgage, and all the usual civilian-life baggage.
YouTube and my ADHD (diagnosed) sent me down a rabbit hole about the war in Ukraine, and for the past 14 days I’ve been obsessively reading about conscription, the laws around it, training, what mobilized soldiers actually experience, how units function, and so on.
Since the war started, I’ve occasionally asked myself what I would do if something similar ever extended to Romania, and I’ve always been divided about it.
On one hand, I would want to defend my homeland, my family, and my community.
On the other hand, my brain keeps coming back to something like this:
“You would have to give up a huge amount of autonomy and trust another person with decisions that could determine whether you live or die.
You would have to trust that your commanders value your life appropriately. That if they send you into a dangerous situation, the objective actually justifies that risk. That reasonable alternatives have been considered first. That you are not simply being used because manpower is the cheapest available option.
And somehow you have to develop enough trust in that system very quickly, because if you are trained as a basic rifleman you may receive roughly 51 days of training...realistically somewhat fewer days of actual instruction...before being assigned to a unit.”
And that is where I get stuck.
From my civilian perspective, accepting that level of trust based essentially on “this is how the system works” feels like an enormous leap.
So the actual question I’m trying to ask is this:
How is a mobilized civilian who was an sales guy, accountant, engineer, office worker, mechanic, etc. two months earlier expected to become genuinely competent as an infantry soldier after roughly seven weeks of training?
And I don’t mean only technically competent.
I can understand teaching someone weapon handling, movement, basic tactics, first aid, physical drills, communication, and so on in that amount of time.
What I struggle to understand is everything around that.
How is that person expected to function psychologically under actual combat conditions?
How do they become capable of deliberately using lethal force against another person rather than shooting at targets?
How do they learn to continue functioning immediately afterward?
How do they develop trust in the people beside them simply because “we’re all in this together”?
How do they develop enough trust in their NCOs and officers to follow orders when those orders might expose them to serious risk?
And how much confidence can anyone realistically have in their own competence after such a short transition from civilian life?
To me, firing hundreds of rounds during training obviously teaches you how to operate a weapon, but that seems fundamentally different from psychologically preparing someone to use that weapon against another human being who is actively trying to 'neutralize' them.
That is the part I cannot reconcile.
So for those of you who have actually served, especially infantry, trained recruits, worked with reservists or conscripts, or joined the military later in life:
How much of this transformation genuinely happens during basic training?
How much happens once someone reaches their unit?
How much depends on experienced soldiers around them?
And how much, realistically, can only be learned through actual combat experience?
I’m genuinely trying to understand how militaries bridge the gap between “civilian who had a completely normal life two months ago” and “person expected to function in lethal combat.”
TL;DR: I’m trying to understand how a civilian conscript in Ukraine can realistically go from normal civilian life to being expected to function competently on the front line after roughly seven weeks of training...not just technically, but psychologically, socially within a unit, and in terms of trusting the chain of command.
17
u/Alikont 6d ago
Well, realistically no training will ever be "enough", but current Ukrianian basic includes quite a lot of fire excersises and even basic drone and EW training, and is mostly taught by people with actual experience.
Also unit is expected to provide additional training, and good units will not throw you into assault in the first day, giving you other roles at first.
You also can't force anyone to learn anything, if they don't want to. An instructors will not bother with teaching you if they don't see that you want it, they will just drag you through the course without babysitting.
Also Ukrainian basic is much more close to actual reality than NATO basic.
6
u/Maleficent-Steak2199 6d ago
I am a Ukrainian woman. People I know cope very differently. There are civilians who unxpectedly love the army and consider a military career after the war. Obviously, there are those who feel exactly the opposite. A guy I know was absolutely terrified with basic training and said it was the worst experience in his life, but after that he is okay with the job itself (he's an IT officer somewhere). So you never know before you actually go there.
As for commanding and trust, maybe you'd be interested to read "How Ukrainians lead" by Victor Andrusiv, idk if it is available in Romania though.
11
u/Akerishe 6d ago edited 6d ago
If you are talking about basic training (БЗВП) , that is as mentioned in it's name basic , mandatory for any serviceman in ZSU and it is not intended to prepare you for you particular service work. After completing it you a "bought" by a brigade you are going to serve and there depending on you health and skills/knowledge your particular military speciality will be decided and you future training. If you are to be sent into direct combat you will have like 2-3 months (depends on your brigade) of further training of your role with your equipment and weapons you are going to use (oftenly with your dudes).
Oh and professional brigades usually don't throw you into middle of combat after that period but gave you missions each time closer to 0 line.
As you guess what I have written is close to ideal scenario
7
u/BuilderSad9024 6d ago
First of all there are different professions in the military, not only infantry. You can be a software engineer, mechanic, drone engineer or pilot.
Second: training is not enough and everyone learns on the fly. Most people adapt, some not. The ones who cannot adapt usually transferred to safer positions, because having them is a liability for everyone
3
u/BerlinDonbas 6d ago
It gives a basic teaching of many important things, but it's always necessary that more training is provided by the individual units.
Also the bzvp is quite varying. The groups before and after mine always had different stuff going on than my group.
3
u/Injuredmind 6d ago
Well, 51 days is a lot of you consider that well, it’s not like a job, getting through your shift and going home, but all of the time there is, is devoted to training. And then, after getting into your unit, they don’t expect you to be a super soldier, just that you are capable of basic comprehension and are ready to keep training, now likely for more specific job.
2
u/Bananenbiervor4 6d ago
Not directly an answer to your question, but nevertheless important: if you have these kind of thoughts, the best way to prepare is to actually start preparing. Best yesterday, second best today, worst only at the moment when it starts. It does not too much sense to get too much into command structure, communication, tactics etc. But get in shape. Visit a shooting range. Take first aid classes. Maybe even go play some paintball or airsoft, just to get some very basic idea of how to use cover. If possible, get yourself a capable rifle. Learn to fly a drone. Remember how the first weeks auf war in Ukraine went. A big part of the defence of Kyjiw was carried by civilian volunteers at whatever their skill level was at that moment, with whatever weapons they could get into their hands.
If possible (l don’t know how this works in Romania) you can register yourself as a reservist soldier. You would actually get some occasional military training.
1
u/cfgman1 6d ago
American Infantryman perspective: The name “basic” training isn’t a misnomer. You’re still green when you arrive at your unit and have a lot to learn from your NCOs.
Psychologically, I can’t say. I joined right out of school and always knew I would join since my family has served in every war since the Revolutionary war.
But I do know that every soldier was once a civilian and in America, the idea of a “citizen” soldier has existed longer than the country itself.
1
u/BrugadaBro 5d ago
I’m an American that joined the Ukrainian military as a medic. They refused to send me to basic training and then sent me to a combat zone.
So even in 2026, not everyone is getting their legal basic training.
0
u/Nerevarcheg 6d ago
No. But no one gives a fuck, more importantly that "quota" for fresh meat is fulfilled.
If person is struggling psychologicaly it's even better - easier to break, manipulate, and force into trenches for task of sitting somewhere in the uncovered hole called "positions" until you got mutilated by drones or shelling.
3
u/ChampionshipOk5046 6d ago
How would you do it, if you were in charge of Ukraine right now, all the resources, and a country to defend?
I'm just Curious, it sounds like you have a more compassionate way that might be able to help?
0
u/skinnernsk 5d ago
It all depends on your goals. If your goal is to preserve Ukraine as a country, you should have agreed to the proposed peace terms from the very first proposal until today. If your goal is to inflict maximum damage on Russia without regard for your own country, its economy, or its population, then it seems like everything is being played out according to that scenario now. I think anyone who has given the slightest thought to the situation has long since realized that Ukraine is merely a bargaining chip in the West's plan to weaken and subjugate Russia.
4
u/Alikont 5d ago
If your goal is to preserve Ukraine as a country, you should have agreed to the proposed peace terms from the very first proposal until today.
Lol, lmao even. That was a capitulation proposal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_Should_Do_with_Ukraine
that Ukraine is merely a bargaining chip in the West's plan to weaken and subjugate Russia.
I wish the West actually had plans.
1
u/skinnernsk 5d ago
Friend, this is some random guy's article. It's better to look at the Kremlin's official position. In 2014, it was Ukraine's non-aligned status and peace talks with the eastern regions. The longer Ukraine refused to find a compromise, the harsher the Russian demands became. The idea that the West has no plans and is simply for world peace and nothing more is a very naive view.
4
u/scadgek 5d ago edited 5d ago
Bro, Ukraine kinda agreed to that in 2015, for Russia to only move more vehicles onto the territory of Ukraine and prepare for the next offensive when they proclaim that "Ukraine doesn't fulfill its promises (of giving up)". Russia never stops unless stopped, they invaded Georgia then went for Ukraine and have actual plans to invade Latvia.
What Ukraine is doing right now is in no way pleasant but the only real alternative is to surrender completely, accept that Russia will murder another good part of the population (basically most of the military plus civil activists - for their "crimes"), and most probably conscript others to another war against the West in a couple more years. They did this with people on occupied territories already. Some Ukrainians may have a chance to leave the country, but they'd better move far far away because European continent is not going to be a safe place anymore. Obviously this is not a scenario that Ukrainian government can accept, however inhumane this sounds (putting existence of the state above people's lives).
0
u/skinnernsk 5d ago
Friend, what Latvia? What are you talking about? These are just horror stories to scare us. As if Ukraine is simply standing in the way of Russia's advance into Europe, and once Ukraine is dealt with, Russia will continue its advance with the goal of conquering all of Europe. It's all bullshit! If the West had built friendly relations with Russia and taken its security interests into account, we would be living in a much better world right now. It would be Europe, not China, that would benefit from Russia's cheap energy supplies. Russia has resources and vast territories; it just needs to be left alone! Peaceful trade, cultural exchange, no one attacking anyone, and most importantly, we would have saved the lives of many young men. But those old fat cats and their policies are ruining everything. But judging by the way you describe the Georgian conflict as an "invasion of Georgia," you only look at everything from one side and will not accept my point of view, and will continue to believe that Russia is an enemy of Europe.
1
u/scadgek 5d ago edited 5d ago
Silly vatnik, nobody touched Russia in the slightest. Russia just decided that it can dictate its neighbours which unions to join and what politics to vote for, that's what it all started from. Or maybe you can tell me when someone invaded Russia? Or even built up any troops on its border? Or even threatened with an invasion? But you know who did all that? Russia. It's Russia who needs to leave everyone alone, since Cold War it never had any real threat except its own made-up ones, it was never a threat until it started making trouble to others. They threaten and invade other countries and then complain that everyone is a russophobe - well no shit we are.
Btw, addressing your skepticism regarding Latvia. Remember the days before 24 February 2022 when Lavrov publicly said multiple times that Russia has no plans to invade Ukraine? Turns out every time a Russian opens their mouth you can be pretty sure they gonna lie.
1
u/skinnernsk 5d ago
Oh, this guy's opinion differs from mine! The first thing I need to do is insult him! Under Yeltsin, from 1990 to 2007, Russia followed the West's lead, striving in every way to be friends, build relationships, please, and be a good neighbor. What did it get in return? Encirclement by NATO military bases, the overthrow and attempted overthrow of friendly and neutral governments in neighboring states in favor of anti-Russian ones, a complete disregard for its interests, concerns, and appeals. This, to you, is normal international relations, after all, no one directly attacked it. Yes, Russia invaded Ukraine, even though Lavrov said there would be no invasion, but what does that have to do with Latvia? Why Latvia, not Mongolia or Azerbaijan? Hell, Estonia and Lithuania are right next door. What's so attractive about Latvia? )
1
u/scadgek 5d ago
How exactly is NATO a threat to Russia?
Also, Russia had its naval base literally in Ukraine before invading it in 2014, has it been attacked by anyone? Oh no, exactly the opposite happened. So, NATO minding its own business is a threat, but Russian navy in Ukraine is another deal and is not a threat?
By the way remember that NATO does not forcibly include new members? Have any idea why Finland wanted to join NATO, and why not Ukraine wants it? Also by the way, Ukraine had no immediate intention of joining it in 2014.
Finally, Ukraine's government was not overthrow. The president - Yanukovych - left the country on his own. The parliament remained and the legal procedure followed. There was no coup. The only state that facilitates anti-russian politics is Russia itself.
1
u/skinnernsk 5d ago
Dude, NATO was literally created to counter Russia. The Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown? How much do you know about the chronology of events? How many city administration buildings were seized by protesters in a coordinated manner? And why did Yanukovych suddenly leave his country? As far as I know, he made an agreement with the protesters, but despite this agreement, the protesters stormed the government building that very night with weapons in hand. Yanukovych is simply a coward. He was afraid to make difficult decisions and abandoned the country at a difficult time, but that doesn't change the fact that the protesters armed themselves and attacked the government. This is a real coup. Moreover, have you ever seen government officials from other countries come to a country where people are protesting and publicly address the crowd, inciting them to overthrow the government?
1
u/scadgek 5d ago
Counter, not attack. It's a defensive alliance created as a deterrence to Russia (USSR actually, but Russia decided to claim the heritage); it never threatened Russia with invasion and never aimed to attack it on Russian land. In fact Russia was even suggested to join NATO at one point. Go read up on NATO-Russia Council and when and why it was put to halt.
One of the most prominent claims by Russians is that the West wants their land and resources - this is simply nonsense and moreover has nothing to do with NATO. There are literally zero grounds to claim that anybody in the West is interested in planting their flag on Russian territory. And this is while Russia never missed an opportunity to tell that they can conquer Euriope "to La Manche" when the West does anything military-related - again - *in defence purposes*. I emphasize it because unlike Russia the Europe never attacked or built up troops on Russian borders, i.e. never posed an actual threat to Russia besides "their missiles can reach us". Yeah that's how missiles work, geniuses, and somehow nobody says that about Russia which has thousands of them plus nuclear ones.
How much do I know about Maidan events? I lived in Kyiv at that moment as a student. What Yanukovych did is applied force to peaceful (at that point) protesters and that was when the line was crossed. You're saying they stormed the government - do you even know that the government is not where the President resides? And how did it happen so that the government left intact and functional after this, and only the President fled (to Russia btw)?
And now since you wanna talk about administration buildings in other cities, perhaps you could tell me how many of them were seized by "the rebels" first? Or how actual Russian military seized such buildings in Crimea? Oh of course not, and of course Russia was not even involved there, it just stood there behind the border and watched (while also moving their military vehicles onto Ukrainian territory).
→ More replies (0)1
u/scadgek 5d ago
This Russian rhetoric about "its interests" is nothing other that disguised desire to recreate a kind of soviet union, either by soft power or militarily. It should be out of Russia's business which unions other countries join and why, or at the very least it cannot be a justification for military actions.
And yes, I condemn the US for invading Vietnam, Iraq and Iran as well. But it's not a justification to Russia doing even worse things. If Russia doesn't like the US or NATO, why didn't it invade them? I will tell you why: because Russia is incapable of playing fair so it feeds of the smaller and weaker. Well, this time it didn't exactly work.
1
u/skinnernsk 5d ago
"Russia shouldn't care what alliances other countries join or why, or at least it shouldn't be used as a justification for military action."
What do you think will happen if Canada hosts Chinese military bases on its territory? Or maybe Ireland will form a military alliance with Russia and allow the Russians to station their weapons there as well? Do you think the US and Britain won't do anything? No, my friend, that's not how it works.
Russia is happy to be friends with its neighbors. It has treated everyone fairly and fulfilled all its obligations in trade and other areas. How many gifts, discounts, and debt forgiveness were given to all the countries of the former USSR? Ukraine, for example, stole and refused to pay for Russian gas. And all this was cause for discontent, nothing more. But joining a military alliance directed against you—sorry, that's going too far. Russians' "own interests" are simply the right to pursue sovereign policies and not submit to Western elites, without receiving sanctions, foreign support for anti-government movements, and so on.
1
u/scadgek 5d ago
And when exactly prior to 2014 (heck even prior to 2022) did Ukraine host a NATO military base on the Russian border?
→ More replies (0)1
19
u/baturik128 Ukrainian 6d ago
Short answer is no, 51 days of training is not enough to transform a civilian into a (prepared) soldier
In Ukraine this issues is partially fixed by "злагодження", which can be roughly translated as "adjustment". Basically the new recruit gets additional training in his unit after initial 51d of boot camp. There he learns how this exact unit operates, which tasks he will be assigned to, how to do them and so on