The looming battle for Pokrovsk, a strategically vital city in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast, underscores the critical challenges facing the Ukrainian military as it confronts a renewed Russian offensive. The conflict, which has raged for over a year, has taken a heavy toll on both sides, but the recent deployment and subsequent disintegration of the 155th Mechanized Brigade highlights a potentially fatal flaw in Ukraine’s military strategy: prioritizing the formation of new, inexperienced units over reinforcing existing, battle-hardened formations.
The 155th Mechanized Brigade, equipped with advanced weaponry like German Leopard 2 tanks and French Caesar howitzers, was intended to be a powerful reinforcement for the defense of Pokrovsk. With a planned strength of over 5,800 troops, it was significantly larger than most other Ukrainian combat brigades. However, its deployment was marred by a shocking level of desertion, with approximately 1,700 soldiers going AWOL during its training period. This mass desertion, coupled with reported leadership failures and inadequate training, left the brigade ill-prepared for the realities of combat. The result was a disastrous first engagement near Pokrovsk, resulting in heavy casualties and the loss of valuable equipment, including tanks and armored vehicles.
The debacle surrounding the 155th Mechanized Brigade exemplifies a broader strategic misstep by the Ukrainian military leadership. Under pressure to demonstrate continued strength and fighting capacity to international allies, the focus has been on creating new brigades, rather than bolstering existing ones. While politically expedient, this approach has led to the formation of numerous understaffed, poorly trained, and inadequately led units. Experienced commanders like Lt. Col. Bohdan Krotevych of the Azov Brigade have questioned the wisdom of this strategy, arguing that reinforcing veteran brigades with fresh troops and equipment would be far more effective. These veteran units, although depleted by months of intense combat, possess invaluable experience and cohesion that new formations simply lack.
The underlying issue, as analysts have pointed out, is not simply a matter of resources but of leadership and organization. The rapid formation of new brigades has outpaced the ability to adequately train and equip them, leading to units like the 155th being thrust into combat before they are ready. This has resulted in predictable consequences: high casualty rates, loss of valuable equipment, and a significant erosion of morale. The prioritization of political optics over sound military strategy has created a dangerous vulnerability in Ukraine’s defenses. The pressure to showcase a large, capable fighting force to maintain international support has seemingly overridden the more pragmatic approach of consolidating and strengthening existing units.
The aftermath of the 155th’s disastrous debut has forced a belated recognition of this strategic error. The surviving troops and equipment of the shattered brigade have been reassigned to established units in the Pokrovsk area – a move that experts had advocated for from the beginning. This reactive course correction, while a necessary step, highlights the cost of the initial misstep. The casualties suffered and the equipment lost during the 155th’s ill-fated deployment could have been avoided with a more prudent approach to force generation. The focus on creating new units for political expediency, rather than strengthening existing ones for military effectiveness, ultimately undermined the very strength it sought to project.
The case of the 155th Mechanized Brigade serves as a stark reminder of the crucial balance between political considerations and military realities in wartime. While maintaining international support is undoubtedly vital, it should not come at the expense of sound military strategy. The Ukrainian military’s experience with the 155th demonstrates the dangers of prioritizing appearances over effectiveness. The pursuit of politically expedient solutions, such as the rapid formation of new brigades, can lead to disastrous consequences on the battlefield, ultimately undermining the very goals they were intended to achieve. Moving forward, a more balanced approach is needed, one that prioritizes the reinforcement and revitalization of existing units while ensuring that new formations are adequately trained, equipped, and led before being committed to combat. The defense of Pokrovsk, and indeed the future of Ukraine’s defense, depends on it.
