Follow us on social

google cta
Volodymyr Zelenskiy

The folly of PR-driven strategy: Ukraine’s doomed 155th Brigade

The French and Poles joined to show the world they were unified against Russia. Unfortunately it had the opposite effect.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

Ukraine has undertaken a number of optics-driven decisions and initiatives that have ended up doing real damage to its military and its ability to defend territory. A primary example is the standing up of the brand-new 155th Brigade — its short life and its subsequent demise.

The problematic aspects of how the 155th Brigade was formed and dissolved are currently under investigation by the Ukrainian State Bureau of Investigations (GBR). Nicknamed “Anne of Kyiv,” the much touted, highly publicized brigade was a joint effort by France, Ukraine, and to a lesser extent Poland. It was largely funded by France to create a powerful “flagship” regiment whose success on the battlefield would showcase just how effective NATO training and equipment, combined with Ukrainian troops, could be in combatting Russian forces.

Suffice it to say, the effort backfired, and it now joins other initiatives such as the Kursk incursion and the Bakhmut defense campaigns which arguably were driven far too much by public perception concerns than executing effective military tactics and strategy.

The formation of the 155th Brigade began in March of 2024 and went through several evolutions, but in the end some 2000 Ukrainians were trained in France and equipped with Western equipment such as German Leopard tanks and French made 155mm Caesar Howitzers. The remainder of the brigade’s 5800 men were trained in Poland and Western Ukraine. It took some nine months to recruit and train the men, and during this period, some 1700 of its members went AWOL.

And while the exact number of AWOLs in West Ukraine vs. Poland is not known, a French Army official confirmed that “dozens” of the desertions happened in France, too.

Despite these serious issues, the 155th was deployed to the southern Pokrovsk region in late November 2024. Sadly, due to the combination of poor leadership and lack of drones or electronic warfare equipment that already established brigades count on to survive and fight, it quickly began to disintegrate as it suffered heavy casualties. This led to its dismantling in a matter of just a few weeks, with its surviving members distributed to other units in desperate need of manpower.

So, after just a few weeks of combat, the brigade that cost roughly 900 million euros to stand up is gone.

One person who believes the whole failed exercise to be a scandal is Yuri Butusov, well-known Ukrainian investigative journalist and editor-in-chief of "Censor.net" magazine. A short summary of his investigations reveals how things should have been done.

According to Butosov, existing brigades operating in the higher intensity areas tend to lose general infantry much faster than they lose more specialized personnel such as drone operators, engineers, medics, etc. Consequently, replenishing existing brigades with infantry is often the most efficient way to leverage experienced people, while ensuring that newly trained/less experienced infantry can learn from more experienced troops while receiving the support of the specialized personnel that will help them survive long-enough to become experienced, more effective troops.

The way the 155th was formed ignored the above, and it also ignored that most of Ukraine’s brigades are understrength and in desperate need of infantry to restore their effectiveness. Hence, the way the men were trained, deployed, used, and destroyed was a debacle that could have been avoided. In his expose Butusov comes to this conclusion: “The soldiers of the 155th Brigade have become hostages of Zelenskyy's PR project, which the government has actually treated ineptly and irresponsibly.”

But this debacle is not the only such initiative carried out by Ukraine’s Commander in Chief. Zelensky’s many public proclamations on the importance of Bakhmut, insisting Ukraine would never allow Bakhmut to be taken, resulted in Kyiv deploying 38 brigades, including Ukraine’s most elite brigades, about 180,000 men, over the course of the battle, into a cauldron subjected to Russia’s 10 to 1 advantage in artillery fires.

This is particularly foolish in a war in which 80 percent of casualties are the result of artillery. Yet Zelensky stubbornly refused to listen to allied advice, urging that he order a tactical retreat from Bakhmut.

This failure to execute sound military tactics due to what looked like a fixation on the symbolism of Bakhmut resulted in the loss of many thousands of Ukraine’s most experienced, best-trained soldiers — a loss from which Ukraine has yet to recover.

Other examples include the initial Kursk incursion, the battle for Avdiivka, the most recent effort to take territory in Kursk, and the doomed-to-fail 2023 counteroffensive. These operations, along with the 155th, are examples of poor decisions that substantially weakened Ukraine, allowing Russia to accelerate its expansion of territory.

The upshot of this is that if Ukraine had made decisions based more on battlefield realities than optics or symbolism, it would not have lost as much territory and would be much better positioned for negotiations to come.


Top Photo credit: Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy pays tribute to fallen defenders of the country as he visits Snake (Zmiinyi) Island in the Black Sea, retaken by the Ukrainian Armed Forces a year ago, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Odesa region, Ukraine, in this handout picture released July 8, 2023. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Europe
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.