In this week’s Europe Dispatch, Minna Ålander continues on a topic related to last week’s discussion on conscription: what makes people willing to defend their country, and why that matters.
Well done in pointing out the great value of clarity, and how Finland’s geography and history has contributed to enabling such clarity on a large, societal scale. By contrast, I would suggest that much of today’s world is characterized by oceans of ambiguity, that many people are greatly suffering from individually while being vulnerable to manipulation e.g. from populist politicians and other agents of disinformation and propaganda.
Likely in November we will have a vote in Switzerland on extending mandatory service (not necessarily military) to women as well: www.servicecitoyen.ch/de
It will be interesting to observe how the arguments in the campaigns play out.
I actually believe that there is a feedback loop between service and believe that there is something worth defending, as the service contributes significantly to the sense of national community.
Yes, I think the relationship is reciprocal. Britain was a very unequal, divided and deferential society, but the experience of fighting a total war for national survival contributed greatly to the creation of a welfare state after 1945. Unfortunately we are back to being a very unequal country again with poor social cohesion, and many British people feeling they have little stake in things as they are. Putin and his minions understand this very well, of course, and are stirring things up...
Sweden was not always nice to its neighbors, including the Finns (although the Germans had it the worst). But fortunately, the imperial ambitions are long gone. If only we could induce the same transformation in the Russians...
Interesting post Minna and one that I think will likely be a topic of consideration in many NATO nations.
A couple of months ago I saw a very unscientific poll here in the UK asking if the respondent would fight for their country if it was at risk. The responses were not encouraging but then again it was not targeted or scientific. However, in the early 1980's when Argentina invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands the national sentiment was extraordinary and there was very little discent when the Task Force was sent south. Recruitment for the military surged and the difference between then and now was "messaging".
Since the end of the Cold War every successive government has benefited from the "peace dividend" and I have seen the social fabric of this country significantly improve. Of course there are always those who say we should be spending more on this or that but there is little acknowledgement that this improvement has come about at the expense of defence. Many in this country have only been the beneficiaries of this improvement and not known of the potential threats. What threats there have been have always been overseas and far away but occasionally a terrorist attack focusses the mind for a short period of time and these threats have been dealt with by the professional military.
During the Cold War, government messaging was very clear and direct. Now there is no clear messaging only what is portrayed in the MSM. Starmer I think recognises this and as I understand it he is addressing the nation later today. The recent SDR and National Security Strategy highlight the threats and what the government is going to do but he nevertheless still has a major hill to climb. The country has been used to its improved services and in order to meet the proposed increase in MOD spending, service cuts or tax rises will be needed.
The government governs with the consent of the people and in order to prepare the UK for potential threats, Starmer needs to convey a convincing message but it will not be popular. With the right message and repeated often it will seep into the fabric of the population. The uphill aspect is that the country has not had this type of messaing for 30 plus years so it will take time.
There will always be naysayers and those who do not feel that it is their responsibility but other nations, well all I'll say is that these buttercups need to buckle up because Russia is an exostential threat which has the potential to impact the homeland. For those that argue we spend enough on defence, I would argue that every apsect of British society has benefitted from the peace dividend over the last 30+ years but now we need to re-arm and that includes preparing the young people of this nation to fight.
Conscription in this country would only happen if there was a declaration of war but there has been some interesting thoughts regarding how to engage the population and increase threat awareness but at the heart of all of this is the right message and hopefully Starmer will start that this evening.
In economics, studies have commented that rates of tax compliance go up when more people identify with their country. This happened in Spain when it moved away from Franco's dictatorship to become a democracy. In America, by contrast, there was no popular identification with the Vietnam War; the draft fell on the under- privileged sections of society. In Vietnam, there were serious problems of morale n the US forces, to the point senior commanders were concerned by the possibility of an internal collapse.
That's consistent and speaks highly of the FInns! Also, according to many historians, the experience of fighting a common enemy (as in Finland's famous Winter War) binds people in sense of shared nationality. Also, the argument has been made that the imperial experiments of Britain and France gave regions in their countries (Scotland, Wales) (Brittany, Normandy, Provence, etc.) the feeling of sharing in national prosperity. Earlier, of course, the central monarchy had battered down the castles of the feudal lords and made them subservient (Ireland could not be absorbed).
The United States has a somewhat recent (post-WWII) record of fighting wars in places like Vietnam, Iraq and undoubtedly Afghanistan as well that were not, let's say, inspiring to the great majority of Americans. Currently, military service is often a way out of a dead-end town or area for many of its young inhabitants who see national military service as a way to get positive and remunerative employment cloaked in the patina of patriotism.
You're absolutely right. I cited only one example, but indeed there are others. Here's a quote from a recent (October 2024) book: The Vietnam War: A Military History, by Geoffrey Wawro: "...the military in Vietnam relied entirely on draftees and "volunteers", young men who volunteered for noncombat jobs in order to avoid being drafted into the combat units, where 88 percent of the grunts were draftees. The force began to fall apart in 1969 ...Drug use surged, race relations worsened, and the combat units began to practice "search and avoid" rather than search and destroy. Officers and noncommissioned officers who tried to coerce their soldiers into combat were ignored or murdered (fragged)...The dirty secret of Nixon's Vietnamization plan was that it was more about removing America's demoralized armed forces from Vietnam before they disintegrated, or before they suffered a series of catastrophic defeats in the field or even inside their bases. Force security and vigilance had become so slack by 1970 that commanders and politicians feared massacres of American draftees at communist hands."
Indeed the cohesive effect that Finland’s last wars had was due to their defensive nature. The winter war actually sort of ”healed” and united the nation from the trauma of the 1918 civil war. Wars of aggression rarely have a cohesion-boosting effect in the long run, see e.g. Germany…
Good point - on the healing through a defensive war rather than a war of aggression. Interestingly, in many cases, that's probably the reason even wars of aggression (e.g. Germany's in 1938-45, including the annexations of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia as well as Austria) are often presented as defensive, e.g. of the beleaguered German people in a fight for the means of survival ("living space") against vast and threatening enemies in international conspiracies (esp. to starve Germany again as in WWI). Milosevic presented the Serb majority as an ethnic minority threatened by Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims allied with their coreligionists in other countries.
Italy & Spain aren't even willing to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. Conscription seems like a pipe dream for most of Europe.
I do think NATO is dysfunctional and a large part of the problem. I think an alternate organization must arise that requires a level of spending and minimum contribution of troops that can join incollective action. In time, nations may see value and being part of the NATO+ alliance.
Well done in pointing out the great value of clarity, and how Finland’s geography and history has contributed to enabling such clarity on a large, societal scale. By contrast, I would suggest that much of today’s world is characterized by oceans of ambiguity, that many people are greatly suffering from individually while being vulnerable to manipulation e.g. from populist politicians and other agents of disinformation and propaganda.
Let's hope the Fins won't be put to the test, although I suspect, unless the Russian economy collapses, they probably will be.
On the subject of threat assessments, did you see this in the FT?
Most Britons view US as security threat after Trump’s election
Only Russia was perceived to be a greater threat, putting the US ahead of both Israel and Iran
https://on.ft.com/3T5gic3
Likely in November we will have a vote in Switzerland on extending mandatory service (not necessarily military) to women as well: www.servicecitoyen.ch/de
It will be interesting to observe how the arguments in the campaigns play out.
I actually believe that there is a feedback loop between service and believe that there is something worth defending, as the service contributes significantly to the sense of national community.
Yes, I think the relationship is reciprocal. Britain was a very unequal, divided and deferential society, but the experience of fighting a total war for national survival contributed greatly to the creation of a welfare state after 1945. Unfortunately we are back to being a very unequal country again with poor social cohesion, and many British people feeling they have little stake in things as they are. Putin and his minions understand this very well, of course, and are stirring things up...
Sweden was not always nice to its neighbors, including the Finns (although the Germans had it the worst). But fortunately, the imperial ambitions are long gone. If only we could induce the same transformation in the Russians...
I believe Sweden still has art treasures looted from Prague in 1648.
Thank you Minna. Put a Finn at the head of NATO.
Interesting post Minna and one that I think will likely be a topic of consideration in many NATO nations.
A couple of months ago I saw a very unscientific poll here in the UK asking if the respondent would fight for their country if it was at risk. The responses were not encouraging but then again it was not targeted or scientific. However, in the early 1980's when Argentina invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands the national sentiment was extraordinary and there was very little discent when the Task Force was sent south. Recruitment for the military surged and the difference between then and now was "messaging".
Since the end of the Cold War every successive government has benefited from the "peace dividend" and I have seen the social fabric of this country significantly improve. Of course there are always those who say we should be spending more on this or that but there is little acknowledgement that this improvement has come about at the expense of defence. Many in this country have only been the beneficiaries of this improvement and not known of the potential threats. What threats there have been have always been overseas and far away but occasionally a terrorist attack focusses the mind for a short period of time and these threats have been dealt with by the professional military.
During the Cold War, government messaging was very clear and direct. Now there is no clear messaging only what is portrayed in the MSM. Starmer I think recognises this and as I understand it he is addressing the nation later today. The recent SDR and National Security Strategy highlight the threats and what the government is going to do but he nevertheless still has a major hill to climb. The country has been used to its improved services and in order to meet the proposed increase in MOD spending, service cuts or tax rises will be needed.
The government governs with the consent of the people and in order to prepare the UK for potential threats, Starmer needs to convey a convincing message but it will not be popular. With the right message and repeated often it will seep into the fabric of the population. The uphill aspect is that the country has not had this type of messaing for 30 plus years so it will take time.
There will always be naysayers and those who do not feel that it is their responsibility but other nations, well all I'll say is that these buttercups need to buckle up because Russia is an exostential threat which has the potential to impact the homeland. For those that argue we spend enough on defence, I would argue that every apsect of British society has benefitted from the peace dividend over the last 30+ years but now we need to re-arm and that includes preparing the young people of this nation to fight.
Conscription in this country would only happen if there was a declaration of war but there has been some interesting thoughts regarding how to engage the population and increase threat awareness but at the heart of all of this is the right message and hopefully Starmer will start that this evening.
In economics, studies have commented that rates of tax compliance go up when more people identify with their country. This happened in Spain when it moved away from Franco's dictatorship to become a democracy. In America, by contrast, there was no popular identification with the Vietnam War; the draft fell on the under- privileged sections of society. In Vietnam, there were serious problems of morale n the US forces, to the point senior commanders were concerned by the possibility of an internal collapse.
As it happens, Finns really like to pay their taxes
That's consistent and speaks highly of the FInns! Also, according to many historians, the experience of fighting a common enemy (as in Finland's famous Winter War) binds people in sense of shared nationality. Also, the argument has been made that the imperial experiments of Britain and France gave regions in their countries (Scotland, Wales) (Brittany, Normandy, Provence, etc.) the feeling of sharing in national prosperity. Earlier, of course, the central monarchy had battered down the castles of the feudal lords and made them subservient (Ireland could not be absorbed).
Would you agree Minna that Finland’s homogeneity of its population strengthens its social contract?
Yes for sure that helps - generally easier in countries with small population to foster social cohesion
The United States has a somewhat recent (post-WWII) record of fighting wars in places like Vietnam, Iraq and undoubtedly Afghanistan as well that were not, let's say, inspiring to the great majority of Americans. Currently, military service is often a way out of a dead-end town or area for many of its young inhabitants who see national military service as a way to get positive and remunerative employment cloaked in the patina of patriotism.
You're absolutely right. I cited only one example, but indeed there are others. Here's a quote from a recent (October 2024) book: The Vietnam War: A Military History, by Geoffrey Wawro: "...the military in Vietnam relied entirely on draftees and "volunteers", young men who volunteered for noncombat jobs in order to avoid being drafted into the combat units, where 88 percent of the grunts were draftees. The force began to fall apart in 1969 ...Drug use surged, race relations worsened, and the combat units began to practice "search and avoid" rather than search and destroy. Officers and noncommissioned officers who tried to coerce their soldiers into combat were ignored or murdered (fragged)...The dirty secret of Nixon's Vietnamization plan was that it was more about removing America's demoralized armed forces from Vietnam before they disintegrated, or before they suffered a series of catastrophic defeats in the field or even inside their bases. Force security and vigilance had become so slack by 1970 that commanders and politicians feared massacres of American draftees at communist hands."
Indeed the cohesive effect that Finland’s last wars had was due to their defensive nature. The winter war actually sort of ”healed” and united the nation from the trauma of the 1918 civil war. Wars of aggression rarely have a cohesion-boosting effect in the long run, see e.g. Germany…
Good point - on the healing through a defensive war rather than a war of aggression. Interestingly, in many cases, that's probably the reason even wars of aggression (e.g. Germany's in 1938-45, including the annexations of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia as well as Austria) are often presented as defensive, e.g. of the beleaguered German people in a fight for the means of survival ("living space") against vast and threatening enemies in international conspiracies (esp. to starve Germany again as in WWI). Milosevic presented the Serb majority as an ethnic minority threatened by Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims allied with their coreligionists in other countries.
Wonderful article. Maybe I should have been born a Finn and not an American? I would have taken Danish if Finn was not available. . .
thank you, good stuff
Italy & Spain aren't even willing to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. Conscription seems like a pipe dream for most of Europe.
I do think NATO is dysfunctional and a large part of the problem. I think an alternate organization must arise that requires a level of spending and minimum contribution of troops that can join incollective action. In time, nations may see value and being part of the NATO+ alliance.
A very interesting recent book is "Why War?" by Richard Overy. Here's a video discussion of the book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCRZ3Y7UWpQ
(One of my long-term interests has been military history and strategy; that's how I came to Phillips's newsletter, after reading his books!)