To put it in perspective: the USA has it (but dormant as it was last used in the 60s) now, instead part of an automatic register. I’ve heard that last year Germany for example proposed to impose a mandatory, volunteer-focused military service model on boosting defense against threats like Russia but would you really enlist in the German Army (Bundeswehr) or refuse instead of adhereing to politicians interests?
I’ve heard a similar thing in France with them introducing a new voluntary 10-month military service program for 18-19 year olds starting this summer 2026, but would guys there be willing to enlist or outright refuse? What ever the case is, would guys in Europe either accept voluntary military service imposed by their nation or refuse to enlist as they know that politicians are the ones who instigate wars in the first place?
For EU nations that still have the draft enforced (mandatory conscription): what happens if guys refuse it? Do they end up in jail? In that case, would you rather be imprisoned for refusing or comply? I know that some countries have alternative service (civic) rather than conventional military service, but what happens if the individual refuses either? I mean, is it a criminal offense for simply refusing conscription?
In short: I’d refuse, oppose it and campaign against it.
I owe politians nothing. The rethoric about patriotism, duty and all the other arguments commonly used to carry forward pro-draft, pro-defense, pro-rearmament, etc, are hollow.
There are bad actors in this world but politians still confuse public office with unbridled authority and people allow for it like sheep.
Draft as been talked about in my country (Portugal) a few years back, by people that never served as military, from a “conservative” sector of society, using arguments gravitating about ingraining “values” about patriotism, discipline and sacrifice to the younger generations.
Translation: you are to be braiwashed, forced to obey, never question and die where and when ordered.
I risk most will defend their home and family at the risk of cost of their health and life if a bad actor arises. But that in no way leads to the logic for need of a standing army.
Peace is peace. Armed peace is a veiled threat.
You say “…if a bad actor arises.” But we already have those bad actors at our doorstep, they don’t need to arise. I don’t think we would be able to defend against Russia if we didn’t have standing armies. A quickly mounted militia is no match for a standing army, so I would say there is a pressing need and logic for a standing army.
Admittedly, Portugal is at the other end of Europe and not really threatened by Russia, but arguing against standing armies in general because it would be other nations fighting for you is a bad argument imo.
But I actually agree. Armed peace is a veiled threat. A threat against Russia (and other hostile nations) to leave the European Nations and democracy in peace.
Many people in the world will disagree with that view.
A standing army is a lumbersome beast. It requires supplies for both machines and soldiers, space, infrastructure.
A loosely organized resistance can severely hinder or even cripple such a force with assimetric warfare.
People fighting for a belief fight with resolution.
I mean, yeah sure, but a lot of people in the world would also agree with me. Neither of those things make a point though.
It may be more cost-effective, but definitely not human-life-effective. I guess it depends on what you value more. Money and and materials or human life? Because I can guarantee asymmetric warfare costs a lot of lives. I mean just ask the Vietnamese if they would rather have had an army capable of fighting the US. Or the Iraqi. Or ask the Ukrainians if they prefer their army fighting Russia or having to fight civilian asymmetric warfare. You don’t want to have a civilian fighting force against a foe that has invested in a modern military with Anti Air, tanks, missiles, drones, trained personnel.
I personally prefer paying the price of war in money and materials than in the lives of my fellow citizens.
I don’t disagree but are you implying that this is not true for a standing army?
Plus whoever organises these resistances will end up as an Organisation akin to an army anyway. So you just end up with what you didn’t want but only weaker and less able to defend against an attacker.
It can be risked, with a fair degree of confidence, considering what is transpiring from the ongoing wars that what is considered conventional warfare is changing at a tremendous speed.
Air superiority, conventional artilery, mobile armour, highly sophisticated and expensive weapons systems are being rendered useless, powerless or at least less than superior, by cheaper, often disposable solutions.
This entire combat landscape change, in my view, is the early warning of a deeper trend where human resources will be much more valuable than machinery and conventional armies are a liability, not an asset.
Small, highly mobile, capable of underground, covert operation groups - guerrilla warfare - will be a game changer.
I agree that warfare is changing fast. But I don’t think the changes so far support your Idea of guerilla-warfare being better than having a standing army.
Staying with the example of Ukraine (which I believe is the best example of the type of war we would be having here in Europe), I don’t see how guerrilla warfare would be better than how they are fighting the war right now (With a standing army). But maybe you could showcase how that would be the case?
I also don’t quite understand how this would even work without a standing army. Who trains these covert operation groups? Because you can’t start training them when you are attacked, at that point it’s way too late. So you need an Organisation that trains them, in which case we just end up with a standing army again.
A standing army is mostly cannon fodder. The common soldier does not have skills or competences to make an individual difference in combat situation, regardless of how much training they had. Even less if that soldier was drafted, in contrast to a volunteer, which was the original premise that led the conversation here.
One thing is to maintain a small contingent of professional, trained, military personnel, to bolster civilian organizations in case of catastrophe, act as first line of defense in case of armed conflict, either from outside threat or inside, act in conflict areas as stabilizing presence, etc.
A completely different thing is to maintain an overwhelming force, technically on permanent standy-by, capable of presenting a threat towards another country.
A professional, organized, highly skilled, flexible, volunteer, force can churn out in a very short time window cannon fodder, from drafted personel, or train well prepared small units to be involved in assymetric warfare.
Returning to the Russia/Ukraine example: Russia is making use of their historical doctrine of flooding the battle field with bodies, after their original “blitzkrieg” idea failed. Ukraine is moving towards highly specialized units, capable of attacking and moving, to quite successfully, ruinning the offensive of the invader, after expending their regulat troops on the first wave.
I’m a little confused as to what your definition of a standing army is?
Because this:
and this:
is a standing army. Highly specialized units have been part of standing armies for long time now. Those Ukrainian Units you are describing are part of a standing army. Mostly conscripted by the way. You don’t get these professional units without having a standing army.
This is the definition of a standing army as per wikipedia:
“A standing army is a permanent, often professional, army. It is composed of full-time soldiers who may be either career soldiers or conscripts. It differs from army reserves, who are enrolled for the long term, but activated only during wars or natural disasters, and temporary armies, which are raised from the civilian population only during a war or threat of war, and disbanded once the war or threat is over. Standing armies tend to be better equipped, better trained, and better prepared for emergencies, defensive deterrence, and particularly, wars.”
Edit: Formatting
deleted by creator
Please read my comment again.
Deleted… Read through too fast. Silly me.
No worries
I’m hypothetically in favor of abolishing war machines as well, but this can only be achieved if workers organize internationally to overthrow their and every other state everywhere in the world simultaneously. States are literally war machines funded by taxes; everything else they do is done to the extent it helps pacify the people who’d otherwise organize themselves and rise against borders, conscription and being governed rather than governing ourselves. I also understand that fighting against states will probably be comparable to a war in terms of bloodiness and chaos, and will have to repeat whenever a new gang appears and tries to become a state.
I don’t think collective agreements to de-arm internationally would need every state to be overthrown. It just needs more democracies, more stability and the insight that everyone profits from long-term peace. But the level of cooperation needed would just be unmatched. Its much easier for one actor to arm and then every neighbor needs to follow suit
I strongly agree about an unmatched level of cooperation being urgently needed for feats like slowing down climate change, but disagree that states are the type of organization required to even imagine it. Every state in history is exactly that, an armed actor, a gang who has militarily forced its way through enough territory to do protection racket over entire peoples. Gangs might introduce democratic elements (parliament, constitution) for efficiency and to calm down those people whom they don’t yet have the potential to repress. Gangs might recruit local population to sustain their numbers or provide skills and knowledge. Gangs might provide a few socially welcome policies in the territories they control, as long as they’re in charge of the provision and haven’t found a way to survive while avoiding them altogether. Gangs might call a truce and maintain it for many years while they’re fighting a bigger, more powerful gang. Some gangs have sold away a part of their weapons and instead rely on protection from neighbor gangs with more impressive arsenals. They’re still gangs, self-sustaining machines of violence, organized armed actors deontologically doomed to set the world on fire, precisely because if one armed actor decides to do good, other armed actors will eat him alive.
Thats a really negative interpretation of what a state is. I think many people benefit from the state having a monopoly on violence in democratic countries with strong protection for minorities. If the state didn’t exist the minorities would have to protect themselves. If there was no state groups would emerge instantly and minorities and the disabled would be at threat for the despotism of the masses. I’m happy there is the police I can call when someone is infringing on my rights or that there is a system of courts. But this is more of a philosophical argument than anything else
The existing protections for minorities, if we trace them to Stonewall and the Civil rights movement, are won by minorities organizing self-defense and causing enough ruckus when discriminated that the state starts worrying about its monopoly on violence. Then, when the state, against the discrimination by which the minorities have successfully organized, has a cultural and economic hegemony, the won rights slowly “trickle down” to some (but not all) of its allies, but are quickly rolled back at a whim when their leadership changes if there’s no functioning self-defense remaining and widely supported.
It’s very important not to disband the self-defense after any concession, and to organize it even, especially, when achieved peacefully. I’m from an Eastern European country where LGBT people don’t currently have self-defense, instead trusting the police and NGOs who started promising them protection because European integration requires that. Their promise is an utter lie; there are hundreds of attacks by boneheads (who are not the masses, but rather an extension of the state’s arm of violence) every year and the police does next to nothing, with the NGOs urging the attacked people and their friends to limit themselves to petitioning their representatives, who also do nothing.
What I’m trying to say is, the minorities have to protect themselves whether the state exists or not, and where the state exists, the defense has largely to be targeted against the state discrimination, the police violence, and the religious and press propaganda supported by the state. Once a group is able to protect themselves and their friends, it starts being respected by the majority of the people, so the despotism of the masses is not a threat, unlike the states, who have illegalized and then starved or otherwise killed minorities en masse numerous times. There are states where the situation is at the moment better, but that’s in such contrast to what states in general have done in the past that I can’t help but realize that the protections are temporary and under threat of a rollback at any moment.
This seems to be more of a gripe with your government honestly. I was speaking about countries with strong protection for minorities. I still think its better to have some protection than to have to fend for yourself again the masses. I definitely reject anarchy from an ideological standpoint. I get the appeal but don’t think things would be better for most people. I have gripes with many things regarding politics but I still stand behind that for the number of people we have the state is also needed from an organizational standpoint to apply rules for all, even if that not always happens perfectly. Orderly society wouldn’t exist in the same way without it
I understand your position, despite disagreeing with it, as it was once mine as well. Would you mind answering two questions on a related, but different topic, closer to OP? First, when a more authoritarian party comes to rule in your country, are you confident they’ll keep conscription more-or-less volunteer, or will one of the first things they do, besides stripping minority rights, be making refusal punishable, canceling alternative service options, widening the recruitment age range and making most people with disabilities not “serious” enough serve as well? Second, since the war on Europe has been ongoing for twelve years, why wait until your country is invaded, and not go here to help defend so that it doesn’t get to the point when your state or a neighboring state of yours is invaded?
For Question 1: I believe there is the possibility for them to try. Technically our constitution says that you’re able to be refuse service (I’m german). But they could certainly try to move against the law. In this position if things got really bad I’d probably try to leave my country.
For Question 2: I would not wait for my country to be invaded. I would not go to a foreign country by myself without like being drafted and sent by my country. I certainly stated before that I would defend my country, and if I served the EU and NATO. But before the 2022 with the Russian attack barely anyone knew or talked about Ukraine. In that regard I do wish to help them with more military aid but I’m not willing to fight myself for Ukraine. If a war from Russia with NATO were to happen I would at least have my country and the entire alliance behind me making strong war efforts to fend of Russia, whereas now the aid is in part slowly and reluctantly sent. I’m not as willing to risk my life for Ukraine as I am for my country or even the EU directly. I certainly think arming to be able to defend makes sense but I don’t think Russia will go immediately attack NATO once the war with Ukraine ends and in a direct confrontation I don’t think Russia would outperform NATO, as economically Russia is no match. I don’t know where I’m going or if I lost my red thread. I don’t want to die but I’m willing to put up a fight and take a risk if I feel threatened enough. The fact is european leaders keep saying “the fate of ukraine is the fate of europe”. I don’t believe that to be fully true. When the war started washington offered to evacuate Zelensky, not send arms. Europe is on the side of Ukraine, but a partial Ukrainian loss will not mean the end for the EU and our collective freedom, even if it was a dark overcast. Many expected Ukraine to fall in the early days of the war. So I guess I can say I would do the task to serve if I was drafted as a duty, I would maybe serve in peace time and fight when demanded of me or serve to rather fight than die as civilian casualty if my side had a legit reason to fight and was not the aggressor or fighting a random war overseas. But I’m not willing to go to a foreign country to volunteer as the brutality of war is very much apparent for me. Even if the fate of Ukraine matters for Europe, the EU will not automatically crumble with it and a partial loss for Ukraine is more problematic for Ukraine than for the EU.
A state is a necessary organism within a country. What is unnecessary is the ease with which polititians move into a space where they think themselves as untouchable, unaccountable and unquestionable.
To occupy a position of responsability is exactly that: a position of responsability. This implies the appointing must be short, highly supervised and the actions must be transparent and easily auditable. It is not a life long appointment, with unchecked and unlimited reach and power, as we see commonly done today.
The very notion of state must change. The state is the sum of all individuals contained within a country’s borders. They all must enjoy the same rights and protections in and from the law and be capable of actively intervene on the governance of the nation, with a government assigned to do the general management.
To use a quote I find very much enlightning: people should no fear their governments; governments should fear their people.