Would you accept or refuse the draft if your country decided to reinstate it?
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?
Swede here, we had conscription when I came of age, so I was called to muster.
I went, and promptly failed the first test, the hearing test, I got a pass and didn't have to do it.
At the time I was glad, I was scared, I didn't want to do it, these days I think it would have been a valuable experience.
Anyway, I believe Sweden is worth fighting for, should we come under attack, I would get in touch with the civil defense and do my part.
As a Finn, it's good to hear that you've got our back.
It was a sad day for us when Sweden switched from a conscription army to the much smaller version it is today.
Interesting tidbit, it was explained to us in the military as a move made because you felt safe with us as the defending wall between you and the eastern aggressor.
Now as part of NATO, I hope you'll come to our aid none the less.
Oh, it was an absolute shit decision to get rid of conscription here.
We don't have the resources to provide enough benefits to attract enough people to join the military on their own, so conscription is the only realistic way forward.
I am a strong believer helping our neighbors if they come under attack, even if the government won't, and I know I am not alone with that viewpoint.
Well.. Sweden is Swedish until the last Finn falls as the saying goes.
Not sure about today, a few years after I mustered conscription was stopped, then for 15 years or so, we had no conscription, but a few years ago it was reinstated.
If you were selected back when most men was conscripted, you had the option to pick a weapon free service, you still had to serve, but in the civilian world, say like a firefighter or similar. Complete refusal would eventually lead to prison time.
When I mustered, they were completely open with the fact that if you didn't want to do it, it would be taken into account, and mostly respected, depending on the circumstances.
They didn't really want people who didn't want to be there.
We already have military conscription here in lithuania, along with the voluntary service
I did get conscripted to it (and didn't have to do it, on account of failing my medical exams), but prior to that, my opinion on military service was more or less that I wouldn't join the military if the call was for some war in the middle east, but if russia ever started throwing more than illegal planes and spy drones over the border and something had to be done about it, then I would've been more likely to, I suppose ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Switzerland: my dad had to go to prison for a limited time for refusing military service and had to do an alternative service as well.
I was able to opt-out military in a normal way (just filling a form) and do the alternative service without going to jail, as this was changed in the time between
But the alternative service are 1.5x times the days you have to serve
I live in Japan and can't be drafted as a non-citizen. Living here, I'm not sure what either of my citizenship countries could do to actually draft me. Also in my mid-40s, colorblind, and with several parts of me held together by screws and plates, so I'm not exactly at the top of any list.
So you're an alien cyborg?
More or less. Nothing electronic in me yet... that I know of.
You are partially bullet-proof!
Not in the most important parts, heh
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
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.
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.
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?
Please read my comment again.
Deleted.. Read through too fast. Silly me.
No worries
I think it really depends on the foreign policy of the country you live in. I would argue most European countries are unlikely to start offensive wars but would rather be defending against Russia for example. European countries are especially weary of offensive wars after what the US and UK pulled in order to make them join the Iraq War.
In this light, yes, I do believe it is the right choice to bolster our armies in Europe. I wanted to join myself but it seems my shoulder is too fucked for that.
But it is also a risk, since it could always happen that right wing extremists, like the afd in Germany, could come into power and then you're stuck working for a military at the behest of fascists.
I believe we have to take that risk in order to protect European democracy. We just need to also do everything in our power to not let the fascists win elections in Europe.
I mean military service is limited time. And in germany you can always refuse to do military service so if the AfD came to power you could just refuse.
Yes, true enough. I suppose any penalties would be well worth it in order not to be serving the likes of afd.
Under no circumstance am I going to war. If they draft me I will appear there stoned as hell. My drug Test shall glow in the dark.
I also have some medical conditions, mist of which have not really been diagnosed, so I highly doubt that they would recruit a seemingly drug addict with various medical conditions for which they might have to pay.
Senior year I told a recruiter my medical history and they never called again. I still have that medical history and I'm not 18 anymore. If they raise the age of the draft I'll drag out that old chestnut. If things get so bad they still want me to serve I'd probably stop taking the medicine I have to take as a result of my past and let them deal with the mess. I won't be my problem I'll be their problem.
recruiters wont want to deal with someone that needs a waiver, its time consuming and you likely wont even get a approved medically. common ones are eczema, psorasis and ASTHMA that are almost guaranteed not to be waived. because all 3 are easily triggered by enviromental triggers.
I did participate in my mandatory military conscription. Was excited for it. Learned some habits that I'm sure have helped me since. Alternative would've been jail, which sounded like an overall bad idea.
There are pacifist roles (medics, firefighters, ...) for those that don't want to handle a gun.
I'm French, and I'm also a trans woman. I have a feeling that if a draft was to come into effect, my legal status as a woman would be bizarrely revoked in a heartbeat, for some reason. However, this country can get fucked, and I would rather die on my own terms than die for it. it. As for your question of imprisonment, as I said, I'm a trans girl and I know what will happen to me in a men's prison, so, as I said, die on my own terms.
I'm not being sent to the slaughterhouse just because one dude's ego was so massive that he decided that he wanted to be remembered in history and therefore thought that starting a war would be the best way to do so or to further the interests of a bunch of dickheads protecting a system that should have died decades ago and of some corporation benefiting from it.
I will fight to defend our rights to express ourselves, love who we want, be who we want.
The biggest and most immediate threat to these values are our governments. Implementing surveillance policies under the disguise of protecting children, while failing to bring those to justice that are actually harming them. (Epstein is the current example, the abuse in the church has been known for decades more)
Corrupt politicians are representing the ultra rich and multinationals instead of the people, funneling our tax money into their own pockets and blaming immigrants and asylum seekers when underfunded infrastructure fails. Fueling the fire that enables the political shift to the right without any regard for the consequences.
In short... the answer is NO, there is no government worth fighting for. There is no government that represents me.
I'm pacifist and anti militaristic so no. But I would join the civil defence if we came under attack.
The problem is when you come under attack the training takes too long to be fully effective.
I'm a fan of the Swiss model personally. Rig all your bridges with explosives and live in the most mountainous land possible.
Oh one more thing about Sweden.
We have a concept called Totalförsvar, Absolute Defense, which means that everyone living in Sweden between the ages of 16 and 70 may be required to serve regardless of gender.
Foreign citizen may even be included depending on the situation.
This also include service after say, a nuclear accident, you may required to help with the cleanup, refusal can be punished with up to four years of prison time.
Sure. I'm fit, I'm outdoorsy so I'm used to sleeping in a forest and such, I know how to handle a gun, did some very basic military training years ago, I'm not squeamish or anything. I think I would handle it quite well. I also think my country is worth defending, I wouldn't simply let it fall under the rule of some invaders.
Nah... this is about cheap oil and keeping pedophiles out of prison.
Millions of young men have died on bullshit ideology in wars.
I'm talking about draft in my country, not in your country.
OP is Canadian, even. Since WWII we've only really fought in the NATO-mandatory wars. Before that whatever Britain was fighting.
You're in c/Europe
Depends on the reason. If it is to protect my loved ones and fellow citizens from losing their freedom from a violent conquering foreign power then most likely I would show up for the draft, still scared shitless though. If it was for a deranged, debauched, degenerate leader who wanted to cover up some of his crimes then no, I'd be on my way to Montreal.
Gladly too old for it.
If I were young now, I would try very hard to avoid it.
I mean, Finland does have conscription, but I was exempt from it for peacetime for medical reasons and if that hadn't been an option I probably would've done civil service instead. In both cases I'd technically still be subject to draft in wartime, though probably wouldn't be put into a combat role.
That being said, I don't know if I would seek to flee abroad if the draft did go into action. Putting my life on the line to defend the neoliberal world order against an only somewhat worse (Russian) world order is not an enticing prospect, and my faith in the Finnish and European system becoming anything but neoliberal is at an all time low.
The US doesn't --- and has never had --- mandatory peacetime service of the "one serves six months or a year or something like that to be trained in military stuff during peacetime", but if one is male, one does need to register so that in the event of a war where people are called up, one does need to serve then.
It also means that the US has to train people from scratch in a war where it needs them, so has a relatively-long time until it can greatly ramp up its forces if it needed them.
The only draft I would accept is a police instead of a military one. Force some civilian eyes on how cops handle themselves, wash the profession enough so that it has to survive public scrutiny or otherwise get eventually called out on it.
Accept. Any war Canada fights before I'm too old is going to be for a very good reason. (Not technically Europe, but we're trying)
People can refuse and do civil service here in germany. If I was drafted I would do my service because I believe my country and Europe in general is worth defending and there is a lot to be learned even if I don't wish to die. There are also a lot more things to be learned on a personal level even if it hopefully never comes to a direct military confrontation. I would most certainly want the service to not only include men this time as I would find this to lowkey be against gender-equality, as I believe it has to be equal in both directions.
I don't believe I would willingly die for any abstract country or concept, but I would certainly risk my life to defend it. I would much rather risk my life to protect the people I love and the European Union with all it stands for than just let Russia take over and destroy our collective future.
I honestly think if it came to a hard confrontation war would be pretty costly for both sides but there is no way Russia would get the better of us if we sticked together.
But I guess this doesn't mean much because I actually thought about serving a year voluntarily (although the timing didn't line up and I would have had to take 2 years break since they need 3/4 months to find a spot for me to serve)
You can be "lucky" and not seen as fit for the military. Or you can apply for civil protection. Should you be in the military they will try to keep you and i personally dont know of a way out. Maybe if youre wealthy and have top lawyers.
They have an Achilles heel tho; If you start mentioning extreme backpain you might be out soon. They dont want to pay for crippling you/chronic backpain.
As for the jail part. You were drafted and refuse?--> straight to jail
You are a recruit/soldier or whatever and you dont follow orders?---> straight to militaryjail
Militaryjail is full so you are lucky right? Wrong you go straight to jail.
Jail is full? Preparations are on the way for extracells.
You feel like a tool for the state? You are.
Germany had conscription until 2011, men turning 18 were required to be mustered until then, and, if qualified, had to go through a basic military training for a couple of months. Even when qualified for military service, you could pick an alternative in lieu of military service, which was some kind of social service, like helping in an old people's home or hospital, amongst other things.
The law for conscription in Germany is also dormant, not abolished, so it could be re-activated any time... and I for one would welcome it being reinstated, for all genders. Working with people and doing something that is important for society at that age was a grounding experience that me and my fellow Xennials wouldn't want to have missed, even though we were not too keen on the whole thing back when we were 18. There was a palpable delta in maturity between those that went through military or social service and those who went to study right away, especially in those that studied go into some bullshit job, like business administration.
I would only agree to the law being re-activated if there was a compulsory civil service for people after being retired as well though. People become lonely and egotistical when they get old, and I believe that getting people to contribute to society for a year or so (not full-time) after they have focused on themselves and their careers for decades is urgently needed. Might cure the electoral behavior a bit as well (old people tend to lean more to the right).
I'd want to see this in the netherlands as well. Don't care for the old folk's part, but some kind of conscription, be it military or otherwise, would be good for the country.
They can already call me back as it is: I swore an oath to the Queen and the King inherited it. No need to draft me, I'm already on the list.
Not for this shit hole of a country government that has been the USA for a long ass time. I won't go to jail either for evading it.
Croatia recently introduced conscription that lasts two months (three or four months for civil service) and I won't be called because I'm too old but I am seriously considering volunteering because I believe I could learn some skills (working with stress) that will help me in life.
Mandatory military service breeds corruption and violence, there's a reason many countries abolished it. You are putting hundreds of dumbass teenage boys, whose parents weren't rich enough to afford a waiver, all together governed by people who intentionally went into service (often not the brightest kind to say the least) and expect good things to happen. Countries that have immediate concern for invasions from neighbours should invest in an actual paid standing army, if they can't - too fucking bad.
Last time I was part of conscription, I sent in my objection letter, and served Germany as a paramedic.
No regrets, 100% would do it again.
I'm in the USA and am medically unfit for service.
Hunter Thompson was a famous american iconoclast and no friend to the oligarchy. He served in the Air Force and said that the draft was a good thing, because it forced all kinds of people to interact and work together.
Another Vietnam era draftee once wrote that a professional army is full of lifers who will obey any order, no matter how illegal. A drafted civilian who doesn't care about their military career will stand up for what's right.
I'm quite glad to see that most of the answers are positive here. It used to be the other way around, of course this thread is not representative of the whole Europe, but anyways..
I'm a Finn, so I went. My plan was to do the minimum and get the hell out of there. But after 6 weeks I liked the guys in my group, I actually enjoyed having to actually do something different for a change, not just sit at the computer or go to band practice/gigs. So when the 8 week starting period ended and it became time to choose what you want to "specialize" in, I checked the boxes for NCO and officer training. Didn't get to go for the officer training but got to go to be a NCO. I was in the artillery. My job was to figure out where we were and which direction we were pointing. So I learned a lot of stuff about maps, that was fun because I love maps. I also learned how to take the position and direction from the moon and stars, that was fun because I love stars and space shit. I learned a bunch of other skills as well. If I were a dictator, I'd force everyone to go, at least for 5-6 months. You learn skills that you might not need, sure, but you also learn stuff that you didn't know you needed.
Over the years I've heard people say "I wouldn't go because my country is not worth fighting for." I would understand that if you are from russia or some such place. But so many Germans have said it to me and I'm just baffled by that. Like okay, I get it, the government is shit. But in a war, you are not defending just the government, you are defending your family, friends, your house, the park you walk through, the way you live, the way your neighbor lives. Are those not worth defending? I'm fine if you are a pacifist and wont take up arms, thats fine. But if you say your country is not worth defending and you live in Europe, thats just ridiculous.
I'm a misanthrope and I hate most people, but if someone tries to come to my yard and start some shit, I'm gonna go fight, out of spite, if not for anything else. I want to hate people in my own terms, I want to tell people to fuck off in Finnish in Finland. Not in russia.
Well, I have a lot of thoughts about your text. I've been a conscript in the German military around 2007. It was a fascist infested environment back then, it is worse today. A lot of officers openly revered the Wehrmacht, one officer candidate called another conscript "you jewish pig" and so on and so forth. So, there's that. But the most thoughts I had about "fighting for something", so let's go through it:
OK, so I fight at the front while maybe they are bombed at home. I'd rather use my skills to take the Balkan route the other way around with them to safety
I don't have a house, probably never will own one, cannot afford. I would be defending the house of my landlord who owns 6 houses. I don't see the need.
It is a nice park, but the playgrounds for my children are broken, as "we don't have the money to fix them". Yeah, right, maybe ask my landlord about where that money is. The austerity kills everything beautiful in the cities, but apparently "there's no alternative". So in five years time the park is not worth defending anymore.
You mean slaving in a soulless office for scraps, that will never buy me a home (see above), while politicians tell me "you need to work more for your country, oh, btw, we cannot afford social security and healthcare anymore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" All the while my kids go crazy with all the pressure and constant crisis around them.
Not gonna defend that asshole. He wants to ban gay marriage, deport brown people and thinks renewable energy will, idk, kill him or something.
I mean, yeah, it's oc very cynical, but that is the gist of it.
When the Ukraine war started, I made a plans. If russia would have attacked us, I made a plan for my (now ex) German girlfriend to join my parents and for them to go to my sisters house in the north west of the country and from there over to Sweden, from there possibly back to Germany or just stay in Sweden. I would have gone to the front lines while they do that.
So instead of paying rent, you'd rather have your house bombed to the ground? Seems a bit weird but okay..
So the better option is to let a russian tank roll over the remains of the park and maybe set up a air defense system there?
"Things are bad now so I'm fine with them getting horribly bad. I work in a horrible job so I'm okay if bombs start raining on peoples houses."
"My neighbor is a bigoted arsehole, so I'm fine with the whole neighborhood being razed to the ground"
Might be cynical but that's how I hear what you are saying.
"I am not willing to fight and die for the stuff I don't find that good and rather flee"
is very different from
"I find it better if everything and everybody burns"
like you interpreted what I wrote.
Well that's what it sounds like to me. You'd rather let the pan fire get out of hand, run outside and hope the fire department gets there in time, rather than covering the pot with a fire blanket or a lid.
Seems like I didn't finish my thought there, I was in the middle of only my second cup of morning coffee, sorry for being a bit unclear!
But yes, I would include the US in "russia or some such place." I would argue that the US has not fought a defensive war since 1945. So I would exclude them from the "defending your country" thing. If you join the US armed forces, you are not going to defend your country, if anything, you are making the world more dangerous for your fellow countrymenwomen.
So if you are a American, I probably agree with any and all reasons to not join the military. But thats also why I included the bit about "if you are European" in my original post.
I'm not sure about Finland or the EU, but often or not the US one involves the MIC (sotateollinen kompleksi) in which is the relationship between defense companies and the government, in a business sense - they profit from war via the arms trade as weapons are used in wars made by those companies.
Yes, another good reason for not dying for the benefit of the US corporate world.
Does Finland have a MIC? (And yes, the US shouldn't be considered a country, more like a corporation).
We do. Patria and Sako probably the biggest ones.
We do have Patria and sako, patria mainly produces versatile armoured vehicles to be used as apcs/mounted with weapon systems they also produce mortar systems and some other things, Sako produces small arms
In a very unlikely scenario they decide to drsft me, I would happily refuse.
I'm saying this as the perspective of a Swede that trusts his government.
Yes. I think military basic training is a good thing. My generation was not drafted/conscripted due to incredibly low budget. But it has since then increased.
You're first sent to "mönstring" where your physical abilities are tested. And from there, you may or may not be selected.
Failing to enlist after being drafted or conscripted is a criminal offense. Straight to jail.
We also have something called "total defense" where if we are attacked. Everyone between the age of 16 to 70 must enlist to serve their country. The manner of which you do will vary, it can be civil duty, it can be military duty, it can be that you continue with your life as is, or that you are now driving transport trucks for the military, maybe you now work in an ammunition factory, maybe you do quality control of rifles, maybe you are now a nurse, doctors assistent. Or maybe you are deployed.
All and any information that resistance shall stop is false.
Yes, refusing draft is punishable by jail. I knew people that were hiding from MP for years. It's not like they had to hide in some basement but they definitely couldn't just live under their registered address. The risk of getting arrested was always there. There was some statue of limitations on it so you only had to hide until you're 28 or something like that.
As for your question, for me it depends on the war. If someone would try to draft to invade other country I would refuse. If other country invaded Spain I would defend it (well, not Catalonia or Pais Vasco obviously but other communities for sure).
Spain haven't invaded other countries in some time and there's pretty much 0 chance it will start drafting people for a war abroad. If it tried I would refuse.
I mean, does Spain really have a military industrial complex? Which is basically politico-military relations, like a "business" rapport between the government, armed forces and defense contractors? Are there even weapons manufactuers based & operated in Spain (like how the US has Raytheon)?
Every country has weapons manufacturers. It's a strategic industry and every country tries hard to maintain it. You don't want to end up in a situation where you import all your weapons because if shit hits the fan you can be completely cut off and defenseless. So typically government tries to prop up local industry by ordering weapons from them. If they are lucky they also sell something to other countries. Spain for example manufactures some airplanes for Airbus, like CASA and they assemble Eurofighters. They have their own submarine program and build their own navy. Indra is a really big company for example. But it's all tiny in comparison with US and not a corrupt so it's difficult to convince politicians to start a war just to sell more weapons.
Yes, it's a global economy and dependencies exist. Everyone is still trying to limit them as much as possible.
Welcome to Greece, where once you turn adult(18-19), you have to go to army. If you don't show up, police or stratonomia searches for you, and if you fully never show up, you are called insubordination, and you get fine around 6k and you go to military court. You get to serve 12 months on mainland, 9 in boarders. The only way to avoid it is if you have some kind of medical situation, pay for it or have someone to move the strings, and still they will accept you, but unarmed. Apart from it, the worst part, is the training, they teach you old stupid stuff, and the weapons are so bad that you can't even hit target, no matter how good you are! I did 9 months, and the training was the worst thing I ever done on a WW2 machinery. The thing is that training will probably change, as army is doing changes lately(Bless Niko Dendias). Will see.
What's the public opinion regarding Greek politicians? Is it worth fighting for the government? Speaking of that, I've heard that Americans who refused the draft back in the 60s crossed the Canadian border. I mean, can people in Greece just enter and hide in neighboring countries to avoid conscription?
Of course it's not worth fighting for a government that can't stop scandals going on and on IMO. I forgot to mention that we where used to get paid 8.50 euros per month, which a year after was raised, but still, what they expect us to do with 8.50??
You can leave the country, but after a while they call you deserter, and coming to Greece will be limited, I think max 3 months of stay.
Greek politicians have a bad reflection.
It's reality. There were people who couldn't afford to serve in another town, let alone the transport tickets.
What can you buy with 2,079.80€ (or 24,957€ for an entire 12 months) in Greece? Is it because their salary is being deprived (using the excuse, "taxes") but instead put into politicians pockets? I wonder...
In the USA, if they try to force me, I will chew our their jugulars and be shot on the spot. I will not die alone though I promise you.
Over my rotten corpse.
I did 20 years ago and I would do again. Can't enjoy living here and when something comes and threatens that put my hands up and let somebody else do the work.
My experience is that people who say they'll definitely enlist and who shame others for being "cowards", well, mostly haven't enlisted (too young, too sick, too activist, not AMAB, emigrated at first opportunity) since shit hit the fan. I haven't enlisted because I have chronic health issues; this didn't stop cops from distrusting my documents, detaining me and trying to forcefully enlist me. I'm supposed to go through the military medical commision every year but I don't trust them (only did it once), there's lots of neglect and abuse happening during the actual war; if I go through it again and this time they disregard my diagnoses, I'll face prison. I respect those who enlist though, and donated my enlisted friends money for equipment when I had a better salary; I also closed my civilian black-day deposit and lent the military money for a year (the profit covers a part of what I have to pay the lawyer who'll try to object to my illegal detention and fine).
I'd only accept it if we're fighting America. Otherwise I'd either refuse, or play along until they put a weapon in My hands and shoot the drill sergeant.