Pavel MACKO
.bezpečnosť .stratégie .technológie

Mandatory Military Service: Necessity or Risk for Society? #active reserves#conscription#draft#mandatory service#military reserves#national service#security environment

Professional armies are small, and people aren’t rushing to join them. How would you react if you received a draft notice? For many young Europeans, this may soon become reality.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Andrej Danko criticizes the president and defense minister for attending only a two-week summer camp instead of mandatory military service, while declaring they won’t fight. He himself proposes reintroducing mandatory service, yet rules out any real military threat to Slovakia. Why then do we need mandatory service? Does he want to use it to raise boys into men?

The war in Ukraine has forced countries to reassess their defense strategies. Is mandatory military service the answer to new security challenges, or is it a relic of the past that brings more risks than benefits? Let’s look at the arguments for and against, and how different countries approach this sensitive topic.

Mandatory Service in the New Security Environment

Many countries shifted to professional armies after the Cold War ended. These were mainly intended to handle international crisis management. Large-scale and prolonged war was considered unlikely. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, however, swept this assumption aside and brought back the question of preparing for war.

Will mandatory service return as it was during socialism? What worked in the past may not work today. The political regime has changed, society is evolving, and new technologies and threats are emerging. This new reality requires new approaches. The key will be to respond flexibly to changing threats and potential long-term crises. But this requires people – qualified and prepared. Finding a suitable model of defense and security can strengthen a country’s resilience and readiness.

Finland maintained mandatory training for men even after the Cold War ended. As a result, it now has one of Europe’s most prepared armies with more than 900,000 reservists. This model is proving extremely effective in the new security reality. Other countries are considering reintroducing mandatory service.

Hundreds of thousands of reservists may not be enough. What matters is whether they are well-trained and prepared to defend their homeland on the 21st-century battlefield. Mass mobilization in Ukraine revealed many problems with mandatory service. Ukraine mobilized only after the war began, having abolished mandatory service a few years earlier.

Some were lucky and completed proper training or retraining on new equipment abroad. Most had only quick 14-45 day training. This didn’t provide conscripts with sufficient preparation, leading to high casualties and low effectiveness. Short training can’t replace years of professional preparation. Untrained units are more vulnerable and less effective. They’re not suitable for all tasks. But when you’re at war, you don’t have many options.

Although Russians officially claim they didn’t use conscripts in the war against Ukraine, their experience with conscripts isn’t positive either. According to testimonies from many captured Russian conscripts, their morale and commitment were low. Insufficient training and weak motivation contributed to the Russian army’s failures. Mass deployment of poorly prepared conscripts isn’t a recipe for victory.

These experiences show us the risks of mass mobilization. A modern army requires quality and long-term training, not just quick courses. Only professional soldiers receive this. They are expensive, not abundant, and not needed in such numbers during peacetime. In conflict, professionals will still handle the most complex tasks. But they’ll need support and reinforcement from reservists. Reservists will also have many tasks away from the main battlefield, such as protecting critical infrastructure and territorial defense.

Professional vs. Conscript Army

Many countries waver between professional and conscript armies. Both models have their strengths and weaknesses. A professional army offers a high level of training and specialization, but at the cost of higher expenses and lower numbers.

Professionals are better prepared for modern combat. Specialization allows more efficient deployment of resources. Professional soldiers know each other long-term; cohesion and morale in professional units are higher. On the other hand, a conscript army provides a larger number of soldiers and a broader social base. While a professional army may be partially isolated and forgotten by society, a conscript army involves almost every family and thus unites the nation.

The Swiss model of mandatory service for men is considered successful. Almost 50% of the male population undergoes 18-21 weeks of training. This gives Switzerland prepared reserves with more than 100,000 soldiers that can be quickly activated. The traditional quality vs. quantity dilemma shows here in full force.

The ideal solution appears to be a hybrid model – a professional core supplemented by well-trained reserves, including smaller but rapidly available active reserves. Active reserves should be something like part-time professional soldiers.

A professional army will always be fully utilized. When integrated into a collective defense system, it will have three main tasks: to respond and fight immediately, to ensure the reception and integration of allies, and to mobilize and train reserves. To train new conscripts and provide advanced training for reservists, you need quality instructors. These are only found in a professional army.

Overview of European Models

In Europe, we find a diverse range of approaches to mandatory service. Countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, and Austria still actively use mandatory service. The Nordic models appear most successful. Service length ranges from 6 to 19 months. While Finns have 6-12 months of training, Swedes have 11 months. In the Norwegian model, training lasts 12-19 months.

Finland’s total defense system involves almost all men in service. They receive quality military training and become part of prepared reserves. This approach has high public support and is perceived as an essential part of national security. Sweden promotes a selective model, where only a portion of the population is drafted annually. Selected citizens complete 11-month training and form the basis for mobilization.

The success of these models lies in their flexibility and adaptation to modern conditions. It’s not so much about classic mandatory service, but about a targeted system of building reserves.

Traditionally, mandatory service was the domain of men. In the 21st century, however, more countries are inclining toward a more universal model. The argument is not only gender equality but also the practical advantages of involving the entire population. Women make up 50% of the population; their potential cannot be ignored. Modern combat requires diverse skills, not just physical strength. The inclusion of women has a positive impact on unit dynamics.

Norway and Sweden have already introduced mandatory service for both genders. The Norwegian experience shows that universal service is not only possible but beneficial. Since 2015, women have been required to complete service under the same conditions as men, without exemptions. After initial concerns, the system has proven successful, with women now making up 25-30% of conscripts.

Civilian Alternative and National Service

Not everyone is made for the army, even if they’re willing to serve their country. Others, for various personal reasons, don’t want to serve with weapons. To ensure a fair approach and equality of citizens, many countries offer the option of civilian service.

Civilian service respects individual freedom of conscience. It allows meaningful contribution to defense in non-military ways. This strengthens the connection between the army and the rest of society. It builds cohesion in good times and bad.

An interesting concept is national service combining military and civilian elements. The French model of universal national service is an example of such an approach. Young people can either undergo military training or engage in civilian missions in education, environment, or solidarity. This combines personal development with community benefit. So far, it’s an experiment that may soon become the norm.

Civilian alternatives to mandatory service extend its social reach. They allow everyone to find their role in defending and developing the country. But what about public support for mandatory service and these models?

Public Support

The success of any mandatory service model depends on public support. While in Slovakia we have the lowest willingness to fight for our country and the highest susceptibility to conspiracies, attitudes in other European countries are more confident. Out of cowardice, we hallucinate about self-declared neutrality and protection from the Russian behemoth. Our neighbors and partners are looking for ways to strengthen their country and its resilience against threats.

Surveys show significant differences between countries and generations. While support is high in Finland and Norway, elsewhere it’s lower. In Nordic countries, 70-80% of the population supports mandatory service. In the rest of Europe, support ranges from 30% to 60%. Younger generations are less inclined toward mandatory service. Partly because it affects them, and the current era offers opportunities and freedoms they’re reluctant to give up. But without resilience and defense of the country, they could quickly lose them completely.

A key factor is the perception of threats and willingness to defend the country. A Ukrainian survey from 2022 showed that up to 80% of residents were willing to defend their homeland. This is in sharp contrast to 25% before the Russian invasion began. A real threat thus dramatically increases support for military duty.

If we want to achieve broad acceptance of mandatory service, we must work with public opinion. We need open discussion about benefits and disadvantages, seeking consensus. Mandatory military service is not a black-and-white issue. It’s certainly not a topic suitable for populist arguments.

It brings many advantages for national security and resilience. It ensures sufficient numbers of trained reserves and broad social participation in defense. It strengthens the country’s readiness to face new threats. It creates a sense of civic responsibility and solidarity, overcomes social differences, and builds cohesion.

On the other hand, it also has its costs and risks. For individuals, it means interrupting studies or careers and personal sacrifices. For society, it represents a significant economic and organizational burden. If poorly designed, it can lead to wasting human potential and reducing combat effectiveness. The psychological impacts of forced service also cannot be underestimated. Not everyone is ready for the challenges of military life and the pressure of combat situations.

Conclusion

New security threats and changed social conditions require reassessment of current models. Experiences from Ukraine and other conflicts show us both challenges and opportunities for a modern army.

The ideal defense model combines a professional core with well-trained reserves. It offers flexible options for involvement for men and women, military and civilian. It relies on high social support and shared values.

The path to such a model is not simple. It requires open and informed discussion, willingness to seek compromises, and courage to change established practices. We must ask not only about the cost of mandatory service but also about the cost of unpreparedness.