Edit: it's funny how the imd misogynistic ideas that women aren't as strong as men and women are baby makers come out in this debate. We are striving for equality aren't we? So that's irrelevant. A woman may not choose to have a baby anyway.
I'd like to make the feminist equality argument tbh.
If men get have to fill it in and potentially join the military to defend the nation, they should do so with women. We are a society striving for equality. Why should equality stop when it comes to protecting the nation? Uniting in brother and sisterhood in defence of a common idea or nation is how you get equality.
Why should it be equality in all things... except things that make us uncomfortable?
And before someone says...women can't be infantry...OK if u take that view then women can do many other jobs...drive a tank...command a tank...drive trucks...logistics...you know the sort of roles that the majority of the armed forces actually does.
So I don't think young men should be corralled to join the army at all....especially if women can just sit it out.
It literally renders all equality and talk of discrimination moot as when it matters most...the security and defence of the realm...suddenly that equality doesn't exist.
On Friday, the German parliament approved a legal change requiring all 18-year-old men to fill in a questionnaire about their fitness and willingness to serve in the military. For women, the questionnaire will remain voluntary.
Conscription is a violation of bodily autonomy, just as banning abortion is, and thus, feminists should oppose any form of conscription for men, just as much as we fight for abortion rights
I agree. But that's theory. We live in reality. Men are been conscripted. In that context then women must be too else we don't have equality. We have 2 tiers at least and then it raises allt of ugly questions like...if ur expected to be blown to bits fighting Russia while women stay at home and get laid (as some have implied) to have babies...that's not fair and those that face the drones ans barbed wire should be favoured.
I'm against conscription btw. I'm being deliberately hyperbolic to try and make rhe point btw.
When have feminism been about lowering people rights?
Feminism is about equality for all... That means raising the bar for everyone... Not lowering it....
Just tell the politicians maybe don't go to war with your neighbours.... The only state that benefits from this war is USA..m they forced us to pay tribute by buying their LNG oil and military...
These stupid European leaders have less respect from American than Russia have...
lol, “just don’t do war”. what if war comes to you? surrender and have your bodily autonomy reduced but now by hostile forces? nations that go wars definitely care about your rights, yeah sure. wake up from your (harmful) illusions, rights are not given, so there are duties if you want to keep your way of life
Not exactly. Denmark surrendered quickly, but because of that, they maintained more autonomy than similar countries who fought longer (like the Netherlands). They saw how the invasions went for richer, larger, and stronger countries and made a calculated decision. Based on others’ experience, Danes had a more subtle underground resistance and were able to move the vast majority of their Jewish population to safety in Sweden. Over 99% of Danish Jews survived the war, as compared to only 25% of Dutch Jews (granted, the regimes occupying Denmark and the Netherlands differed greatly, as well, but this was at least partially due to the amount of immediate resistance the Nazis faced in the Netherlands).
When have feminism been about lowering people rights?
Feminism is about equality for all... That means raising the bar for everyone... Not lowering it....
The same argument has been made multiple times.
It's simple: tldr I want equality when it suits me, but when it's uncomfortable, I don't.
Either you're a citizen of equal rights and responsibilities or you aren't
I think women are.
Fact is...wars happen. Implying preventing them is just a petition away is a joke...drenched in blood.
Look at the yazidis...women didn't fight from that group...they were all but wiped out...sold as slaves.. murdered etc.
If they had bee empowered and fought...maybe isis wouldn't have won so easily.
Same with the women of Afghanistan.
Fundamentally when people talk about equality they think of women in board rooms, they fixate in abortion and some other issues. But I've given 2 examples where women were sidelined...and suffered massively.
It's happening everyday.
In reality...and this is what your ideology (sorry if I'm assuming too much) ignores that rights and power stems from the power to say no. Not with a protest. But ultimately with arms if need be. Not to be gifted rights. But to take them.
The feminist argument for Afghanistan fixated on schools and clothes...it should have focussed in infantry training school and uniforms.
These stupid European leaders have less respect from American than Russia have...
And the far right supports America as well....
I'm not talking about American politics. Its warped.
Yes most civilized countries now have volunteer military instead of conscription based military. I’m against conscription, but not against making military service seem like a better deal so people want to join. But conscription should be off the table for all people.
In the ideal world, yes, a military consisting only of volunteers is the best option. But say not enough people want to join the military, then what do you do when attacked by an aggressor? Surrender your state and it's autonomy to live under the rule of an oppressive country??
If you value your country and the things it consists of, i.e. it's ideals, structure, the opportunities you're given there and so on, I think you should do your part to protect those things if worst comes to worst. I know I will.
That is why you incentivize military service. The US does that by offering free college to military members. There are ways to incentivize service without force
The US is so successful in its voluntary military service because social policy is so poor here that just the base signing bonus is enough to get people to join. I think there’s an argument to be made that if the US had robust social policies like many European states there would be far fewer citizens willing to serve voluntarily.
those would have been kurds, not afghanis ,and they played a large role in protecting the yazidis when the Isis genocide was happening. the yazidis did not have a female militia at the time although the kurds later helped them set one up.
True. And isis believed if they were killed by a woman, they couldn't go to paradise so the female kurdish units were pretty effective in fighting them too.
Most feminists are against forced conscription for both men and women. In the US, women fought against men being killed in Vietnam before they had legal bodily autonomy themselves (i.e. safe and legal access to abortion).
Then this should be of utmost priority to feminism and there should be an enormous amount of widespread outrage, since it's the largest attack on gender equality that has taken part in the west in the last century.
There would be such outrage if for some reason this was the other way around, you couldn't even DREAM of pulling this shit on women without the mother of all shitstorms ensuing.
It's fucking exhausting to go through these motions. 90%+ of feminists only ever give a shit about women, period. Can we just call a spade a fucking spade? A good chunk of feminists actually hate men, and the more radical the feminist, the more hate you will find. That's why the feminist movement may choose to split over the comparatively obscenely fucking inconsequential issue of trans women, but nobody ever got called a fucking "MERF" if they exclude men from the movement even if that's 50% of the goddamned population.
Like god fucking damn can we all stop pretending we don't know this? It's exhausting.
The reality is that this conscription barely passed, and we must fight to end it in the name of gender equality and bodily autonomy, you should NOT be expected to be blown to bits no matter your gender
Feminism has fought against conscription, we need to fight against it now, we must make clear that this is illiberal and sexist and also a violation of bodily autonomy
We have many examples of feminists fighting against it, we need to make it front policy again
Western Europe was protected then by the US Military which is no longer the case. Europe needs to step up and fill that void. And that's what Germany is doing.
Isnt current EU combined already stronger than Russia ? Why not go for better military cooperation between EU nations instead of enslaving their own population ?
I'm not necessarily in disagreement about nuclear weapons being needed. But the threshold of using them and especially if they're controlled by someone else than the country under attack is a precarious situation to be in. Will the French nuke Russia if a Baltic country or Scandinavia is attacked, no matter where those weapons are placed? That's a big if.
A large and capable European military force is a deterrent so we don't have to get to the point where we have to hope the French come through for us. And that's definitely a weak point in nuclear deterrence that Russia would be willing to try and test unless there's sufficient conventional military force ready to take them on.
I wonder, since you're championing feminism here, but also championing spreading nukes around. By your logic, Iran should have nukes - they certainly have plenty of reason to fear attack. But otoh Iran isn't exactly very feminist. I wonder which of your impulses would take precedence in this case? And no, you don't get to posit a different, feminist govt. for Iran. Current theocratic Iran, with nukes.
Professional armies could be a deterrent during the cold war because there was a conscription that allowed more professional soldiers to be on the frontline instead of tending to the medical, maintenance and logistical tasks. It wasn't useless to have conscript, because it gives volume and depth to the army.
The Soviet Union was an empire; Russia isn't but wants to rebuild its empire again (Putin refers to Dugin's Foundation of Geopolitics and its imperialistic view). However, contrary to the Cold War, part of its empire and now within the EU. In Russia's view, we have taken what was theirs. This means war against the countries of the EU as a block. We don't have a Russia that signed a Yalta now.
Putin declared that he wants the Russian army to be the second-biggest after China's (official decree taken in 2024). If a peace treaty is signed in Ukraine, Russia could replenish its force to launch a new attack. If this succeeds, Russia will have at its disposal an enourmous volume of men and weapons to fuel the next attacks - just like Hitler's relatively weak army did with the massive stock of Czech weapons and industrial capacity seized after the annexation of Czechoslovakia.
Russia currently has the assistance of China for the development of their new drones and also intelligence gathering, let alone economical support. They're not alone.
Nuclear weapons are pretty useless if there's a certainty that they won't be used by Europe. This makes conventional deterrence (and thus army depth and volume) extremely important to offer a credible dissuasion force.
The whole argument hinges on the idea that Europe won't use nuclear weapons, when I ask for nuclear rearmament I am talking the whole shibang, more French nukes, more everywhere and nuclear tests to scare Russia and show we are serious
Bodily autonomy must not be violated, nukes must be used to guarantee our defense but they need to be a credible threat
I ask for nuclear rearmament I am talking the whole shibang
You ask for more than you realize. Do you think the rest of the world will just go quietly along with this blatant double standard? The west gets to proliferate nukes, but no one else? Yeah no. You're asking for a world where everyone that can seeks nukes. And you better be ready for the fallout of that, including literal fallout...
You are NOT a rule unto yourself. The world does not have to go along with whatever the west does, but they hypocritically can't.
I don't think that more countries having the nuke is bad, actually I think it could improve security if Iran had nukes, Israel wouldn't attach them so willy nilly
I strongly disagree, this position doesn't make sense.
Conventional forces were huge during the Cold War, along with conscription in the West. North Korea has a juge conventional force.
I prefer the position of the General de Gaulle. He saw that convention force wasn't enough. But when he created the French nuclear program, he also clearly stated that without a strong conventional force, the deterrent effect of nuclear force doesn't work either.
As for your "bodily autonomy" song, don't forget the other side of the coin, which is bodily harm that is inflicted when you don't deter your opponents.
Conscription in the constitution as part of the nation defense (and defense only) can absolutely be part of the citizen social contract. You have a responsability to help protect the society that supports you in time of peace, rights come with obligation.
This is taxation of labor and time instead of money.
What is disgusting in Germany is they expect the same obligations from people they've been selling out to capital and foreign interest for decade. No one outside the US should be conscripted to serve american imperialism (edit: no one should be conscripted for any imperialism really).
We violate bodily autonomy all the time such as via nonconsensual intervention for people who are a danger to themselves, searching and seizing persons and their immediate effects when detaining suspects, and requiring seatbelts and helmets and whatnot. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute rule and only anarchists treat it as such.
I would argue the interest of the state in winning wars outweighs the interest of some people to not fight in those wars. This was moreso true in the past but still holds up today (though we are in a very dire situation if Germany needs to draft).
I basically said the same and this sub is downvoting me.
It is crazy how people think that everybody should be oppressed just because one group is, instead of fight against oppression to all.
People here think thar feminism is only for women liberation but feminism is for women and men liberation, because feminism is the fight against patriarchy, and patriarchy oppress both women and men.
there is a long history of feminists fighting against conscription because it is a bodily autonomy violation, and if bodily autonomy violations are normalized, whats to say that they wont force pregnancies for the nation just as they force you to serve? We must fight together
Ok but like, if we finally achieve full bodily autonomy, can we then please come together to hold the line against that aggressive nation where domestic violence is legal and being openly gay is not? Or is the plan to just ignore that danger?
What we need is nuclear rearmament, French nukes need to be in every corner of the EU, we need at least 1000 to be dispersed all across the union, we can even lend some to turkey so that they can ditch the US ones
That's a dangerous game of chicken, you're telling the Russians that they can risk exchanging nukes with France over invading Estonia.
What's the actual risk there? Is Paris really willing to get nuked to challenge tanks rolling over the Baltics? If not, what's the actual red line then, how much can they take for free? Warsaw? Postdam? Berlin?
The nuclear threat won't be credible if Europeans not wanting to risk their lives at all is the crux of the issue. Having a conventional military that could respond to escalation gives more credibility to there being red lines to cross.
That only works if every country has their own nukes with their own launch codes. An interesting scenario, to say the least, but again, a country that’s not willing to go to war at all is not credible in saying that they’re willing to risk MAD over any square meter of theirs
Then the question is: how many square meters and which are worth burning it all down for? And the ones which aren’t, are for the taking
One of the organisers of this is a young woman, in German comment sections people like you argued she would be somehow hypocritical to get involved in something that wouldn’t even affect her.
Other than your imagination, all rights are given conditionally by the government.
Just as a murderer would be sent to prison for decades, in case of a nation’s existential war, everyone gets drafted, with certain roles not available for women.
Or, and here is a spicy idea, in times of war people lose both. When men get drafted to be soldiers, women get drafted to make babies to replace those men.
Just to add some context, when I was deployed (US military) there were 8 "support" troops for every 1 combat troop. It's not even just supply logistics ... it's ... finance, legal, medical/dental, etc.
Trying to make this about gender equality is just a strawman.
Young Germans are being served a shit sandwich, most of them refuse to eat it while people like you are trying to start a side debate along the lines of; “I’m all for eating shit sandwiches as long as the women have to eat them too!”.
When the whole point here is that nobody should be forced to eat shit sandwiches regardless of how their chromosomes look.
Trying to make this about gender equality is just a strawman.
Is it? Am I making it up that the questionnaire is mandatory for men and voluntary for women?
When the whole point here is that nobody should be forced to eat shit sandwiches regardless of how their chromosomes look.
But this theoretical point that you're using is theory. It's not reality. The reality is men are been mandatorily forced to register...women are not.
So how is it not about chromosomes?
Sorry but this is a matter of equality....worse its an issue of privilege. Not been called up to die in a ditch while being filmed by drones...that's a fucking privilege.
For what it's worth. Im against conscription. But I'm not naive enough to say it won't happen...its literally happening.
Men are been dragged off the streets in Ukraine.
We see wild mental gymnastics been applied in this thread also...when it suits...women are powerful bosses (something I agree with) but as soon as its about sacrifices on the battlefield...suddenly all the misogynistic ideas of women being baby makers...unfit for service...come out.
Is it? Am I making it up that the questionnaire is mandatory for men and voluntary for women?
The same parliamentary majority that’s needed to change the law to make it mandatory for women too could just as well abolish the conscription law as a whole.
Thats why that whole “But what about them women?!” Argument is a straw woman that’s completely besides the point.
Nobody is out there arguing that only men should serve, they would love to force everybody to serve to they have more bodies in their “strongest military of Europe.
In that context they are rally egalitarian: Men and women alike are allowed to die pointless deaths to drones and artillery.
Thats why that whole “But what about them women?!” Argument is a straw woman that’s completely besides the point.
It's completely a straw woman. It's totally nonsensical....except hold on....it isn't is it.
You simply don't like it. But there's nothing strawman about something that's written there in black and white.
The same parliamentary majority that’s needed to change the law to make it mandatory for women too could just as well abolish the conscription law as a whole.
And what did the parliamentary majority vote to do? To abandon equality. To once again...withhold true equality from my sisters.
It's misogynistic in the extreme.
Nobody is out there arguing that only men should serve, they would love to force everybody to serve to they have more bodies in their “strongest military of Europe.
Yes they are. It's literally the law in Germany and under discussion in France.
Sorry but yiu couldn't be more wrong. It's literally the opposite.
Exactly, it's only a "strawman" if you feel your opinion and agenda are the only salient discussion point surrounding the issue. You're taking a lot of flack here, but the "good ideas" & "philosophical human rights" vs what's real & required by the law of your state is a consideration that keyboard warrior idealists all over reddit fail to take into account, repeatedly.
If you feel like your rights are being violated what are you doing about it? Besides posting on reddit arguing with someone making a different but equally valid point.
Is it? Am I making it up that the questionnaire is mandatory for men and voluntary for women?
Yes it is. Literally the first quote if you click the Article.
The problem I have with it is that it shouldn’t be forced on anyone
People aren't protesting the gender difference they're protesting the whole thing.
It's like if they made a legislation that men have to pay 85% income tax and women had to pay 80% income tax. People protested the legislation And you came here trying to frame this as a gender issue falling for the red herring that it is.
People aren't protesting the gender difference they're protesting the whole thing.
No...but I'm critiquing it from a fairness and feminist perspective.
It's like if they made a legislation that men have to pay 85% income tax and women had to pay 80% income tax. People protested the legislation And you came here trying to frame this as a gender issue falling for the red herring that it is.
No...its like everyone talking about paying 80% but when it comes to paying it women paying it voluntarily.
Actually you know a better example of what it's like...its like...one group of people being potentially marched off to be slaughtered and another group...the group that has traditionally talked about and indeed suffered unfair
Mistreatment, not been.
One group facing death and the other group sitting it out
No...but I'm critiquing it from a fairness and feminist perspective.
And falling for the red herring that it is. That's the point.
The feminist answer to this is indeed about equality but not making the legislation equally mandatory, but making it equally voluntary.
Furthermore the people.pushing the legislation are mainly men, no? So really nonreason to.critique shit on it's consistency and taste and when you can just critique it because it is shit.
You'd think so, but a few weeks ago Switzerland voted 87% against equal conscription duties for women. So a large majority of the electorate, male and female, are against it.
I mean, they might, but it's worth considering from what angle. Most feminists lead the charge against legislating gender roles, and something like this certainly falls under that.
I imagine those that would vote against it are really voting against furthering conscription.
We're framing this as though the only route to gender equality here is through expanding conscription. The focus here should be not mandating young men fill that form out in the first place. Keep it voluntary for all.
I was in the Canadian Infantry for 4 years. Strongest candidate on my infantry course was a woman. If conscription is happening, both sexes should be subject to it. Most roles in the military aren't even combat roles.
Yeah, we are striving for not having anyone forced into the meat grinder. Seriously, men actually need to learn to fight for their rights, cause whenever your rights are in danger, you bunch always turn to cynicism and destructiveness instead of a progressive fight. Women didnt fight for mens voting rights being taken away from them, they fought to have voting rights as well. Progression, not regression.
No one should be coerced into joining the military, men or women. This is not an opportunity to dunk on feminists, this is an opportunity to oppose militarism and sending young people off to die. Your problem with this should not be that they're not forcing young women to go and die too
Ya'll's insane takes on conscription and bonkers idealism about a world that factually doesn't exist with actors like Russia threatening Europe is absolutely insane to read as a Finn. Not having a large military force is the kind of weakness Russia will exploit as soon as it sees it.
Sounds like a great idea to oppose conscription when a hostile militarised Russia stands hungry on the EU borders just waiting for a good enough reason to attack.
I’m opposed to drafting people in general, but I find that forcing women into the military is unacceptable until the military gets their sexual harassment/assault problems under control. Calling for equality only works if the military is prepared to treat them equally.
In WW2 in the US men were drafted and women filled the workforce. You can dedicate the entire population to war, and like it or not women help the population maintain along with grow far more then men.
To give a little bit of context: Germany has a conscription system since World War 2 and it is part of the constitution (Art. 12a Grundgesetz). It was only "paused" since 2011. Until then every 18 year old man had an examination (physical and mentally) to determine their "fitness" for military service. After that they could choose between military or civil service. They had to do either of that for 9 months.
So most male Germans, including those "old men" mentioned in the article, either did the military or civil service. The only ones who didn't are the current 20-30ish year olds.
Art. 4 (3) GG states: "No one shall be compelled to perform military service with arms against their conscience." That still stands in the case of anything short of an invasion of German territory, and even then most legal experts say it would still stand. So the current conscription is not about "drafting young men to be blown to pieces". Currently there even isn't an obligation to do some service - military or otherwise. Currently it is about that examination and the possibility to reintroduce that service.
Also, Art. 12a GG only mentions men. And there is currently no majority in parliament to change that (it would need 2/3 majority because it is part of the constitution) and also conscript women.
Phrases like "voluntary for as long as possible" are not reassuring for people, and the idea of needing to make your conscience officially clear could seem threatening in a society where opinion is as heavily policed as in Germany.
But German young people seem to be protesting most about how politicians are pursuing war at great expense while failing to support German people. “Up with education, down with armaments!” etc. While organisers have hung a lot on the conscription aspect, the sentiment underneath seems to be about opposition to militarism in general. Nobody should feel happy about Germany arming up again, least of all Germans.
WSWS has some nice writing with contributions from many protesters around the country, to give a more varied feel of sentiment:
Phrases like "voluntary for as long as possible" are not reassuring for people, and the idea of needing to make your conscience officially clear could seem threatening in a society where opinion is as heavily policed as in Germany.
While I totally understand the first part, I think you have a totally wrong idea of that procedure, at least the last time it was used. I can tell you from first hand experience that there were websites you could download a sample letter to state your conscience and I know only of one case were that letter wasn't enough and that guy had to go to a offcial hearing. And he sent it to late and didn't even change things like names, dates and such in the sample letter. Seeing the general discussion about it in Germany, I don't think it will be more restrictive than what is was back then.
There was a huge pacifist movement in Germany in the 1960s who made that conscience choice possible. And those ideas are still going strong. I actually think that these protests are partially a result of how deep those ideas are engrained in German thinking through the generations. For example, if you look at some pictures of those protests you will see the older people there.
I'm sure you're right about the past experience. But don't plan on the future playing out the same. Germany is talking itself up in the mirror. Society is much weirder... unhinged in some ways -- "value driven" foreign policy??
Hence why since the early 90s the German Bundeswehr started already moving away from a conscript defensive military to a volunteer military fit for more than just defending. If you want to send soldiers abroad you better send volunteers because people you conscripted to "defend the country" will take issue with being sent into the offensive away from home.
It's why the first combat deployment of any German military since WWII was the participation in the first Iraq war, where German Marine ships participated in demining activities.
Not soon after Germany participated in the occupation of Afghanistan, a task the Cold War conscription Bundeswehr would have been utterly ill-placed to do, because hundreds of thousands of conscripts, and thousands of tanks in Germany, don't do much good in occupying and policing Afghanistan.
Until then every 18 year old man had an examination (physical and mentally) to determine their "fitness" for military service. After that they could choose between military or civil service. They had to do either of that for 9 months.
There were plenty of exceptions, also plenty of people who actively refused it all and then ended up going to prison over it.
You are also completely skipping over the quality of that conscription military service/civil service; Back in the 90s and before Bundeswehr conscription was mostly about drinking lots of alcohol, anybody thinking it was anything like what the US military does is ill-informed.
Even back then everybody in the Bundeswehr knew that any conflict with a peer to NATO would quickly escalate to nuclear, it's something even volunteers in the modern-day Bundeswehr know attached to the Quick Reaction force in Eastern Europe.
While civil service was mostly about sitting out the hours, which was extra cynical because in healthcare/education/social settings you do not want unmotivated people, that makes it just worse for everybody, so nobody cared if some people practically never showed up for their civil service.
Not to mention the tendency to use civil service people as cheap workers, to keep underpaying people in social sectors like healthcare and education.
So most male Germans, including those "old men" mentioned in the article, either did the military or civil service. The only ones who didn't are the current 20-30ish year olds.
Which happens to be a generation that was born into a situation with zero social mobility and a country that apparently holds no future prospects for them other than sending them to some war or abuse them as free labor.
Tbh your position on these protests doesn't really matter to what I wrote, I just took issue with your context missing so much actual context by going from post-WWII straight to 2011 like it was all the same.
The ruling classes are pushing us towards war, a war no one wants. If you get conscripted, who are you really dying for? Because regular people certainly have no stake in their respective countries, everything is owned by large multinational corporations. The same corporations that are raking in billions while wages are stagnating, sucking up all profits and passing it to their billionaire owners. And in the meantime those corporations keep polluting the environment, knowing damn well they are making the planet uninhabitable for most humans. And they want us to go fight working class people from 'enemy' countries? The real enemies are the ruling classes sucking us dry. And they know people are waking up to this reality, that's why they are pushing towards war in the first place, it's why they are becoming increasingly authoritarian and trying to control all aspects of our lives, including who we talk to and what we say to each other. Hell, even this stupid website has completely gone to shit, I don't even know why I'm typing this rant, this place has also become a corporate controlled hell hole full of pro capitalist AI bots.
There is only one country pushing everyone to war and that is Russia. Everyone else is just preparing for their aggression. You can't start a military when the enemy is already over the border.
Lol, pretending Russia isn't a threat is just either naive or disingenuous. While Ukraine was a huge fiasco for Russia, they still have a lot of uncommitted troops. And they've done nothing but expand their military and industrial production, while learning how modern warfare should be conducted in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, western countries have no more than a weeks worth of production and stored up material, with militaries the size of a small village. Rearmament surely sucks, yes but not matching the militarised country that regularly says they can nuke European capitals, and have literally invaded a neighbouring country, is just dumb really.
We have a technological edge of what seems to be over a decade, overhelming strength of numbers and troop quality.
If you think Russia can threathen us in anything but a war of atomic extermination you must be stupid.
Better european milirary coordination, perhaps even a european army is the answer. Draft isnt.
Let's make one thing very clear. Russia cannot conquer the "Ukrainian backwater" because of the United States. It is mostly our intelligence and our weapons that have been keeping Ukraine afloat. When Donald Trump paused intelligence sharing for a week or two in February, you started seeing big Russian gains. Europe has helped, and Ukrainian bravery has done all of the heavy lifting, but they would've been conquered in 2022 without us.
You, living on a continent backstopped by the United States, are saying you shouldn't fear Russia. Well Donald Trump is trying to remove that backstop. The German government is just trying to make sure they're not fucked when Daddy goes home. Because as of that point, you will be basically at the mercy of Poland and France for your security. Would you go to war in Estonia was invaded? Lithuania? Moldova? How many bites will Russia take from Europe before the whole idea of the European Union crumbles?
That scenario is what leaders across Europe are trying to prevent, by militarizing.
This is true. Trump is looking for a way to justify pulling out while appealing to his voters.
He is really digging for that reason, and without the US, Ukraine will fall. We're helping because we dont want Russia on the NATO boarders. Why do you think Trump has been so anti-NATO, using the 'America First' type of rhetoric to justify it?
Abandoning NATO will domino back to leaving ukraine, and that will be the lesser problem, too.
this is false. just in financial terms the usa has contributed 130b while europe has contributed 230b to ukraine’s war effort. almost double what the usa has contributed.
First, take away financial aid and just look at military aid. The US matches Europe in dollar amount, but smashes it in quality. Other countries gave IFVs to Ukraine, but a Bradley far outweighs the BMP-1 and BMP-2s donated by several European countries. Same goes for our MLRS systems. Then there's the fact that a good chunk of the military aid Europe has given Ukraine comes only with US blessing (like the F-16s and air defense systems) and assurances that US defense contractors would be able to replenish European arsenals.
Also the most comprehensive website tracking aid to Ukraine has zeros for the US in 2025, which isn't true. There have been continued arms shipments, just no new aid packages passed in Congress.
And finally, intelligence sharing doesn't come up at all in these aid figures, but it's US planes flying along the borders of NATO collecting Intel, and US defense intelligence combing through everything and filtering it back to Ukraine, as well as US satellites providing Internet to Ukrainian soldiers. Their entire intelligence and communication system runs through us.
Well go ahead and sign up for the army in that case, they need plenty of volunteers. Maybe offer your kids too. But in the end remember you will just die for your feudal lords. Even if you win you still won’t own anything, corporations will still take most of the profits off your labor. If you consider that to be freedom you are willing to sacrifice your life for then go ahead! But for me this is just a war between feudal lords, from one exploiter to the next, I couldn’t care less.
I've done my service and it wasn't voluntary. Out here in the frontline countries we don't get the luxury of fantasizing about feudal lords like you chickenshit western europeans can.
Then why don't you go back to the military then? Why expect a bunch of high school / college graduates to do that for you? You're the one talking about "frontline countries" and "preparing for aggression", not them, they might have completelly different views from you, so what excuse do you have? You push for conscription, you regirgurate the threat narrative so lead by example, join the military, so far you can do that from your own free will.
Your governments (with a few exceptions) are backing the genocidal Israeli government. They are fine with warmongering so long as it doesn’t upset the pax among “white”
It seems that European leaders are still deeply traumatised by the spectre of WW2 and have stuck Russia into the 'rising axis power' mental bracket, which leads to them trying to replay the lead up to WW2 without the appeasement - but obviously if that premise is wrong and Russia isn't a 'rising axis power', then the whole thing is unnecessarily escalatory.
And there's plenty of reasons to think that premise is wrong, Russia is demographically on the downswing and has far less military capability than a few decades ago, plus Putin is 73 and risks dying soon even if Russia wasn't a mafia state with regular assassinations amongst the elite.
Haven’t you heard the saying: “if you want war, prepare for war”?
We might be building up our military right now using the excuse of Russian aggression, but that still means more countries has the new option of deploying their military force to solve problems, instead of dealing with it civil/diplomatically.
That saying is not a universally accurate saying whatsoever, building up a strong defense is the only deterrent you can have to stop an aggressive neighbour that wants to take more land. Or do you think the appeasement plan that the international community tried with Hitler was successful?
That is where only focusing on diplomatic solutions with no military force behind it gets you when the other party has no issue using military force to get what they want.
Why do you think my country (Sweden) spent more in GDP per Capita on defense than the US during large parts of the cold war, even ending up with the world's 4th largest Air Force for a time? Do you seriously believe it was because of wanting to end up in a war? And if you think that why didn't we?
Wow, a one-liner isn’t universally accurate? Im not sure why you would think it is.
Besides, I’m not saying that any country is building up their armies because they want to be at war, I just believe that its more likely for a country to opt in to a war, when they already have an army and equipment ready. Similar to how Sweden have joined wars (sorry, “military operations”) a couple of times over the last decades.
And Sweden joined and stayed in the Afghanistan mission while the Swedish military downsized to its smallest size so it hardly correlates to military spending or the size of the army.
Do you consider those peacekeeping missions to have been a bad thing? In Bosnia Nordbat 2 that you Danes were a part of together with us Swedes undoubtedly protected many civilian lives from some of the genocides that took place during those conflicts.
Of course they alone couldn't prevent every bad thing that happened and the UN sadly has struggled with actually stopping genocides on a larger scale but those missions did absolutely help many thousands of civilians (across the entire missions not just what Sweden did obv) and saved many lives.
I have always wondered what will happen in the UK if there was ever a conscription. I'd refuse, of course, but I'd be curious about what will happen to our equalities act. I have a feeling it will get quickly disregarded.
We are such a small country any war that lands on our shores is over in a week easy. Ukraine only held on by giving land for time. The amount of land changing places weekly is pretty much the entire UK! 🤣
Of course it depends on the situation but if a foreign power looking to destroy your entire way of life was threatening invasion of the UK would you still refuse if you were conscripted?
As a Swede I've never understood this deep opposition to conscription, although I suppose that is probably a consequence of being raised in a country where every person in the country has a total defense duty meaning on times of war or crisis every man and woman in the country has a duty to help in the defense of Sweden. Militarily or otherwise and the government can call up anyone to perform basically anything that is needed.
I mean this is the problem, invasion of a country like the UK with a dense, sky high population on an island deep behind a bunch of allied countries is as close to logistically and militarily impossible as you can get. Best you can do is lob cruise missiles at the country and deliberately target civilian populations, which didn't work back when the Nazis tried it.
So the wars the UK gets involved in are almost entirely mucking about on the other side of the world for the benefit of the US or Israel, which the majority of the public always opposes and absolutely no one wants conscription for.
If there is a war on the UK homeland (as opposed to the UK fighting someone else elsewhere, which is vastly more likely i.e. such as in Iraq), it'll most likely be with China, not Russia. The UK will just be dragged into said war by obediently following the US into it. And it won't involve any troops landing on the UK itself. Rather it'll be a full scale merciless cyber assault on every UK system, tanking the country's economy for years on end. While simultaneously building up resentment in the Scotland and Northern Ireland via both a depressed economy and information operations until both elect to secede, leaving the country an impoverished shell of it former self. Possibly also a dose of historical irony via enemy state supported trafficking of drugs into the country, as both strategy and revenge for the Opium Wars. Soldiers defend from none of that. And, crucially, this kind of 'war' can be kept up indefinitely - they won't even expect to win it in a year, but in a decade.
The UK should have the least reason to go to war with China given it explicitly has recognised the CCP's ownership of Taiwan since the 1960s - however you're right that our elites are just going to brown-nose the US anyway.
It’s a reflection of your society that you are so eager to go and die for imperialist wars, while the bourgeoisie who rule over you profit off your sacrifice. How can you “not understand” that some countries don’t have laws that can seemingly turn citizens into slaves like you describe? Not for their defense, but for CAPITAL! How can you “not understand” that some people are not willing to die to uphold “their way of life” (what way is that in this day and age but capitalism?) No, our cry is instead Proletarian Internationalism, Revolutionary Defeatism, No War but the Class War!
Imperialist wars? Lmfao I'm Swedish and we haven't been involved in any offense war for over 200 years.
We have conscription specifically as part of our defense plan against imperialist Russia and previously the imperialist Soviet Union you doofus.
Edit.
I should add that the reason I say that it's about our way of life is because Russia is diametrically opposed to many of the rights me and my fellow countrymen and women enjoy.
Like for example do you think if Russia came to invade that they would be absolutely fine with Homosexual marriage? Or trans people existing, or would keep our freedom of expression and press?
I don't know any European opposition, but the the US having tens of thousands of conscripts shipped off to Vietnam and coming back traumatized or dead did a real number to the kind of social trust needed to maintain a conscript military.
I'm a fan of bringing it back, I think the all volunteer idea is his in theory but in practice tends to isolate service among dinner households while insulating others. I'd expand it to a year of civic service (or military) for everyone. Do a month or two of PT to get in shape/learn some basic outdoors skills then get shipped off to work in old folks homes or pick up trash or forestry work. Could even make it a jobs thing, if you want to farm here's a farm you can work on and if you like the work, get paired up with a farmer nearing retirement with favorable financing options. Forces everyone to have that college experience where you see a broader world while also helping tie us together.
No, there are no MAJOR youth protests - that’s bollocks, but fits well into Politicos desired narrative.
Also, there is no forced military service, as the right to refuse military service - and do a sort of community service instead - is still in full effect.
This right to refuse is actually part of the constitution itself, would need a 2/3 majority to change.
(Similarly, the law limiting this to males is also in the constitution - and no 2/3 majority is in reach to allow changing it to include all genders)
And some of the small protests and counter-arguments are laughable: “In a democracy nobody should be forced to do things against their will.”
Yeah, sure… have you ever heard about that thing called taxes?
It’s NIMBY behavior first class.
About 70% of population is for this change - and by far most of them (the males, at least) have gone through it, themselves.
If war comes to Germany (which is very much NOT impossible), then all ages will have to serve their country and fight for it (see average age in Ukraine military).
And foreign campaigns (like past engagement in Afghanistan) always only include voluntary service members that actively signed-up for a multi-year period.
In other words, this is the media sensationalizing (happening in German media, as well - it’s easy, cheap clicks…).
I appreciate the comparison to taxes. As citizens of a nation, we have obligations to that nation. I don’t want to pay x% of my income every year, but I do it because taxes are what pays for the services that the state provides.
Similarly, I don’t want to be conscripted, but I understand that a country that refuses to defend itself may soon find that it is no longer an independent country.
I do make a distinction between defensive and/or existential wars and wars of choice. Determining which category a particular military action falls into is somewhat subjective and can be difficult in the moment, however.
Germany cannot guarantee European security and have influence without military force able to back it up to say stand up to Russia, and this isn't possible without manpower in the army as guns and tanks without people aren't gonna do anything.
It is easier to defend a country when you can draw on a large pool of people already trained prior compared to having to train those people when the war starts. There is a reason Finland retained its military conscription, and that was because it's not possible to sustain a 200+ thousand large trained force with 5 million people through voluntary service. Even Germany is not able to sustain its existing army with voluntary service.
Russia is losing in Ukraine yet at the same time is such a big threat that we must bring back conscription or else their tanks will drive towards berlin... heh...
russ*a is not losing in ukraine yet. the big question is how long their economy can survive being propped up by dwindling financial reserves and artificial growth in the form of military production. what's changed now is that the fascists in the usa have fully come out in support of putin and are now actively aiding him by essentially blackmailing ukraine.
Yes? If you have an aggressive neighbor, which Europe definitely does, then you want to improve the quality and scope of your armed forces, especially if you can't rely on the US anymore to act as a deterrent, to change the calculus for that aggressive neighbor in what it will take to wage war on you and what their chances for victory are.
History is replete with larger powers bullying their smaller and lesser equipped neighbors.
Should be simple. If you sign up for the draft and do the training, you have the right to vote. Alternatively, if you have >2.1 kids biological or adopted, you have the right to vote. Regardless of sex in both cases. If there's a war and you don't volunteer, you lose the right to vote unless you have >2.1 kids and assuming your side wins and there are elections again.
If someone isn't willing to protect or preserve the country, there's no reason they should have the right to tell others how the country should be run.
Edit: it's funny how the imd misogynistic ideas that women aren't as strong as men and women are baby makers come out in this debate. We are striving for equality aren't we? So that's irrelevant. A woman may not choose to have a baby anyway.
I'd like to make the feminist equality argument tbh.
If men get have to fill it in and potentially join the military to defend the nation, they should do so with women. We are a society striving for equality. Why should equality stop when it comes to protecting the nation? Uniting in brother and sisterhood in defence of a common idea or nation is how you get equality.
Why should it be equality in all things... except things that make us uncomfortable?
And before someone says...women can't be infantry...OK if u take that view then women can do many other jobs...drive a tank...command a tank...drive trucks...logistics...you know the sort of roles that the majority of the armed forces actually does.
So I don't think young men should be corralled to join the army at all....especially if women can just sit it out.
It literally renders all equality and talk of discrimination moot as when it matters most...the security and defence of the realm...suddenly that equality doesn't exist.
Conscription is a violation of bodily autonomy, just as banning abortion is, and thus, feminists should oppose any form of conscription for men, just as much as we fight for abortion rights
noone has a right to your body
I agree. But that's theory. We live in reality. Men are been conscripted. In that context then women must be too else we don't have equality. We have 2 tiers at least and then it raises allt of ugly questions like...if ur expected to be blown to bits fighting Russia while women stay at home and get laid (as some have implied) to have babies...that's not fair and those that face the drones ans barbed wire should be favoured.
I'm against conscription btw. I'm being deliberately hyperbolic to try and make rhe point btw.
When have feminism been about lowering people rights?
Feminism is about equality for all... That means raising the bar for everyone... Not lowering it....
Just tell the politicians maybe don't go to war with your neighbours.... The only state that benefits from this war is USA..m they forced us to pay tribute by buying their LNG oil and military... These stupid European leaders have less respect from American than Russia have...
And the far right supports America as well....
lol, “just don’t do war”. what if war comes to you? surrender and have your bodily autonomy reduced but now by hostile forces? nations that go wars definitely care about your rights, yeah sure. wake up from your (harmful) illusions, rights are not given, so there are duties if you want to keep your way of life
They're from a nation state that got overrun in 6 hours flat.
The return of their freedom came after heavy conscription and other unthinkable efforts done by other nations.
Not exactly. Denmark surrendered quickly, but because of that, they maintained more autonomy than similar countries who fought longer (like the Netherlands). They saw how the invasions went for richer, larger, and stronger countries and made a calculated decision. Based on others’ experience, Danes had a more subtle underground resistance and were able to move the vast majority of their Jewish population to safety in Sweden. Over 99% of Danish Jews survived the war, as compared to only 25% of Dutch Jews (granted, the regimes occupying Denmark and the Netherlands differed greatly, as well, but this was at least partially due to the amount of immediate resistance the Nazis faced in the Netherlands).
Nimby mentality in a feminist nutshell
The same argument has been made multiple times.
It's simple: tldr I want equality when it suits me, but when it's uncomfortable, I don't.
Either you're a citizen of equal rights and responsibilities or you aren't
I think women are.
Fact is...wars happen. Implying preventing them is just a petition away is a joke...drenched in blood.
Look at the yazidis...women didn't fight from that group...they were all but wiped out...sold as slaves.. murdered etc.
If they had bee empowered and fought...maybe isis wouldn't have won so easily.
Same with the women of Afghanistan.
Fundamentally when people talk about equality they think of women in board rooms, they fixate in abortion and some other issues. But I've given 2 examples where women were sidelined...and suffered massively.
It's happening everyday.
In reality...and this is what your ideology (sorry if I'm assuming too much) ignores that rights and power stems from the power to say no. Not with a protest. But ultimately with arms if need be. Not to be gifted rights. But to take them.
The feminist argument for Afghanistan fixated on schools and clothes...it should have focussed in infantry training school and uniforms.
I'm not talking about American politics. Its warped.
Yes most civilized countries now have volunteer military instead of conscription based military. I’m against conscription, but not against making military service seem like a better deal so people want to join. But conscription should be off the table for all people.
In the ideal world, yes, a military consisting only of volunteers is the best option. But say not enough people want to join the military, then what do you do when attacked by an aggressor? Surrender your state and it's autonomy to live under the rule of an oppressive country??
If you value your country and the things it consists of, i.e. it's ideals, structure, the opportunities you're given there and so on, I think you should do your part to protect those things if worst comes to worst. I know I will.
That is why you incentivize military service. The US does that by offering free college to military members. There are ways to incentivize service without force
The US is so successful in its voluntary military service because social policy is so poor here that just the base signing bonus is enough to get people to join. I think there’s an argument to be made that if the US had robust social policies like many European states there would be far fewer citizens willing to serve voluntarily.
FYI there were literal anarchist afghani women militias in the fight against ISIS.
source: my coworker went to Syria to join the fight with them
those would have been kurds, not afghanis ,and they played a large role in protecting the yazidis when the Isis genocide was happening. the yazidis did not have a female militia at the time although the kurds later helped them set one up.
Thanks for the correction.
You’re totally right, I was misremembering
braver than the troops (literally)
True. And isis believed if they were killed by a woman, they couldn't go to paradise so the female kurdish units were pretty effective in fighting them too.
They said equal rights but never claimed equal responsibilities!
Most feminists are against forced conscription for both men and women. In the US, women fought against men being killed in Vietnam before they had legal bodily autonomy themselves (i.e. safe and legal access to abortion).
and cross your fingers that your neighbours politicians are doing the same?
It's not like we in Europe did anything while America pushed Europe and Russia in this idiotic war.
Why do we support a nation that is a ocean away?? While we fight our neighbour...
Lmao “just don’t go to war”?, bro you live in a bubble
Then this should be of utmost priority to feminism and there should be an enormous amount of widespread outrage, since it's the largest attack on gender equality that has taken part in the west in the last century.
There would be such outrage if for some reason this was the other way around, you couldn't even DREAM of pulling this shit on women without the mother of all shitstorms ensuing.
It's fucking exhausting to go through these motions. 90%+ of feminists only ever give a shit about women, period. Can we just call a spade a fucking spade? A good chunk of feminists actually hate men, and the more radical the feminist, the more hate you will find. That's why the feminist movement may choose to split over the comparatively obscenely fucking inconsequential issue of trans women, but nobody ever got called a fucking "MERF" if they exclude men from the movement even if that's 50% of the goddamned population.
Like god fucking damn can we all stop pretending we don't know this? It's exhausting.
There a few feminists in Russia who are really listened to. Also, you rarely choose your enemy, usually it's the other way around.
Less rights for all can still mean equal rights. Feminists are not (usually) anarchists.
Feminism is about gaining rights forwomen irrespective of the rights men have or duties that men may have along those rights
So why aren’t you focused on making conscription illegal instead
Because that would be massively naive and childish. It isn't going away unfortunately. So if we need to have it why the unequal nature of it?
Yes and feminists know it but they skirt the issue of female draft with anti war rethoric. We don’t live in a world that could be warless
The reality is that this conscription barely passed, and we must fight to end it in the name of gender equality and bodily autonomy, you should NOT be expected to be blown to bits no matter your gender
Feminism has fought against conscription, we need to fight against it now, we must make clear that this is illiberal and sexist and also a violation of bodily autonomy
We have many examples of feminists fighting against it, we need to make it front policy again
You don't get to "don't wanna" when the Russians come by force.
Western europe didnt get invaded by the soviets when they were MUCH stronger than whatever russia is today for over 60 years of the cold war
the conscription that was in place then was useless and all the deterrance came from professional armies and nuclear weapons
stop being pussies and place french nukes in poland, the baltic, finland and romania and quit trying to enslave the youth
Western Europe was protected then by the US Military which is no longer the case. Europe needs to step up and fill that void. And that's what Germany is doing.
Isnt current EU combined already stronger than Russia ? Why not go for better military cooperation between EU nations instead of enslaving their own population ?
Where do you think strength comes from? A significant part of it is force of numbers.
I know I meant that even without conscription arent combined might of EU armies stronger than Russia both in number and equipment ?
To fill that void what we need is more nukes and a better professional army, but specially nukes, so many more nukes
France needs to increase it's nuke count and place at least 50 on each border country, that's how the US imposed its will in Europe
I'm not necessarily in disagreement about nuclear weapons being needed. But the threshold of using them and especially if they're controlled by someone else than the country under attack is a precarious situation to be in. Will the French nuke Russia if a Baltic country or Scandinavia is attacked, no matter where those weapons are placed? That's a big if.
A large and capable European military force is a deterrent so we don't have to get to the point where we have to hope the French come through for us. And that's definitely a weak point in nuclear deterrence that Russia would be willing to try and test unless there's sufficient conventional military force ready to take them on.
Germany should get loads of nukes instead of doing conscription.
I wonder, since you're championing feminism here, but also championing spreading nukes around. By your logic, Iran should have nukes - they certainly have plenty of reason to fear attack. But otoh Iran isn't exactly very feminist. I wonder which of your impulses would take precedence in this case? And no, you don't get to posit a different, feminist govt. for Iran. Current theocratic Iran, with nukes.
Whatever Iran does, all democracies need nukes.
I agree. The solution is nukes. The fact is that in the end, it's every country for itself.
If the war in Ukraine has taught us anything, it's that nukes are necessary.
You just need nukes.
You forgot some important points.
Professional armies could be a deterrent during the cold war because there was a conscription that allowed more professional soldiers to be on the frontline instead of tending to the medical, maintenance and logistical tasks. It wasn't useless to have conscript, because it gives volume and depth to the army.
The Soviet Union was an empire; Russia isn't but wants to rebuild its empire again (Putin refers to Dugin's Foundation of Geopolitics and its imperialistic view). However, contrary to the Cold War, part of its empire and now within the EU. In Russia's view, we have taken what was theirs. This means war against the countries of the EU as a block. We don't have a Russia that signed a Yalta now.
Putin declared that he wants the Russian army to be the second-biggest after China's (official decree taken in 2024). If a peace treaty is signed in Ukraine, Russia could replenish its force to launch a new attack. If this succeeds, Russia will have at its disposal an enourmous volume of men and weapons to fuel the next attacks - just like Hitler's relatively weak army did with the massive stock of Czech weapons and industrial capacity seized after the annexation of Czechoslovakia.
Russia currently has the assistance of China for the development of their new drones and also intelligence gathering, let alone economical support. They're not alone.
Nuclear weapons are pretty useless if there's a certainty that they won't be used by Europe. This makes conventional deterrence (and thus army depth and volume) extremely important to offer a credible dissuasion force.
The whole argument hinges on the idea that Europe won't use nuclear weapons, when I ask for nuclear rearmament I am talking the whole shibang, more French nukes, more everywhere and nuclear tests to scare Russia and show we are serious
Bodily autonomy must not be violated, nukes must be used to guarantee our defense but they need to be a credible threat
You ask for more than you realize. Do you think the rest of the world will just go quietly along with this blatant double standard? The west gets to proliferate nukes, but no one else? Yeah no. You're asking for a world where everyone that can seeks nukes. And you better be ready for the fallout of that, including literal fallout...
You are NOT a rule unto yourself. The world does not have to go along with whatever the west does, but they hypocritically can't.
I don't think that more countries having the nuke is bad, actually I think it could improve security if Iran had nukes, Israel wouldn't attach them so willy nilly
Who cares? As long as every democracy has nukes.
I strongly disagree, this position doesn't make sense.
Conventional forces were huge during the Cold War, along with conscription in the West. North Korea has a juge conventional force.
I prefer the position of the General de Gaulle. He saw that convention force wasn't enough. But when he created the French nuclear program, he also clearly stated that without a strong conventional force, the deterrent effect of nuclear force doesn't work either.
As for your "bodily autonomy" song, don't forget the other side of the coin, which is bodily harm that is inflicted when you don't deter your opponents.
either it is egalitarian or it is a double standard.
Conscription in the constitution as part of the nation defense (and defense only) can absolutely be part of the citizen social contract. You have a responsability to help protect the society that supports you in time of peace, rights come with obligation.
This is taxation of labor and time instead of money.
What is disgusting in Germany is they expect the same obligations from people they've been selling out to capital and foreign interest for decade. No one outside the US should be conscripted to serve american imperialism (edit: no one should be conscripted for any imperialism really).
As an American, I'm not interested in dying for American imperialism either. War is a racket.
Absolutely, i'll edit in that sense
We violate bodily autonomy all the time such as via nonconsensual intervention for people who are a danger to themselves, searching and seizing persons and their immediate effects when detaining suspects, and requiring seatbelts and helmets and whatnot. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute rule and only anarchists treat it as such.
I would argue the interest of the state in winning wars outweighs the interest of some people to not fight in those wars. This was moreso true in the past but still holds up today (though we are in a very dire situation if Germany needs to draft).
I basically said the same and this sub is downvoting me.
It is crazy how people think that everybody should be oppressed just because one group is, instead of fight against oppression to all.
People here think thar feminism is only for women liberation but feminism is for women and men liberation, because feminism is the fight against patriarchy, and patriarchy oppress both women and men.
there is a long history of feminists fighting against conscription because it is a bodily autonomy violation, and if bodily autonomy violations are normalized, whats to say that they wont force pregnancies for the nation just as they force you to serve? We must fight together
Ok but like, if we finally achieve full bodily autonomy, can we then please come together to hold the line against that aggressive nation where domestic violence is legal and being openly gay is not? Or is the plan to just ignore that danger?
I have said it on other comments
What we need is nuclear rearmament, French nukes need to be in every corner of the EU, we need at least 1000 to be dispersed all across the union, we can even lend some to turkey so that they can ditch the US ones
That's the plan to prevent Russian attacks
That's a dangerous game of chicken, you're telling the Russians that they can risk exchanging nukes with France over invading Estonia.
What's the actual risk there? Is Paris really willing to get nuked to challenge tanks rolling over the Baltics? If not, what's the actual red line then, how much can they take for free? Warsaw? Postdam? Berlin?
The nuclear threat won't be credible if Europeans not wanting to risk their lives at all is the crux of the issue. Having a conventional military that could respond to escalation gives more credibility to there being red lines to cross.
An actual nuclear strategy is necessary, and yes, we must be willing to use nukes, not conscripts, to defend every square meter of EU territory
That only works if every country has their own nukes with their own launch codes. An interesting scenario, to say the least, but again, a country that’s not willing to go to war at all is not credible in saying that they’re willing to risk MAD over any square meter of theirs
Then the question is: how many square meters and which are worth burning it all down for? And the ones which aren’t, are for the taking
Don't threaten me with a good time.
Please do not use gays for your wars.
Agreed
The war is turning people gay? 🤔
One of the organisers of this is a young woman, in German comment sections people like you argued she would be somehow hypocritical to get involved in something that wouldn’t even affect her.
You are peddling a very similarly cynical logic.
Feminism is about raising standards not lowering them to everyone
Equality of oppression is never the goal, only equality in liberation
Other than your imagination, all rights are given conditionally by the government.
Just as a murderer would be sent to prison for decades, in case of a nation’s existential war, everyone gets drafted, with certain roles not available for women.
Then arguably, you don’t have a right to protection against the armed wolves at the door.
I’m pretty sure this was a sarcastic response, but if not, ridiculous parallel.
Or, and here is a spicy idea, in times of war people lose both. When men get drafted to be soldiers, women get drafted to make babies to replace those men.
By the same logic, the lack of universal income/free food/free housing is a violation of bodily autonomy
Feminists are not fighting conscription (of men). They are busy online, hating on men over superficialities.
wow. entitle much? you just expect other people to defend you without contributing anything?
You can tell that to the Russians who have no such moral disputes when they roll over Europe.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in a game theory sense, your sentiment will lead a country to be wiped out.
'Roll over Europe', 'country wiped out', no hyperbole detected here, none at all no siree
Men should get a discount in all purchases since conscription is a blue tax.
I mean equality when things are easy..and not when it's hard...isn't equality...that's privilege
Yup fully agreed. Even if you don't want to put your women in combat roles, there are plenty of non combat roles to fulfill in a military.
Just to add some context, when I was deployed (US military) there were 8 "support" troops for every 1 combat troop. It's not even just supply logistics ... it's ... finance, legal, medical/dental, etc.
Makes the reason for not having equality even more irrational imo
Trying to make this about gender equality is just a strawman.
Young Germans are being served a shit sandwich, most of them refuse to eat it while people like you are trying to start a side debate along the lines of; “I’m all for eating shit sandwiches as long as the women have to eat them too!”.
When the whole point here is that nobody should be forced to eat shit sandwiches regardless of how their chromosomes look.
Is it? Am I making it up that the questionnaire is mandatory for men and voluntary for women?
But this theoretical point that you're using is theory. It's not reality. The reality is men are been mandatorily forced to register...women are not.
So how is it not about chromosomes?
Sorry but this is a matter of equality....worse its an issue of privilege. Not been called up to die in a ditch while being filmed by drones...that's a fucking privilege.
For what it's worth. Im against conscription. But I'm not naive enough to say it won't happen...its literally happening.
Men are been dragged off the streets in Ukraine.
We see wild mental gymnastics been applied in this thread also...when it suits...women are powerful bosses (something I agree with) but as soon as its about sacrifices on the battlefield...suddenly all the misogynistic ideas of women being baby makers...unfit for service...come out.
It's wild.
The same parliamentary majority that’s needed to change the law to make it mandatory for women too could just as well abolish the conscription law as a whole.
Thats why that whole “But what about them women?!” Argument is a straw woman that’s completely besides the point.
Nobody is out there arguing that only men should serve, they would love to force everybody to serve to they have more bodies in their “strongest military of Europe.
In that context they are rally egalitarian: Men and women alike are allowed to die pointless deaths to drones and artillery.
It's completely a straw woman. It's totally nonsensical....except hold on....it isn't is it.
You simply don't like it. But there's nothing strawman about something that's written there in black and white.
And what did the parliamentary majority vote to do? To abandon equality. To once again...withhold true equality from my sisters. It's misogynistic in the extreme.
Yes they are. It's literally the law in Germany and under discussion in France.
Sorry but yiu couldn't be more wrong. It's literally the opposite.
Exactly, it's only a "strawman" if you feel your opinion and agenda are the only salient discussion point surrounding the issue. You're taking a lot of flack here, but the "good ideas" & "philosophical human rights" vs what's real & required by the law of your state is a consideration that keyboard warrior idealists all over reddit fail to take into account, repeatedly.
If you feel like your rights are being violated what are you doing about it? Besides posting on reddit arguing with someone making a different but equally valid point.
Yes it is. Literally the first quote if you click the Article.
People aren't protesting the gender difference they're protesting the whole thing.
It's like if they made a legislation that men have to pay 85% income tax and women had to pay 80% income tax. People protested the legislation And you came here trying to frame this as a gender issue falling for the red herring that it is.
No...but I'm critiquing it from a fairness and feminist perspective.
No...its like everyone talking about paying 80% but when it comes to paying it women paying it voluntarily.
Actually you know a better example of what it's like...its like...one group of people being potentially marched off to be slaughtered and another group...the group that has traditionally talked about and indeed suffered unfair Mistreatment, not been.
One group facing death and the other group sitting it out
And falling for the red herring that it is. That's the point.
The feminist answer to this is indeed about equality but not making the legislation equally mandatory, but making it equally voluntary.
Furthermore the people.pushing the legislation are mainly men, no? So really nonreason to.critique shit on it's consistency and taste and when you can just critique it because it is shit.
Omg did someone broaden/add complexity to the discussion of a media article? How will our brains cope?
Apparently by falling hook and sinker into the BS discussion, designed to move away the conversation from the topic at hand and fillabuster.
sigh.
That actually would prompt a lot of support from young man. But I think the woman is gonna shoot it down.
You'd think so, but a few weeks ago Switzerland voted 87% against equal conscription duties for women. So a large majority of the electorate, male and female, are against it.
I mean, they might, but it's worth considering from what angle. Most feminists lead the charge against legislating gender roles, and something like this certainly falls under that.
I imagine those that would vote against it are really voting against furthering conscription.
We're framing this as though the only route to gender equality here is through expanding conscription. The focus here should be not mandating young men fill that form out in the first place. Keep it voluntary for all.
Lmao, the biggest audience of far right in Europe are young men and the biggest audience of far left are young women.
men*
women*
I was in the Canadian Infantry for 4 years. Strongest candidate on my infantry course was a woman. If conscription is happening, both sexes should be subject to it. Most roles in the military aren't even combat roles.
Spot on.
Yeah, we are striving for not having anyone forced into the meat grinder. Seriously, men actually need to learn to fight for their rights, cause whenever your rights are in danger, you bunch always turn to cynicism and destructiveness instead of a progressive fight. Women didnt fight for mens voting rights being taken away from them, they fought to have voting rights as well. Progression, not regression.
Can, just less effective.
Same as you know... Some men who aren't as physically fit, but no one makes exception for those.
That's the point you took from that post.....hahaha ok...
Ffs reddit never ceases to amaze
Switzerland has just proven that the world isn't ready for extensive equality. People don't want it.
Feminists are against forced conscription in the first place. Is equality equal suffering?
I want the cake and I want to eat it as we'd say in the UK.
It means...you want everything everyway. Fact is if u want equality this is the price.
What the actual fuck? Do you want conscription?
Absolutely not. But if we have to have it, then it should be equal.
But do we have to have it? If you’re more focused on making women suffer too, then something is wrong.
No one should be coerced into joining the military, men or women. This is not an opportunity to dunk on feminists, this is an opportunity to oppose militarism and sending young people off to die. Your problem with this should not be that they're not forcing young women to go and die too
I'm not 'dunking' on anyone. I'm simply saying that equality to a limit isn't equality.
There are roles women could do. They shoukd also be conscripted if anyone is.
Cool, but since it is happening. All genders should be conscripted equally, yes?
Ya'll's insane takes on conscription and bonkers idealism about a world that factually doesn't exist with actors like Russia threatening Europe is absolutely insane to read as a Finn. Not having a large military force is the kind of weakness Russia will exploit as soon as it sees it.
Finns need to get over their victim complex tbh, it's hard to take your people seriously.
Sounds like a great idea to oppose conscription when a hostile militarised Russia stands hungry on the EU borders just waiting for a good enough reason to attack.
I’m opposed to drafting people in general, but I find that forcing women into the military is unacceptable until the military gets their sexual harassment/assault problems under control. Calling for equality only works if the military is prepared to treat them equally.
I remember reading about a reason an Islamic scholarship gave for why women shouldn't enter the work place. The same unsafe argument was offered.
And corporations had to create huge HR teams to handle the issue
That’s odd, because I remember reading that you’re misremembering.
Could well be
In WW2 in the US men were drafted and women filled the workforce. You can dedicate the entire population to war, and like it or not women help the population maintain along with grow far more then men.
To give a little bit of context: Germany has a conscription system since World War 2 and it is part of the constitution (Art. 12a Grundgesetz). It was only "paused" since 2011. Until then every 18 year old man had an examination (physical and mentally) to determine their "fitness" for military service. After that they could choose between military or civil service. They had to do either of that for 9 months.
So most male Germans, including those "old men" mentioned in the article, either did the military or civil service. The only ones who didn't are the current 20-30ish year olds.
Art. 4 (3) GG states: "No one shall be compelled to perform military service with arms against their conscience." That still stands in the case of anything short of an invasion of German territory, and even then most legal experts say it would still stand. So the current conscription is not about "drafting young men to be blown to pieces". Currently there even isn't an obligation to do some service - military or otherwise. Currently it is about that examination and the possibility to reintroduce that service.
Also, Art. 12a GG only mentions men. And there is currently no majority in parliament to change that (it would need 2/3 majority because it is part of the constitution) and also conscript women.
Phrases like "voluntary for as long as possible" are not reassuring for people, and the idea of needing to make your conscience officially clear could seem threatening in a society where opinion is as heavily policed as in Germany.
But German young people seem to be protesting most about how politicians are pursuing war at great expense while failing to support German people. “Up with education, down with armaments!” etc. While organisers have hung a lot on the conscription aspect, the sentiment underneath seems to be about opposition to militarism in general. Nobody should feel happy about Germany arming up again, least of all Germans.
WSWS has some nice writing with contributions from many protesters around the country, to give a more varied feel of sentiment:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/12/09/pdqu-d09.html
While I totally understand the first part, I think you have a totally wrong idea of that procedure, at least the last time it was used. I can tell you from first hand experience that there were websites you could download a sample letter to state your conscience and I know only of one case were that letter wasn't enough and that guy had to go to a offcial hearing. And he sent it to late and didn't even change things like names, dates and such in the sample letter. Seeing the general discussion about it in Germany, I don't think it will be more restrictive than what is was back then.
There was a huge pacifist movement in Germany in the 1960s who made that conscience choice possible. And those ideas are still going strong. I actually think that these protests are partially a result of how deep those ideas are engrained in German thinking through the generations. For example, if you look at some pictures of those protests you will see the older people there.
I'm sure you're right about the past experience. But don't plan on the future playing out the same. Germany is talking itself up in the mirror. Society is much weirder... unhinged in some ways -- "value driven" foreign policy??
You context is quite selective there, case in point;
This completely skips over why it was paused; Because the Bundeswehr already started transitioning to a volunteer military over a decade earlier.
With the Cold War ended the US and NATO demanded that members be ready to be more "internationally" active.
Hence why since the early 90s the German Bundeswehr started already moving away from a conscript defensive military to a volunteer military fit for more than just defending. If you want to send soldiers abroad you better send volunteers because people you conscripted to "defend the country" will take issue with being sent into the offensive away from home.
It's why the first combat deployment of any German military since WWII was the participation in the first Iraq war, where German Marine ships participated in demining activities.
Not soon after Germany participated in the occupation of Afghanistan, a task the Cold War conscription Bundeswehr would have been utterly ill-placed to do, because hundreds of thousands of conscripts, and thousands of tanks in Germany, don't do much good in occupying and policing Afghanistan.
There were plenty of exceptions, also plenty of people who actively refused it all and then ended up going to prison over it.
You are also completely skipping over the quality of that conscription military service/civil service; Back in the 90s and before Bundeswehr conscription was mostly about drinking lots of alcohol, anybody thinking it was anything like what the US military does is ill-informed.
Even back then everybody in the Bundeswehr knew that any conflict with a peer to NATO would quickly escalate to nuclear, it's something even volunteers in the modern-day Bundeswehr know attached to the Quick Reaction force in Eastern Europe.
While civil service was mostly about sitting out the hours, which was extra cynical because in healthcare/education/social settings you do not want unmotivated people, that makes it just worse for everybody, so nobody cared if some people practically never showed up for their civil service.
Not to mention the tendency to use civil service people as cheap workers, to keep underpaying people in social sectors like healthcare and education.
Which happens to be a generation that was born into a situation with zero social mobility and a country that apparently holds no future prospects for them other than sending them to some war or abuse them as free labor.
A generation that mostly only knows the Bundeswehr from killing people in Afghanistan, and "defending" Germany somehow in Iraq. A generation that not too recently saw our foreign minister low key threaten with German troops in Ukraine.
I've got the impression that you think that I'm against these protests, do you?
Tbh your position on these protests doesn't really matter to what I wrote, I just took issue with your context missing so much actual context by going from post-WWII straight to 2011 like it was all the same.
The ruling classes are pushing us towards war, a war no one wants. If you get conscripted, who are you really dying for? Because regular people certainly have no stake in their respective countries, everything is owned by large multinational corporations. The same corporations that are raking in billions while wages are stagnating, sucking up all profits and passing it to their billionaire owners. And in the meantime those corporations keep polluting the environment, knowing damn well they are making the planet uninhabitable for most humans. And they want us to go fight working class people from 'enemy' countries? The real enemies are the ruling classes sucking us dry. And they know people are waking up to this reality, that's why they are pushing towards war in the first place, it's why they are becoming increasingly authoritarian and trying to control all aspects of our lives, including who we talk to and what we say to each other. Hell, even this stupid website has completely gone to shit, I don't even know why I'm typing this rant, this place has also become a corporate controlled hell hole full of pro capitalist AI bots.
There is only one country pushing everyone to war and that is Russia. Everyone else is just preparing for their aggression. You can't start a military when the enemy is already over the border.
Yes, the country which cannot conquer the ukrainian backwater is threathening Europe. Your fearmongering holds no water anymore.
Lol, pretending Russia isn't a threat is just either naive or disingenuous. While Ukraine was a huge fiasco for Russia, they still have a lot of uncommitted troops. And they've done nothing but expand their military and industrial production, while learning how modern warfare should be conducted in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, western countries have no more than a weeks worth of production and stored up material, with militaries the size of a small village. Rearmament surely sucks, yes but not matching the militarised country that regularly says they can nuke European capitals, and have literally invaded a neighbouring country, is just dumb really.
It just about allowing Poland to have nukes. You don’t need America
We have a technological edge of what seems to be over a decade, overhelming strength of numbers and troop quality. If you think Russia can threathen us in anything but a war of atomic extermination you must be stupid. Better european milirary coordination, perhaps even a european army is the answer. Draft isnt.
Let's make one thing very clear. Russia cannot conquer the "Ukrainian backwater" because of the United States. It is mostly our intelligence and our weapons that have been keeping Ukraine afloat. When Donald Trump paused intelligence sharing for a week or two in February, you started seeing big Russian gains. Europe has helped, and Ukrainian bravery has done all of the heavy lifting, but they would've been conquered in 2022 without us.
You, living on a continent backstopped by the United States, are saying you shouldn't fear Russia. Well Donald Trump is trying to remove that backstop. The German government is just trying to make sure they're not fucked when Daddy goes home. Because as of that point, you will be basically at the mercy of Poland and France for your security. Would you go to war in Estonia was invaded? Lithuania? Moldova? How many bites will Russia take from Europe before the whole idea of the European Union crumbles?
That scenario is what leaders across Europe are trying to prevent, by militarizing.
This is true. Trump is looking for a way to justify pulling out while appealing to his voters.
He is really digging for that reason, and without the US, Ukraine will fall. We're helping because we dont want Russia on the NATO boarders. Why do you think Trump has been so anti-NATO, using the 'America First' type of rhetoric to justify it?
Abandoning NATO will domino back to leaving ukraine, and that will be the lesser problem, too.
this is false. just in financial terms the usa has contributed 130b while europe has contributed 230b to ukraine’s war effort. almost double what the usa has contributed.
First, take away financial aid and just look at military aid. The US matches Europe in dollar amount, but smashes it in quality. Other countries gave IFVs to Ukraine, but a Bradley far outweighs the BMP-1 and BMP-2s donated by several European countries. Same goes for our MLRS systems. Then there's the fact that a good chunk of the military aid Europe has given Ukraine comes only with US blessing (like the F-16s and air defense systems) and assurances that US defense contractors would be able to replenish European arsenals.
Also the most comprehensive website tracking aid to Ukraine has zeros for the US in 2025, which isn't true. There have been continued arms shipments, just no new aid packages passed in Congress.
And finally, intelligence sharing doesn't come up at all in these aid figures, but it's US planes flying along the borders of NATO collecting Intel, and US defense intelligence combing through everything and filtering it back to Ukraine, as well as US satellites providing Internet to Ukrainian soldiers. Their entire intelligence and communication system runs through us.
Well go ahead and sign up for the army in that case, they need plenty of volunteers. Maybe offer your kids too. But in the end remember you will just die for your feudal lords. Even if you win you still won’t own anything, corporations will still take most of the profits off your labor. If you consider that to be freedom you are willing to sacrifice your life for then go ahead! But for me this is just a war between feudal lords, from one exploiter to the next, I couldn’t care less.
Revolutionary defeatism is becoming relevant again: transform the imperialist war between nations into revolutionary war between classes!
Acting like the EU isn't the best and most progessive thing that has happened to Europe in the last 2000 years is just beyond historically illiterate.
You can't honestly think we should go back to the diplomacy of the 19th century, right?
I've done my service and it wasn't voluntary. Out here in the frontline countries we don't get the luxury of fantasizing about feudal lords like you chickenshit western europeans can.
Then why don't you go back to the military then? Why expect a bunch of high school / college graduates to do that for you? You're the one talking about "frontline countries" and "preparing for aggression", not them, they might have completelly different views from you, so what excuse do you have? You push for conscription, you regirgurate the threat narrative so lead by example, join the military, so far you can do that from your own free will.
Like I said, I've done my conscription, I've said my vows. If the shooting starts I'll be there. For Finland, or for Poland.
Now the kids that enjoy the freedoms people before them fought and died for need to nut up.
Okay we get it, you’re from the butthurt belt of Europe and hate Russia
Yes and for very good and obvious reasons.
I want you to recognize the immense privilege that you've been blessed with, and I hope you realize how lucky you are.
Your governments (with a few exceptions) are backing the genocidal Israeli government. They are fine with warmongering so long as it doesn’t upset the pax among “white”
It seems that European leaders are still deeply traumatised by the spectre of WW2 and have stuck Russia into the 'rising axis power' mental bracket, which leads to them trying to replay the lead up to WW2 without the appeasement - but obviously if that premise is wrong and Russia isn't a 'rising axis power', then the whole thing is unnecessarily escalatory.
And there's plenty of reasons to think that premise is wrong, Russia is demographically on the downswing and has far less military capability than a few decades ago, plus Putin is 73 and risks dying soon even if Russia wasn't a mafia state with regular assassinations amongst the elite.
Haven’t you heard the saying: “if you want war, prepare for war”?
We might be building up our military right now using the excuse of Russian aggression, but that still means more countries has the new option of deploying their military force to solve problems, instead of dealing with it civil/diplomatically.
That saying is not a universally accurate saying whatsoever, building up a strong defense is the only deterrent you can have to stop an aggressive neighbour that wants to take more land. Or do you think the appeasement plan that the international community tried with Hitler was successful?
That is where only focusing on diplomatic solutions with no military force behind it gets you when the other party has no issue using military force to get what they want.
Why do you think my country (Sweden) spent more in GDP per Capita on defense than the US during large parts of the cold war, even ending up with the world's 4th largest Air Force for a time? Do you seriously believe it was because of wanting to end up in a war? And if you think that why didn't we?
Wow, a one-liner isn’t universally accurate? Im not sure why you would think it is.
Besides, I’m not saying that any country is building up their armies because they want to be at war, I just believe that its more likely for a country to opt in to a war, when they already have an army and equipment ready. Similar to how Sweden have joined wars (sorry, “military operations”) a couple of times over the last decades.
Those were UN mandated peacekeeping missions...
And Sweden joined and stayed in the Afghanistan mission while the Swedish military downsized to its smallest size so it hardly correlates to military spending or the size of the army.
Do you consider those peacekeeping missions to have been a bad thing? In Bosnia Nordbat 2 that you Danes were a part of together with us Swedes undoubtedly protected many civilian lives from some of the genocides that took place during those conflicts.
Of course they alone couldn't prevent every bad thing that happened and the UN sadly has struggled with actually stopping genocides on a larger scale but those missions did absolutely help many thousands of civilians (across the entire missions not just what Sweden did obv) and saved many lives.
There's no diplomatic option with Russia. Their only demands are full surrender and subjugation. There's no middle ground.
[deleted]
Very convenient how you hide your post history and are fear mongering.
I have always wondered what will happen in the UK if there was ever a conscription. I'd refuse, of course, but I'd be curious about what will happen to our equalities act. I have a feeling it will get quickly disregarded.
If the UK starts up conscription I can see a lot of ferries full of tourists heading to Dublin...
If the UK is at war that requires conscription levels of troops you think Ireland is just going to take these folks and shrug it off?
yes, like Poland does and neighbouring countries around Ukraine
Ireland haven't exactly been supportive of the wars of the US/UK/Israel lately, have they?
Not in any way representative of the situation if the UK/EU is in a shooting war with Russia within EU borders.
Absolutely? Duh.
Historically, whenever the UK has introduced conscription, (WW1 and WW2) , travel was by law restricted for those eligible for conscription.
Presumably that would stop the ferries of tourists problem that you speak of, ensuring that the full manpower remained available to the country.
Nah, just take the jail time. It's not worth the hassle. And if they ever drag me to the front lines. I'm shooting high or myself.
We are such a small country any war that lands on our shores is over in a week easy. Ukraine only held on by giving land for time. The amount of land changing places weekly is pretty much the entire UK! 🤣
Of course it depends on the situation but if a foreign power looking to destroy your entire way of life was threatening invasion of the UK would you still refuse if you were conscripted?
As a Swede I've never understood this deep opposition to conscription, although I suppose that is probably a consequence of being raised in a country where every person in the country has a total defense duty meaning on times of war or crisis every man and woman in the country has a duty to help in the defense of Sweden. Militarily or otherwise and the government can call up anyone to perform basically anything that is needed.
I mean this is the problem, invasion of a country like the UK with a dense, sky high population on an island deep behind a bunch of allied countries is as close to logistically and militarily impossible as you can get. Best you can do is lob cruise missiles at the country and deliberately target civilian populations, which didn't work back when the Nazis tried it.
So the wars the UK gets involved in are almost entirely mucking about on the other side of the world for the benefit of the US or Israel, which the majority of the public always opposes and absolutely no one wants conscription for.
It’s a pointless scenario to imagine anyway. Britain isn’t worth invading. There’s not much to be gained by occupying it
Maybe Roman time travelers think the UK still has a bunch of tin 🤷♂️
If there is a war on the UK homeland (as opposed to the UK fighting someone else elsewhere, which is vastly more likely i.e. such as in Iraq), it'll most likely be with China, not Russia. The UK will just be dragged into said war by obediently following the US into it. And it won't involve any troops landing on the UK itself. Rather it'll be a full scale merciless cyber assault on every UK system, tanking the country's economy for years on end. While simultaneously building up resentment in the Scotland and Northern Ireland via both a depressed economy and information operations until both elect to secede, leaving the country an impoverished shell of it former self. Possibly also a dose of historical irony via enemy state supported trafficking of drugs into the country, as both strategy and revenge for the Opium Wars. Soldiers defend from none of that. And, crucially, this kind of 'war' can be kept up indefinitely - they won't even expect to win it in a year, but in a decade.
The UK should have the least reason to go to war with China given it explicitly has recognised the CCP's ownership of Taiwan since the 1960s - however you're right that our elites are just going to brown-nose the US anyway.
It’s a reflection of your society that you are so eager to go and die for imperialist wars, while the bourgeoisie who rule over you profit off your sacrifice. How can you “not understand” that some countries don’t have laws that can seemingly turn citizens into slaves like you describe? Not for their defense, but for CAPITAL! How can you “not understand” that some people are not willing to die to uphold “their way of life” (what way is that in this day and age but capitalism?) No, our cry is instead Proletarian Internationalism, Revolutionary Defeatism, No War but the Class War!
Imperialist wars? Lmfao I'm Swedish and we haven't been involved in any offense war for over 200 years.
We have conscription specifically as part of our defense plan against imperialist Russia and previously the imperialist Soviet Union you doofus.
Edit. I should add that the reason I say that it's about our way of life is because Russia is diametrically opposed to many of the rights me and my fellow countrymen and women enjoy. Like for example do you think if Russia came to invade that they would be absolutely fine with Homosexual marriage? Or trans people existing, or would keep our freedom of expression and press?
Yeah, I would refuse no matter the circumstances. I'd rather be shot than kill another. I owe my country nothing.
Scotland is a nuclear target anyway, so I don't think I'd need to make the choice if it was that bad.
Would you agree to weapon-free civil service?
No, I won't work under compulsion. I have 80 years to experience this universe. I'm not wasting it dealing with humanities problems. I'm selfish.
Define "your entire way of life".
I don't know any European opposition, but the the US having tens of thousands of conscripts shipped off to Vietnam and coming back traumatized or dead did a real number to the kind of social trust needed to maintain a conscript military.
I'm a fan of bringing it back, I think the all volunteer idea is his in theory but in practice tends to isolate service among dinner households while insulating others. I'd expand it to a year of civic service (or military) for everyone. Do a month or two of PT to get in shape/learn some basic outdoors skills then get shipped off to work in old folks homes or pick up trash or forestry work. Could even make it a jobs thing, if you want to farm here's a farm you can work on and if you like the work, get paired up with a farmer nearing retirement with favorable financing options. Forces everyone to have that college experience where you see a broader world while also helping tie us together.
No, there are no MAJOR youth protests - that’s bollocks, but fits well into Politicos desired narrative.
Also, there is no forced military service, as the right to refuse military service - and do a sort of community service instead - is still in full effect.
This right to refuse is actually part of the constitution itself, would need a 2/3 majority to change.
(Similarly, the law limiting this to males is also in the constitution - and no 2/3 majority is in reach to allow changing it to include all genders)
And some of the small protests and counter-arguments are laughable: “In a democracy nobody should be forced to do things against their will.”
Yeah, sure… have you ever heard about that thing called taxes?
It’s NIMBY behavior first class.
About 70% of population is for this change - and by far most of them (the males, at least) have gone through it, themselves.
If war comes to Germany (which is very much NOT impossible), then all ages will have to serve their country and fight for it (see average age in Ukraine military).
And foreign campaigns (like past engagement in Afghanistan) always only include voluntary service members that actively signed-up for a multi-year period.
In other words, this is the media sensationalizing (happening in German media, as well - it’s easy, cheap clicks…).
I appreciate the comparison to taxes. As citizens of a nation, we have obligations to that nation. I don’t want to pay x% of my income every year, but I do it because taxes are what pays for the services that the state provides.
Similarly, I don’t want to be conscripted, but I understand that a country that refuses to defend itself may soon find that it is no longer an independent country.
I do make a distinction between defensive and/or existential wars and wars of choice. Determining which category a particular military action falls into is somewhat subjective and can be difficult in the moment, however.
Germany cannot guarantee European security and have influence without military force able to back it up to say stand up to Russia, and this isn't possible without manpower in the army as guns and tanks without people aren't gonna do anything.
It is easier to defend a country when you can draw on a large pool of people already trained prior compared to having to train those people when the war starts. There is a reason Finland retained its military conscription, and that was because it's not possible to sustain a 200+ thousand large trained force with 5 million people through voluntary service. Even Germany is not able to sustain its existing army with voluntary service.
Russia is losing in Ukraine yet at the same time is such a big threat that we must bring back conscription or else their tanks will drive towards berlin... heh...
Majority of people in this sub didn't believe the Russians would roll their tanks to Kyiv 4 years ago. Yet here we are.
russ*a is not losing in ukraine yet. the big question is how long their economy can survive being propped up by dwindling financial reserves and artificial growth in the form of military production. what's changed now is that the fascists in the usa have fully come out in support of putin and are now actively aiding him by essentially blackmailing ukraine.
"We resolve wars by arming up?"
Yes? If you have an aggressive neighbor, which Europe definitely does, then you want to improve the quality and scope of your armed forces, especially if you can't rely on the US anymore to act as a deterrent, to change the calculus for that aggressive neighbor in what it will take to wage war on you and what their chances for victory are.
History is replete with larger powers bullying their smaller and lesser equipped neighbors.
Should be simple. If you sign up for the draft and do the training, you have the right to vote. Alternatively, if you have >2.1 kids biological or adopted, you have the right to vote. Regardless of sex in both cases. If there's a war and you don't volunteer, you lose the right to vote unless you have >2.1 kids and assuming your side wins and there are elections again.
That would be fair to everyone.
Service Guarantees Citizenship was satire, not a how-to guide on running a nation.
If someone isn't willing to protect or preserve the country, there's no reason they should have the right to tell others how the country should be run.