Military conscription

I know it sounds odd but if we were constricting obviously they would now recruit men and women. Would they allow one parent to stay home with dependants?

I’d say Finland’s use of conscription is rooted in its geography and history.

Firstly it borders with Russia, so favours immediate self-defence with little expectation of help in a first phase of an attack.

It has vast, harsh terrain, limited road networks and bad winters – more suited to large numbers. You can’t cover that kind of space with a small force, no matter how well equipped.

I’d also say social legitimacy is unusually strong, culturally. Conscription is seen as fair and necessary, service is relatively short, conditions are decent, training is serious and competence-based. There’s also strong public trust in institutions. That combination makes coercion minimal and compliance high.

Finland is wealthy, but not wealthy enough to maintain a large professional army and cover its entire border permanently.

Hopefully he will be dead soon

Finland

Which country are you referring to?

They aren't soldiers on the whole, they are cannon fodder sent to die.

But why are they willing in my country? Perhaps because there is a culture of national service, and a knowledge that the country can only be defended if everyone plays their part.

If you see my original comment I refer to military allies of the calibre of the west - rich, democratic and technologically advanced.

The above, of course, aren’t the only criteria for where conscription makes sense and is used.

Regardless, they have contributed thousands of troops to the fight against Ukraine.

This simply isn’t true…

No one said they are doing it with sticks and stones, but they are very much doing it without any direct military allies. As are Russia. It’s simply true.

Soldier rich because conscription makes sense in North Korea for reasons that are almost the opposite of why it doesn’t make sense in the UK or US. Strip away the ideology and it comes down to geography, regime survival and control.

For North Korea, war isn’t hypothetical, it’s the organising principle of the state. It faces a technologically superior enemies, it has no strategic depth, and losing a war would likely means total regime collapse, not just defeat.

When the alternative is extinction, efficiency matters less than sheer capacity to resist. They must rely on man numbers due to their other weaknesses.

Also, crucially for North Korea, conscription doubles as political control. Military service is not just about defence, it isolates young people from civilian society, it Indoctrinates them, breaks independent social networks and reinforces loyalty to the regime.

I’ll go even further to say that military service in North Korea also substitutes for their weak economy - cheap labour and a way to keep unemployment invisible.

Yes I was watching something on YT about this earlier - it's insane! Which 65 yr old ex-Veteran is going to want to go back to war, or let's face it, even be fit enough to do so? Keir Starmer is just nuts. Every day it gets worse.

Unwilling is the key. Motivation means more than anyone wants to admit.

But soldier rich, and willing to send their soldiers to fight in Ukraine.

The army in my country does want conscription and considers it essential for national defence. Which army is correct?
Though tbf they're not unwilling conscripts in my country.

Yeah it is now and no surprise considering how much they've spent and the effect of sanctions but before the war it had a powerful economy

Also dirt poor.

No one said they are doing it with sticks and stones, but they are very much doing it without any direct military allies. As are Russia. It’s simply true.

Are you forgetting North Korea?

@Didimum

And as I said, the army do not want unwilling soldiers

Oh, I served for a while (blue uniform), I'm sure none of HM forces want the unwilling..but we are where we are, this problem has been a long time in the making.

See above. I won’t keep repeating it.

No one said they are doing it with sticks and stones, but they are very much doing it without any direct military allies. As are Russia. It’s simply true.

Of course warfare requires ground force, but not in the numbers necessary for national conscription. And as I said, the army do not want unwilling soldiers – they’ve said this of conscription and national service duty recently.

Modern wars reward skill, competence and cohesion, not numbers. And economic damage very quickly outweighs military gains.

Russias economy is in the shitter.

Russia has (well, had) a ton of money to throw at this war, Ukraine has been supported massively (though still not enough) with money and equipment - this isn't two dirt poor countries fighting, these are modern countries with modern economies, Russia's economy being massive in fact, and they still fight on the ground because that is the nature of war - you cannot invade without boots on the ground if the invading country fights back.

The Ukrainians have been equipped to an increasing degree with current generation weapons for use on the battlefield (e.g. NLAW, up to date modern self propelled guns and battlefield missiles - Atacams, etc) aprons and are still receiving financial support...they aren't fighting with sticks and stones.

The Russians are using their best available equipment and soaking up massive casualty numbers....it's all turned into an old fashioned slog and a numbers game.

Yes in a NATO context NATO air would (hopefully) make a difference but if you want a template for a 21st century landware then Russia/Ukraine is it..you need armies.

Problem is maintaining a standing army if any size is very expensive.

In recent years Europe/UK governments have been increasingly unwilling or unable to spend on defence and so to stop public disquiet to some extent have been quite happy to go along with the idea that it can all be done by cyber/drone/bit of air power at a push...frankly that's delusional, but it goes down well with those that don't agree with defence spending or think their kids could be called up to fly drones from the safety of their bedrooms.

Yes, with nations that have comparatively no money or military allies.

There's a war being fought in Europe right now on the ground, with huge numbers of people. There is zero reason to believe that any other war in Europe wouldn't also be fought on the ground. War has not changed that much, people need to stop believing that nonsense, especially politicians that are in charge of making decisions about funding.