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?
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