Summary

A UK-based think tank warns that Europe’s increased defense spending and weapon production, spurred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is undermined by a shortage of military personnel.

European NATO members now allocate over half of their defense budgets to European-made equipment, yet critical troop shortfalls persist due to decades of underinvestment.

Concerns are heightened with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, raising fears of reduced U.S. support for Ukraine.

European leaders, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, emphasize the need for Europe to become less reliant on U.S. security support.

  • qyron
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    No, no and hell no.

    It is sickening the notion of forcing someone, anyone, into bearing arms. It serves no purpose besides indoctrinating young minds into a set of ideas that serves no other purpose besides an opaque agenda of whatever government is in power.

    If/when push comes to shove and europeans find themselves in true risk of being invaded by any foreign figure, there will be willing people to move to take on the task of defending their soil.

    It’s a good number of decades europeans haven’t picked up weapons to kill each other. It’s not like Europe forgot how it is done.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      There’s another reason to say “hell no” to it: People who don’t want to fight suck at fighting. Conscripts are a headache to officers.

      What I would be in favour of is mandatory service, though – if you want, and only then, in the military, but the default “I don’t care where I end up” would land you somewhere in catastrophe relief, learning how to operate a field kitchen and how to reinforce a dike. Basic paramedic training, such stuff.

      Catastrophe relief is even more reliant on reserve forces than the military when shit hits the fan, and when it does it generally drowns in volunteers – trouble being if people have no training you can’t use them for much more than filling sandbags. Knowing how the organisational structure works and having some experience operating within it is worth tons on its own, even if you have no specific skills that are needed. Also evacuating a city is way easier if the city broadly knows how to evacuate itself. Triage is way easier if you have an army of people capable of dealing with the easy stuff.

      • qyron
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 days ago

        No mandatory service of any kind, full stop.

        If there is something that needs to be widely known by the population, you make it part of the daily life, introduce it at school curriculum, run low profile campaigns that steadily grow awareness and make access to developing such knowledge/skills easy to all.

        I can think of the example of learning how to use a defibrilator, which has become a standard for any person graduating highschool in my country. Stupidly enough, if I want to learn that exact same skill, today, I have to pay a hefty sum, in a country where lack of preparation to give immediate aid to someone in need has been identified as a serious problem.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          I can think of the example of learning how to use a defibrilator, which has become a standard for any person graduating highschool in my country.

          You know what? I almost wanted to write “consider it a part of school” in my original comment. Probably should have.

          It also doesn’t have to be all at one time, back in my days I did about a weekend a month over three years. In one year I got all my necessary hours from a single two-week course camp: Because I wasn’t at home at all during the time those were 14x24 hours even though the course load was what six hours weekdays, the rest party. Meaning to say: Don’t picture military basic with a drill instructor. Noone has ever accused catastrophe defence to be disciplined unless sirens are blaring.

          Not to mention: In many places, particularly villages, it’s practically mandatory anyway: Everyone, at least if male, becomes a fire fighter. You don’t have to stay on for regular duty but you gotta learn the basic ropes so that if shit really hits the fan you know how to help. It’s actually more about re-kindling that kind of attitude in cityfolk.

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      Mandatory military service only trains them in the basics so they are ready when the risk becomes reality.

      Switzerland has mandatory service. France used to have mandatory service. It never created what your said it creates.

      I think you’re making a lot of assumptions.

      • qyron
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        My country had mandatory military service - let’s call what it was - conscription, up to 2004/06 and it only served to fill the heads of young boys with dung.

        Volunteer, professional, well trained, well equiped, armed and prepared effectives are the backbone of what modern armed forces are, not quickly churned out cannon fodder.

        • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 days ago

          In Switzerland, the basic training lasts a year I think? And is meant to teach how the army works and how to use weapons and not just rifles and pistols and knives. Depending on their role they also learn how to use artillery, mortars, how to use maps, how to use vehicles and tanks, how to make calculations and navigate and so much more.

          The whole point of this is that when shit hits the fan, any additional training takes a lot less time.

          It has to be well implemented and taught well. Maybe in your case it wasn’t and you have a bad experience of it.

          Any country that’s serious about training it’s people to be ready for combat in case of a serious invasion will probably do a better job than one that isn’t because they want to be prepared.

          In any case, I can understand why you would feel the way you do if it was implemented poorly in your country.

          • qyron
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            It wasn’t that many years ago that a think tank proposed the reinstatement of conscription as a means to reestablish and ingrain notions of patriotism, sense of duty and honor into its population. This was the general sense of the “findings” of such work group.

            This is extremely dangerous reasoning to have to argue in favor of military service enforced on a population. To call it badly veilled fascism is being polite.

            Basic trainning takes little time. Handling a gun is easy; it’s a very complex machine made simple enough to be handled by a dunce. It also takes very little time to drum in basic notions of rank and role.

            Specialization can only take place after that basic training, which serves the purpose to caracterize the individual inside the group, their capabilities and motivation.

            If an individual volunteers, usually the motivation is already high. A conscript, not very much.

            A country belongs to its people. The notion is too often reversed, which leads to very bad outcomes.