deleted by creator
If anything, the Bundeswehr should simply copy the Finnish Reserve model. One better be prepared for the fucking Muscovites as a possible deterrence, because they are far from finished. As long as Vlad receives public support, he can continue to send troops into the meat grinder and that is how the Russians wear you down. They do not give a rat’s ass about losses. Nobody with a sane mind would want to be occupied by the Russians.
What aspect of that model do you mean?
German conscription was (technically still is but the draft is paused) mostly about training reserves.
Honestly, nowadays I think that conscription should be seen more like an education on how to defend yourself within the organized structures of the state, and maybe should also be implemented more in those lines. And such is necessary nowadays. I didn’t have to go and since I had my plans made I also didn’t but I have been considering to maybe look whether I can still at least learn a lite version of it. How many conscripted were forced to fight in the last decades? The first to go, and the only ones since probably the second world war (in germany), is the professional army, no conscripted is forced. Of course once we are in a true conflict to the point that the professional army isn’t sufficient anymore this starts to change, but then it would change for you regardless of whether you have trained the basics or not, and then I would prefer knowing what I do and how to do it, whether I have to or want to defend the society, friends, family etc. in an organized structure or not.
There is absolutely merit to joining the army to acquire skills/knowledge/discipline, but they should be the ones to sell it as such. US just has commercials with cool tech and jerking off about being a warrior right now. I think they’d probably do a lot better if they focused on what can be learned or gained.
Maybe this is a bad take from someone with no military knowledge, but I never understand how “we need bodies for the meat grinder” so let’s do conscription is often only mandatory for men?
You’re either going to shove a gun in their hand and point them in the direction to shoot, have them run some equipment/weapon, or have them in a support role. Both men and women can do those things equally well.
Any very generalized physical differences between men and women would have minimal difference in the ability to carry out their tasks.
You’re thinking of only the battle itself, but if I had to guess more importantly soldiers in any time period march heavy, which does require a lot of physical strength.
The german constitution’s article 12a has a clause on drafting women for work in field hospitals, but also explicitly states they can’t be forced into combat roles.
Sounds about time for a constitution change.
With the current majorities it can only get worse.
Procreation. Long term it’s less worse if it’s half the men that get shot
deleted by creator
This assumes human women are some kind of breeding facility, which they Are not, few men won’t impregnate many women if not for apocalyptic scenarios, there fore that argument doesn’t work. A young mother needs a lot of support, a man that just gives his semen and disappears afterwards is not very helpful in that case. Children are a multiplayer experience for a long time, not just a moment
if not for apocalyptic scenarios
So we aren’t equal then?
When it comes to the needs of the elite, and needing workers, hell no. We never have been.
In terms of reproductive organs: largely not
Of course not
One claim always has been, that “typical woman” is gonna have a hard time to carry wounded “typical man” to safety. But that’s bullshit anyway, because a small guy is gonna have a hard time carrying big guy just as well, and that doesn’t save them from conscription.
Another take I heard during duty was “you serve 9 months, a woman gives her body during pregnacy for 9 months for the fatherland” 😅. Like, ok, didn’t know forced pregnancy was a common occurrence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
So you heard some stuff, any actual reasons too?
really fucking weird comments down here. people supporting forced military service. tf
It’s a demographic problem where the young feel fucked over by the old. The old are the electorate and the young always get the shit end of the stick.
They won’t afford anything ever, please pay boomers pension oh and please die for your country.
Boomers were conscripted, too.
Well I guess some people know a bit of history. It’s hard to stay a free country without a military
Costa Rica’s doing OK. They figured the US keeps starting military coups in the Americas, may as well remove that attack vector. Nobody’s calling them a superpower though.
Some of the older, really damaged boomers I’ve known in my life are pro forced military service at 18. They think it will harden the youth because either they were forced into it ir they don’t understand that their trauma damaged them, it made them compassionless, not stronger/better.
Naiive, misguided youngsters…?
Forced conscription isn’t the best way to fill the ranks and fight a war. But ironically this mandatory service actually lowers the odds of people being forcefully conscripted during an actual crisis.
Military service incentivizes people to join the military afterwards. Having a large swat of the populace receive basic military training, also helps fill the ranks faster and better in the outbreak of a war.
Both of which are the whole point imo. Those extra recruits are something Germany could really, really use badly and without a ready military there can’t be any convincing deterrence.
How about instead of forcing people into military service against their will, stop fucking over young and working class people so maybe they feel like there is actually something worth fighting for.
Why not both?
There’s no amount of money you can pay someone to give their life if the living conditions are good. The only option is either make it ideological to serve (eg: nationalism) or choose from poverty/unemployed class.
Fucking over the young and working class helps in both. You get a strata of society you can manipulate on ideological and financial grounds
There’s no amount of money you can pay someone to give their life if the living conditions are good.
Perhaps not to give their life, but to risk it there is, which is more accurate. It’s not like joining the military has a 100% fatality rate.
You do realize that mandatory service is not the same as actually joining the military? Besides, the military doesn’t want to recruit people who will actively resist their service and stir trouble.
Conscious objecters used to be either released from service or offered some sort of alternative to completing their service. So if you really don’t want to go, you’ll likely be able to dodge it.
My point is that if you create the incentives for people to voluntarily choose a career in the military, then you don’t have to force people to serve against their will. And that includes making a society that people think is worth protecting, instead of one that just protects capital interests of the rich, while fucking over poor people, most of all the same young people that are being pushed into service. But it’s easier to just force them, I guess.
My bad! I misread your comment 🫢
Doesn’t work when veterans have consistently and publicly been treated like shit, the army needs at least be a better option afterwards and if it’s not then not even the desperate will willingly join.
If you’re talking about USA veterans, then it should be surprising that most soldiers and veterans lean Republican despite Republican politicians advocating for shittier treatment
Policy to ideological leaning is not a straight line
Right, so we should just sit back and let Eastern Europe get overrun by Russia? I’m sure it’ll work out great for youth unemployment and affordable housing. Freedom and democracy are actually worth fighting for.
I’m less worried about Europe’s ability to defend itself against Russia than I am about building a strong military for the fascists of the AfD if they manage to take power in Germany.
Besides, in my opinion forcing unwilling people in to military service is immoral, regardless of circumstances.
maybe history showed that militarization is a major contributing factor for the authorian formation of societies.
This is also a very legitimate concern.
Nobody from Europe is sending troops into Ukraine. Nothing will happen until Russia actually attacks a NATO member, but then it’s a genuine question if any NATO country will actually uphold its promise.
Comsidering how many countries are really really scared of Russian nukes, I think it’s more likely that should a NATO country get attacked, every other NATO country will just pussyfoot around, even if they have a large military.
Russia actually invading a NATO state is not a likely scenario, but minor incursions are. Not responding to those will fracture NATO and invite even more Russian aggression, with the ultimate goal of wrestling territory from the Baltics.
But here’s the catch: its not just the Baltics that are at risk. The Baltic states are also EU member states. If Russia manages to succesfully confront and annex EU member states, then it will massively impact things like the value of the Euro, the credibility and stability of EU institutions, freedom of travel et cetera.
Even right-wing governments will be forced respond. So we’ll still end up fighting a war with Russia, only from a considerably worse poisition then if we continue re-arming Europe and supporting Ukraine.
Let’s not forget the profits!
I think people live in a fairy tale.
Or they understand the only realistic military threat they could face is a second-rate power unable to conquer its much smaller nextdoor neighbor.
What I can tell you is that Russia’s best chance would still be to face a country one by one.
Even if you don’t care or underestimate the capacity of them to wage war, being ready is your best deterrent.
No, that’s the third or so best deterrent. The best deterrent is to back Ukraine to the hilt so Russia doesn’t get ideas ever again.
That’s right Ukraine is just waving that off that without a sweat
Okay let me put it like this: Germany is spending more annually on its military than Ukraine ($84 billion vs $114 billion in 2025) despite only the latter being at war. The economic and technological ability to wage war isn’t even comparable between those two countries. Now of course war is about more than just money, but in industrial warfare money does matter a lot. So does industrial capacity, which again Germany has much more of. And that’s Germany alone, not even the whole EU. In the absence of competing evidence I’m very comfortable assuming that Germany would do much better than Ukraine if attacked.
We do not have enough natural resources, especially oil, to keep the mechanized equipment rolling. The Russians are capable of disrupting logistics and damaging production sites. Furthermore, the German mindset, post WWII, is pacifistic and one can thank the Allies for creating it. They wanted to surpress our so-called Prussian military pride.
Those numbers need to be put into relation. GDP, per capita or such.
Not really, because my point is that Germany (and comparable European states more generally) can already fight Russia or at worst build a military that can fight against Russia if necessary. Military power doesn’t work on a per capita basis.
How many troops does Germany have vs Ukraine?
63 thousand, because Germany doesn’t face serious threats to its territory that’d require a bigger force. It’d increase if that was necessary (which would be obvious from a mile away). The money necessary to pay and supply more troops would be much better spent helping Ukraine in any case.
In your two above posts you seemed to suggest that Germany could already take on Russia without any troop increase…
Apparently you now seem to at least agree that it should move along with the threat. Which is great, because that’s what they’re doing. But also goes against the message from these protestors
That is the difference between an wartime economy of generally cheaper labor (east Europe) oriented primarily to provide resources for war, greatly (although not sufficiently in my opinion) supported and backed by the European Union and a slow bureaucratic economy known to be inefficient, time wise and monetary wise, economy. We hope that the European Union keeps together. And we certainly dont want to be forced to fight a war the way like Ukraine has to. No question Europe (if it stays united and doesn’t slowly bleed states to Russia’s control) would win a conventional conflict but the questions are at what cost? I rather win such a war in weeks than months, rather in months than years, and preferably with less missiles landing in my neighborhood.
I won’t claim to know the best way to beat a Russian invasion quickly, but in any case such a thing would be obvious from a mile away (like their invasion of Ukraine was), so there’d be ample time to prepare. Meanwhile if you want to prevent a Russian invasion the way to do that is to pump as much money and weapons as humanely possible into Ukraine while cutting off Russia entirely. Resources are limited, so doing one will naturally compromise the other.
It takes years for big military equipment to be delivered. Getting military barracks up to date also takes years (especially in our current slow system). So do structure of commands etc. There are plenty warnings of secret services that attacks on European NATO countries are a possibility already in the coming years (2029 the most commonly mentioned date). We are already seeing plenty attacks that are arguably are already beyond hybrid warfare and just recently have been warned of potential drone attacks on southern European states. Considering it takes at least a few years to get our military into a state where it can operate comfortably against such threats I would argue that there is not ample time, because such attacks are already on the horizon. I do agree that the most efficient way to stop russia with the least possibility of escalation is to support Ukraine at all cost and give them everything they need. That is the way to stop Russia without direct confrontation.
what do you mean?
Their life, stability, future prospects, are all based on the assumptions their government is capable to provide them, and a state’s stability is at its very core in its ability to provide security internally but also externally.
What gives a country it’s authority is it’s military.
A new law introducing voluntary military service came into force in January
If they don’t have compulsory service, and voluntary service is new this year, how have they had any military at all?
No one likes conscription, but when Russia starts invading, are you going to just let the country go undefended? If you wait to sign up until the missiles start flying, it’s too late.
They are actively recruiting 18 year olds, who then can throw the recruiting letter away.
You could do voluntary serve this entire time.before that it was conscription
even 10 years ago I’d side with students as there was no imminent danger to necessitate military service. Today, however, is a different story: russia is unpredictable and war in Ukraine can spill over into the rest of Europe (just watch russian TV with calls to reduce Berlin to ashes, etc.). China is flexing it’s muscle and US on on the colony snatching spree itself. At this point Sovereignty lasts as long as you have sufficient armed forces to back it up.
If they don’t have compulsory service, and voluntary service is new this year, how have they had any military at all?
It’s certainly a weird wording. Maybe German terminology and doesn’t translate well?
From reading the article and the linked article from there it seems like the idea is to get a conscription program in place but the first conscripts will be those who willingly joined. Then with the program in place they can move to “real” conscription. Maybe?
That’s dumb but not unexpected. This cool “their” war evaporates first time you experience war as a victim (in most people at least) and it becomes your war as well.
You can ran of course, but for how long considering it’s going to be ww3 one way or another.
Hey man I think your toast is burning
Please go see your doctor. This kind of speech could be a sign of stroke.
You guys really gotta learn to read. I’m not gonna defend that sentence structure…. But he said all these foreign wars can become less than foreign rather quickly. He then said there’s no escaping them as they are all leading to WW3. I am 90% sure this person is not using English as their first language. But it was still comprehendible. Maybe try before you jump on the poor guy.
Wut
The person is more than likely Ukrainian using English as a second or third language. They are expressing the concern that the longer you abandon them to fight alone; the more likely you are to find yourself in the conflict. It’s understandable why kids don’t want to be conscripted when there’s a war raging 800 miles away??
