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.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I believe the peace time professional militaries of most democratic European countries would be dwarfed by the number of people those countries would be able to mobilise in a war time situation.
In the case of Norway, we have a standing army of some 20-30 k soldiers, with a reserve (i.e. peace time civilians with ordinary jobs that have pre-set places to meet up in the case of a conflict) of some 50-70 k soldiers. If shit hits the fan, I wouldn’t be surprised if you could get another 100-200 k to volunteer (at the peak of the cold war I believe we had standing army + reserve of some 500 k). The issue is that we are nowhere close to being able to equip that many soldiers.
That’s just Norway, one of the smallest populations in Europe, and we would likely be able to field 100 k + soldiers within a week or two, with another 100 k following up in the next months, given that we have the equipment for it.
Call me naive, but I honestly believe that people in democratic countries would be willing to enlist if there is a real threat of an autocratic regime invading at taking over. Given that we have sufficient numbers of well trained soldiers to hold out the initial weeks/months and train those mobilised, and sufficient equipment to give the mobilised, I hope that we would be able to put a solid force on its feet relatively quickly.
Also, just the sheer population of Europe (≈ 450 million in the EU) is so much larger that e.g. Russia (≈ 150 million) that we should collectively be able to field several million soldiers as long as we have enough equipment for it, and enough trained personell to train the mobilised. So I definitely think it’s reasonable to focus on building equipment stockpiles in peace time, rather than having huge standing armies.
Using the USA as a model, the federal military maintains the specialized units that don’t have a civilian use along with training the military leadership such that it can absorb a larger army.
Individual states have active reserve military units (national guard) that have both military and civilian use. For instance, a lot of disaster response activities in the USA is performed by the national guard under state control.
From that skeleton, the US military can then fill out other units in times of war.
My guess is that an EU military would follow that structure since it has been shown to work well and the union can’t rely on France to build and fund those specialty units by themselves.
No matter how many resources the state wastes on destroying the planet… People are correct in not wanting to die for politicians and imaginary lines on a map.
People are correct in not wanting to die for politicians and imaginary lines on a map.
It’s a great philosophy but if all of your neighbors don’t follow it then you end up being forcibly hijacked.
Time to make military service mandatory again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or make joining the army something desirable
Sure, brainwashing people into accepting to be an instrument of violence directed by a government, in a time of growing fascism, sounds like an amazing idea.
Why not start with kids while we’re at it?
You have a better idea for NATO members and other US allies when Trump decides to break all ties and befriend Russia? If they don’t have enough resources in the military to defend themselves, what are they supposed to do?
