Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

12
  • 5
    @njuffa I don't want to go to far into that rabbit hole, because it is not the main point of this answer. But... I did one year of French draft in the late 90s. This seemed much like a pretend-army: we were under-equipped, under-trained - I shot 18 .223 rounds in one year - and largely everyone in the draft were high-school only (more educated people chose Peace Corps equivalents or found bone spurs to complain about). I don't think this has a future to have a rapidly effective military in case of war. Ukraine is not the same situation. First, they are at war, so have more power ... Commented Jun 26, 2025 at 0:18
  • 3
    ... to compel ppl to serve. And, crucially, UA had been at war since 2014 and high % of the 2022 army had military experience from the Donetsk area. They were not a hypothetical 2028 start-from-scratch French/German draftee. Switzerland and Finland have different conscription models which show more promise. Another model might to draft but keep a much smaller number, with handsome payoffs like university support (partially what Sweden does, minus the extra benefits). I am just skeptical of old style, low-training, draftees to operate modern weaponry. And it sucks ppl out of the workforce Commented Jun 26, 2025 at 0:25
  • I'll leave the statement where it is. Blanket increase of budgets may not be sufficient if too few are serving. But if I don't state my skepticism about the draft - which we will agree to disagree on - then people may think "Hey, but let's bring back the draft!" A popular idea with the older folk, who are at no risk of it. Less so with the youngsters. But I've added that ever useful IMHO. Commented Jun 26, 2025 at 0:58
  • 6
    The "[US] spending on [Europes] behalf" is a debatable phrasing to begin with, as it's just as easy to argue that the US merely spent a ton on it's interests which happened to also help (Western) Europe. Like me buying a cake isn't spending money on the bakery but on myself with the baker also benefiting. Commented Jun 26, 2025 at 13:30
  • 1
    @quarague I was more referring to the wishful thinking that financial wizardry is magically going to avoid any future service cuts or tax hikes to pay for this. I understand the political reasons for this stratagem, but European countries are generally quite heavily indebted already. Commented Jun 26, 2025 at 16:20