Authors: Kurt Baumbach, Academic Evaluation Services

Alexander Agafonov, Ph.D., Globe Language Services, Inc.

Tatiana McKenna, Academic Evaluation Services

Military education is often misunderstood, frequently under‑documented, and increasingly shaped by global conflicts. For credential evaluators, admissions officers, and international education professionals, understanding how military education systems work—and how war disrupts them—is no longer optional but essential, as well as, a new reality. For evaluators – civilians evaluating military credentials across the world is always a real challenge bordering on multiple layers of complexity. Building on insights from the TAICEP session “Military Education in the War‑Torn World”, presented in Quebec City (Canada) in 2024, this article examines how military education functions across NATO member states, Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and Canada. Particular attention is given to quality assurance, credential verification, and the real‑world challenges created by the armed conflicts.

Military Education: Academic, Professional, or Something in Between?

One of the most common questions evaluators face when evaluating military credentials is whether military education should be treated as academic education, professional training, or a hybrid of the two. The most accurate answer is simple: it depends on the system.

Around the world, military education can typically include:

• Formal higher education programs leading to bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degrees;
• Professional military education (PME);
• Non‑formal and continuing education;
• Rank‑based command and staff training.

Governance structures vary just as widely. In some countries, military institutions fall under ministries of education; in others, they are overseen by ministries of defense or jointly administered. These structural differences directly affect how credentials are documented, verified, and ultimately recognized.

NATO: Standardization Without Centralization

NATO offers a useful reference point for understanding how military education can be aligned across countries without being centrally controlled. Education itself lies outside NATO’s formal command structure, but the Alliance coordinates education and training through several mechanisms, including:

• NATO‑accredited Centers of Excellence (CoEs);
• Education and Training Facilities (ETFs);
• Partnership Training and Education Centers (PTECs).

NATO’s quality assurance framework evaluates institutions based on leadership, instructional capacity, and their contribution to Alliance objectives. This approach supports interoperability among member and partner states while allowing individual countries to retain authority over degree-granting and credentialing. For credential evaluators, NATO affiliation should be understood as a marker of standardized training and quality oversight—not as automatic evidence of academic equivalency.

Ukraine: Military Education Under Fire

Ukraine’s military education system illustrates how profoundly war can disrupt educational structures, records, and verification pathways.

The system includes the following types of institutions:

• Higher military educational institutions;
• Military faculties or subdivisions within civilian universities;
• Specialized pre‑higher military institutions;
• Military lyceums.

Oversight rests with the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine rather than the civilian education registry typically used for academic verification. One critical consequence is that Ukrainian military credentials are usually excluded from the national EDBO – Unified State Electronic Database on Education. As a result:

• Diplomas may not appear in centralized electronic registries;
• Verification often requires direct confirmation from institutions or the Ministry of Defense;
• Lost or destroyed credentials may need to be reissued through emergency procedures or digital government platforms.

Since 2013, NATO’s Defense Education Enhancement Program (DEEP) has supported alignment between Ukrainian military education and NATO standards. However, since 2022, the physical destruction of institutions, displacement of personnel, and loss of archives have made credential evaluation and verification significantly more complex.

Verification and Fraud: Heightened Risks in Conflict Settings

Armed conflict creates fertile ground for document fraud, and military credentials are no exception. The presentation highlighted:

• Documented cases of fake NATO credentials;
• Online marketplaces offering forged Russian military diplomas;
• Convincing forgeries produced with authentic‑looking stamps, signatures, and security paper.

For evaluators, these risks underscore the importance of source‑based verification, familiarity with legitimate issuing authorities, and careful analysis of document format, terminology, and institutional status at the time of issuance. Military credentials demand contextual evaluation rather than a purely checklist‑driven approach.

Russia: Centralization and Limited Transparency

Russia maintains a highly centralized military education system overseen by the Ministry of Defense. It encompasses:

• Secondary military schools, including cadet corps and Suvorov and Nakhimov schools;
• Higher military institutions such as academies, institutes, and universities;
• Post‑professional retraining institutions.

While many Russian military credentials can be verified through national databases, notable exceptions exist—particularly for institutions affiliated with internal security agencies. Evaluators also encounter restricted access to verification tools, compromised archival systems, and uncertainty about institutional continuity, especially since 2014. Together, these factors complicate both verification and equivalency assessment.

The United States and Canada: Integration and Transparency

In contrast, military education in the United States and Canada is closely integrated with civilian higher education systems.

In the United States:

• Service academies, senior military colleges, and other military schools operate under recognized accrediting bodies;
• Military learning is documented through the Joint Services Transcript;
• Credit recommendations support transfer and equivalency evaluation.

In Canada:

• Institutions such as the Royal Military College of Canada emphasize academics alongside leadership development, athletics, and bilingualism;
• Credentials are clearly documented and readily verifiable;
• Degree‑granting authority aligns with civilian higher education standards.

These models demonstrate how military education can be both professionally focused and academically transparent.

Implications for Credential Evaluators

Military education credentials cannot be evaluated in isolation. Effective evaluation requires:

• A clear understanding of governance and oversight structures;
• Awareness of wartime disruption and its impact on records;
• Flexibility in verification methods;
• Heightened vigilance regarding fraud.

Military education is neither inherently non‑academic nor automatically equivalent to civilian programs. It is a hybrid system shaped by national policy, security priorities, and, increasingly, armed conflict.

Final Thoughts

In the war‑torn world, current military education systems are evolving under unprecedented geopolitical pressure unlike any seen before. Institutions are destroyed, records are lost, and traditional verification pathways break down. Despite global disruptions military education remains a vital pathway for professional mobility, academic progression, and post‑conflict reconstruction. For credential evaluation professionals, understanding these systems is more than a technical exercise. It is part of safeguarding academic integrity while responding thoughtfully, accurately, and humanely to global crises.