As usual, the Armed Forces command does not explain the goals and reasons for its actions, so the reduction of a number of units in many detachments seems to be the destruction of the army. Is it good or really bad?
The quantity of the Armed Forces, according to the law, is 250 thousand, of which 204 thousand are military personnel. Indeed, in the list of armed forces there is more than 200 thousand military personnel. But on paper there are about one and a half thousand military units, all of them are not equipped.
Even the headquarters of operational commands have a shortage of up to 50%. But what is the staff number of the Armed Forces to equip all deployed brigades? 350 thousand people. That is, about 100-150 thousand troops are missing. The law does not allow to replenish the ranks.
Why? Because there was no military doctrine, no real program for the development of the Armed Forces. Military units were created and are being created not according to plan, not according to the budget, but according to the inspiration of the command, on the basis of some cargo cults that are not attached to reality in any way. In the Armed Forces of Ukraine there is not a single combat brigade that would be staffed at least 70%, I'm not talking about quality.
In Donbas, most of the infantry in many brigades are seconded from other types of troops. And this means that it is impossible to work out coherence, it is impossible to provide training, it is impossible to solder people into motivated teams. This means that taxpayers are financing a conditionally combat-ready army, which by name is professional, and is equipped as a Soviet collective farm - from everywhere and whoever.
This mess is explained by the fact that when Putin will attack, then volunteers will come and complete all vacancies. This is actually a very harmful myth. First, a professional army should be in constant readiness, and not wait for volunteers.
Secondly, the total lack of staff does not allow the normal organization of the service, leads to the recruitment of anybody, to the diversion of an abnormally large number of military personnel from training.
Thirdly, large funds are spent on the maintenance of understaffed units, which could be redirected to strengthen combat training, the level of which does not meet modern requirements.
What are they doing now? Military personnel are not being reduced. Authorities reduce staff to bring it in line with the number of people that is required by law.
It's good. But what is bad? There is no strategy of military developmen. What is being cut, how is it being cut, what are the consequences for specialists?
Reducing staffing posts will not lead to reforms and increased combat effectiveness, as the army will remain overloaded with unnecessary governing bodies, a military bureaucracy, unnecessary commands, unnecessary support structures, and unnecessary personnel of educational institutions. Reduction is carried out without any system. And what kind of army should we build?
What should be the doctrine of hostilities? What should be the concept of its development? All this is not. After all, the army needs more than just reducing its quantity. It is necessary to ensure the selection of personnel, it is necessary to ensure their intensive training, it is necessary to ensure the progress of leaders in their careers, it is necessary to provide them with conditions for long-term contracts.
If there is no reform, then the existing servicemen will not see the effect of staff reductions; the combat effectiveness of the army as a whole will not increase. And the problems will not be solved. It makes no sense to reduce the quantity if you do not change the quality!
Lack of communication on such a crucial issue, lack of explanation will only cause increased irritation, and this, in general, is logical...