In this week’s Europe Dispatch, Minna Ålander looks at the question of obligatory military service and what the existing conscription systems – and their social acceptability – look like in the Nordic
Countries with small population may not really have a choice. But there are serious downsides to conscription. A really long conscription (for a few years) is not economically and politically feasible in a democratic society, at least absent universally recognized acute external threat (like, say, in South Korea). And short conscription (several months to a year) does not provide time for really serious training (at best, at all times a large proportion of the force is not yet fully trained). In this sense the US model of 4-year contracts is much more effective, as it means that some three quarters of the force at any time are more experienced than any conscript in Europe. Then there's an issue of motivation. All members of the US military are there because they actually want to be there, at least for the time being. Many (if not most) conscripts would rather be elsewhere.
It’s easy to assume that conscripts are unmotivated. But that’s actually not the case for example in the Nordic countries. In Norway they even have the luxury problem that more people would like to do the service than they can absorb. And that’s my point about the social contract: you have to make the case for the military service and make it a motivating experience because otherwise it’s not tenable in the long run.
Of course, the issue of motivation is not universal. But for bigger countries far from any potential threat it may be a problem, especially in societies with generally lower levels of trust. It helps a lot that Nordic countries have very low levels of corruption and generally high trust in government. In the USSR/Russia quite a few conscripts ended up working on generals' dachas.
A standing army/reservists are obviously very important element for any European military especially the Nordic-Baltic 8. And Poland.
But in 2025 I’m actually more interested in each country’s inventory of missiles, drones, air defence and Air Force. I’d be interested in knowing each country’s level of readiness for an air war like the current Iran-Israel one.
Israel, a small country, seems to have an effective method of maintaining military readiness. Don’t know the details, I assume some form of conscription and reserves. Possibly a model for European countries?
I think it’s mandatory military service for most members of society, both male and female. And I think you’re right that they all become reservists if they don’t stay with the military after fulfilling their service requirement.
An excellent conversation starter for ten, one that I am sure is being conducted right across NATO. It makes sense for smaller nations to implement conscription but for a country with a large population and small professional military these, initially, should prioritise their training capabilities. When a crisis arises and a country has to mobilise, it can only do that if it has the capability to train and equip its citizens. Most large NATO nations only have training capabilities to maintain their small professional forces. So in the short term this must be a priority as they implement more robust, gradual increases to their standing forces.
Excellent primer on a topic I was completely unaware of. Much more complex than I would have thought. Thank you!
Countries with small population may not really have a choice. But there are serious downsides to conscription. A really long conscription (for a few years) is not economically and politically feasible in a democratic society, at least absent universally recognized acute external threat (like, say, in South Korea). And short conscription (several months to a year) does not provide time for really serious training (at best, at all times a large proportion of the force is not yet fully trained). In this sense the US model of 4-year contracts is much more effective, as it means that some three quarters of the force at any time are more experienced than any conscript in Europe. Then there's an issue of motivation. All members of the US military are there because they actually want to be there, at least for the time being. Many (if not most) conscripts would rather be elsewhere.
It’s easy to assume that conscripts are unmotivated. But that’s actually not the case for example in the Nordic countries. In Norway they even have the luxury problem that more people would like to do the service than they can absorb. And that’s my point about the social contract: you have to make the case for the military service and make it a motivating experience because otherwise it’s not tenable in the long run.
Of course, the issue of motivation is not universal. But for bigger countries far from any potential threat it may be a problem, especially in societies with generally lower levels of trust. It helps a lot that Nordic countries have very low levels of corruption and generally high trust in government. In the USSR/Russia quite a few conscripts ended up working on generals' dachas.
Thanks Minna.
A standing army/reservists are obviously very important element for any European military especially the Nordic-Baltic 8. And Poland.
But in 2025 I’m actually more interested in each country’s inventory of missiles, drones, air defence and Air Force. I’d be interested in knowing each country’s level of readiness for an air war like the current Iran-Israel one.
Thank you, Minna.
Yes, re-introducing conscription is a real problem for many European countries. It will be solved when Russia invades the Baltics.
But the goal is to build up sufficient visible military strength so that Russia will be convinced not to invade the Baltics.
Flying drones and getting fit should be an easy sell to young men in 2025
Israel, a small country, seems to have an effective method of maintaining military readiness. Don’t know the details, I assume some form of conscription and reserves. Possibly a model for European countries?
I think it’s mandatory military service for most members of society, both male and female. And I think you’re right that they all become reservists if they don’t stay with the military after fulfilling their service requirement.
An excellent conversation starter for ten, one that I am sure is being conducted right across NATO. It makes sense for smaller nations to implement conscription but for a country with a large population and small professional military these, initially, should prioritise their training capabilities. When a crisis arises and a country has to mobilise, it can only do that if it has the capability to train and equip its citizens. Most large NATO nations only have training capabilities to maintain their small professional forces. So in the short term this must be a priority as they implement more robust, gradual increases to their standing forces.