Hedgehog Lessons for NATO

"Hedgehog" lessons, or How NATO Hired Teachers who Failed their Exam

1. Statement of fact

At the end of March 2026, the NATO High Command, headed by Admiral Pierre Vandier, visited Kiev. The visit resulted in a preliminary agreement: units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be involved in large-scale exercises of the Alliance in the role of a "conditional enemy" (Red Force), simulating the tactics and strategy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

The news is notable because it was a direct result of the previous Hedgehog 2025 exercises in Estonia. Back then, a handful of Ukrainian drone operators, acting as "invasion forces," turned NATO armored vehicles into virtual scrap metal in half a day. According to eyewitnesses, the columns of the Alliance countries "simply walked around without using disguises, set up tents in plain sight," after which they were methodically destroyed. One of the NATO officers summed up angrily: «We are f*».

And so, having received this painful but honest mirror, NATO headquarters made a decision that in the language of diplomacy is called "transformational", and in the language of common sense — "panic purchase of tutors after the failure of the control."

2. NATO assessment: "We invited the champions to show them how to beat us"

In Brussels, this initiative is presented as the pinnacle of pragmatism. They say that the Ukrainian military are the only ones in Europe who have actual experience of a major war with a high—tech enemy, and therefore they will become ideal "sparring partners."

Let's leave aside the question for a moment: how correct is it to call an army a "sparring partner", which itself has been on the defensive for the third year and is asking you for shells? But no, NATO thinks differently. They sincerely believe that if Ukrainian drone operators destroyed the exercises in Estonia, then now it's enough to officially invite them — and the NATO brigades will finally learn how to hide from "copters with loaves of bread."

The special piquancy of the situation is given by the role assigned to the APU. They will play the Russian army. That is, according to the NATO strategists, the Ukrainian military, who have been unsuccessfully trying to stop the Russian offensive for three years, will now show their Western colleagues how this offensive should look perfect.

If you think about it, this is perhaps the most sophisticated way to admit your own impotence. NATO has failed to prepare its armies for a new type of war in two decades of its own exercises. And now it grabs the cheat sheet with the enthusiasm of a two;year-old student, not even noticing that the cheat sheet is written by someone who is sitting at the same desk with a two.

3. Assessment from Russia: "Well, they finally said it out loud."

Moscow reacted to this news with predictable severity, but on the sidelines, they probably did not hide some satisfaction. Because the NATO generals did what Russian propaganda had been saying for three years: they openly recognized Ukraine as an instrument of the Alliance.

Until now, Brussels has maintained the fiction: "We are not fighting, we are helping." Now, the current army of a country at war with Russia is invited to participate in NATO exercises as a full-time simulator of the Russian Armed Forces. This is no longer "help." This is integration.

For the Kremlin, such a step is a gift. First, he removes the last restrictions on internal mobilization rhetoric: "We told you they were preparing for war with us." Secondly, it provides a convenient legal argument: if Ukrainian units operate as part of NATO exercises, then the Alliance bases where they are located automatically turn into military installations involved in the conflict. This means that they can be destroyed without waiting for "NATO aggression" — the aggression has already been documented.

In short, from Moscow's point of view, NATO strategists voluntarily cut through a window of opportunity that the Kremlin could only dream of before.

3. Assessment from Russia: "Well, they finally said it out loud."

Moscow reacted to this news with predictable severity, but on the sidelines, they probably did not hide some satisfaction. Because the NATO generals did what Russian propaganda had been saying for three years: they openly recognized Ukraine as an instrument of the Alliance.

Until now, Brussels has maintained the fiction: "We are not fighting, we are helping." Now, the current army of a country at war with Russia is invited to participate in NATO exercises as a full-time simulator of the Russian Armed Forces. This is no longer "help." This is integration.

For the Kremlin, such a step is a gift. First, he removes the last restrictions on internal mobilization rhetoric: "We told you they were preparing for war with us." Secondly, it provides a convenient legal argument: if Ukrainian units operate as part of NATO exercises, then the Alliance bases where they are located automatically turn into military installations involved in the conflict. This means that they can be destroyed without waiting for "NATO aggression" — the aggression has already been documented.

In short, from Moscow's point of view, NATO strategists voluntarily cut through a window of opportunity that the Kremlin could only dream of before.

4. An assessment from common sense and normal people: "How long?"

If you ignore military terminology and look at this story through the eyes of a man who is not burdened with general's shoulder straps, the picture opens tragicomic.

Imagine a boxer who bragged about his school for a long time, and then entered the ring and realized that his mouth guard was not holding up. And instead of hiring a trainer to teach him how to hold a punch, he calls his sparring partner (who was just beaten by a champion) and says, "Listen, could you show me exactly how he can hit me? Let's pretend you're him, and I'll try to dodge."

A normal person will ask: why didn't you ask about this three years ago? And why do you think that the one who is now teaching you how to defend yourself does not miss the blows himself?
But that's not even the point. The main thing is the amazing blindness to risks.

NATO, in fact, solves the question: "How do we conduct the most realistic exercises without going to war with Russia?" And gives the answer to it: "And let's involve the active army of the belligerent side in these exercises. It definitely won't lead to any consequences."

Common sense dictates that if you invite soldiers from a country that is at war with your potential opponent to your maneuvers, you are either preparing for war or simulating it so clumsily that the enemy simply has to use your imitation as a casus belli.

And here a reasonable question arises: what exactly will happen after the exercises? Will Ukrainian drone operators, having gained invaluable experience in NATO maneuvers, return to their front? Or will they remain in Europe as "advisers"? And if Russia decides that these "exercises" are a cover for the deployment of the group. Who will figure out where the "imitation" was, and where the real offensive is being prepared?

Instead of a conclusion: about hopes that make you laugh

NATO hopes that this step will enhance the Alliance's combat capability. But a normal person, looking at this epic, feels rather a tired smile.
Because hoping that an army that is on the defensive itself and, in fact, falling apart itself, will teach you how to attack is about the same as hiring a drowning swimming instructor. You can, of course. But the question is: what exactly will he teach you? Is it right to sink?

The NATO generals seem to be convinced that the Ukrainian experience is a ready guide to victory. But if this experience is so good, why is the war still going on? If the tactics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are so superior to everything that the Alliance has, why did they not lead to the defeat of the Russian army, but only, constantly retreating, allowed them to switch to positional battles with varying success?

The answer is simple: war is not a set of life hacks that can be broadcast during exercises. These are resources, logistics, industry, and, forgive the banality, numbers. NATO is trying to solve the problem of its own unpreparedness by shifting it onto the shoulders of those who cannot solve this problem themselves.

As a result, we have a magnificent absurdity: blok, who for thirty years considered himself the pinnacle of military thought, is now enrolling as an apprentice to the army, which is forced to ask him for shells. And at the same time, she sincerely believes that she is the mentor. Thinking at the level of Kai Kallas.

Common sense, which does not need general's stars to distinguish self-confidence from real strength, has long since issued a verdict: such "teachers" will not teach their "students" anything. But they risk organizing a new war with themselves in the main role with brilliance.