Germany votes to bring in voluntary military service programme for 18-year-olds
bbc.comTo offer a bit of context, the same government just voted to raise current pensions at the expense of steep taxation hikes for current workers, made massive cuts to social services, and is now discussing military service.
This generation is rightfully feeling like they're getting a sore deal.
Yes and the question is who does the German state really target to enroll in their "new" army. Because "This generation" has a lot of clearly distinct groups.
So it could be:
- the native young population who are now flocking in the AfD
- the people fighting the AfD in the street
- the second generation immigrants born there
- the very recent immigrants
- a mix of all
Because the alchemy of creating a working army and "esprit de corps" is much harder than in a corporation. You cannot just take a modern managerial approach to creating an army.
A mix of all will end up obviously in a disaster but selecting on any group will end up in a civil war or coup.
Once the economy starts to collapse even more due to rising energy prices/cost of living they'll find enough people for the front. This would be the first war ever where no one showed up. Not going to happen. Bundeswehr has been whitewashed and propped up for years already in spite of being completely incapable of even providing Germany with defense for a prolonged time.
Many IT projects for freelancers in Germany are Bundeswehr/NATO related because they're among the few who hire people right now because of the economic situation.
Once we reach the point where people have to decide if they enlist in order to to keep on feeding their families, that'll sort itself out.
> A mix of all will end up obviously in a disaster
Why would an army that directly mirrors the civil society be a bad thing?
Because the military and war is like putting a society in a pressure cooker. Nothing good comes out of it.
We have been told in most stories that this is a time when people come together and stand up but this is really propaganda.
The reality is most people go a little bit crazy and paranoid in these situation. Understandably.
For example, friendly fires have always been very much under reported. Can you imagine what it lead too when an army is already a bit suspicious of each other?
Dude, it's kids. Their mind isn't set in stone, their opinions aren't very founded. Basic military service also includes ethical/political education. People are not getting packed into trenches yet, it's not prison. If anything, this is going to help tensions in society. They will share rooms, showers, dirt and sweat. We're all the same. Nothing has been shown more effective at tearing down prejudices than actual exposure and confrontation.
> Nothing has been shown more effective at tearing down prejudices than actual exposure and confrontation.
The result has been fairly inconclusive. What happen is that people generally keep their views about in-groups and out-groups, but then add exception for the person they get exposed to. A good experience/friendship do not translate to a change in definitions for the in-group, nor does it change existing negative generalizations of the out-group.
What has shown to be effective is demonstration of shared values by the out-group, while at the same time avoiding display of different values. When people share the same values, and more importantly, do not display a difference in values, then the in-group can be expanded.
If I remember right, the book Behave by Robert Sapolsky goes through this.
> People are not getting packed into trenches yet, it's not prison
Yet. And no it is not prison. Is forced labour and death so that some assholes make more profit.
Did you notice that every "patriot" who says "we will defend our country" never goes on the front line ? The same with their children.
When people are getting in the trenches, military service policies won't matter anyway. Before you get mobilization, professional soldiers are called to arms. In the war scenario, literally nothing changed due to this policy.
> Did you notice that every "patriot" who says "we will defend our country" never goes on the front line ? The same with their children.
Germany hasn't had a purely professional army for the longest time. Most men in Germany already served in the military, got basic training, or did alternative service (e.g. worked in a hospital). Mandatory military service is constitutionally set up to draw across the population, regardless of social or economic status. Again, we're not talking about who has to die when Russia invades, but who has to get basic military training...
> Did you notice that every "patriot" who says "we will defend our country" never goes on the front line ? The same with their children.
Excepting many of the signers of the US Declaration of Independence. I'll admit that's a rare exception.
In case you missed the details.
The current law from Friday states:
- every young adult get information material about the Musterung
- everyone is free to go there and free to go to do the basic training
- just in case we will have to few volunteers then the state can at first force everyone to go to the evaluation as it was before - if we will have to few recruits then next step is a loot box system
- then and only then the state can force you. But this has also limits as we are still in Germany
Yes it was a shitty move by Merz to not involve the actual effected generation but I would have expected a far much worst law then this.
> We're all the same. Nothing has been shown more effective at tearing down prejudices than actual exposure and confrontation.
History is full of counter-examples.
Under scientific scrutiny it is not, tho. Contact interventions are considered the most effective tool to reduce prejudices across domains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesis
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971892...
American south? Many contact, few rainbows and unicorns.
If you want to get an idea of what a war situation would do to a society like Germany just remember Covid.
A battle between humanity and a virus deeply deeply divided our society. If I remember correctly Germany or Austria were ready to put non vaccinated people in jails.
About every lines of division deepens.
What the AF are you talking about. Stop spreading lies.
> If I remember correctly Germany or Austria were ready to put non vaccinated people in jails
Lol wtf, got any source for that except "IIRC"?
"I even heard they wanted to reintroduce the death penalty, just for the unvaccinated!" (see how easy it is to invent and spread lies?)
The topic isn't a "war situation" tho, but the forming of an army as deterrent.
I think you are arguing in bad faith. Otherwise you would have recognized Covid isolation has been the opposite of contact interventions. Oh and of course this:
> If I remember correctly Germany or Austria were ready to put non vaccinated people in jails.
You remember wrong, non vaccinated people actually got publicly sodomized by general Drosten himself before euthanization. The former now has been ruled unconstitutional, but failing to get every new vaccine within 3 months is still punishable by death. Life in Germany is unbearable, please stay away!
No need to get obscene. I do remember correctly it was indeed Austria.
Here is the explanation from a big law firm https://www.fwp.at/en/news/blog/austrias-covid-vaccine-manda...
(not the news)
> If I remember correctly Germany or Austria were ready to put non vaccinated people in jails.
Citation needed! I'm from Germany and followed the COVID rules real close. Please do not talk shit.
Sure https://www.fwp.at/en/news/blog/austrias-covid-vaccine-manda...
> In Austria, people are to be obliged to be vaccinated against the Coronavirus from 1 February 2022. This measure includes a mandatory booster vaccination for people who have already been vaccinated. Compulsory vaccination is nothing new in Austria, as the Federal Act on Smallpox Vaccination of 30 June 1948 was accompanied by a measure that sanctioned non-compliance with vaccination with an administrative fine. Administrative penalties are also foreseen with regard to the Corona-Vaccination obligation 2022. Fines of up to EUR 3.600,-- are foreseen for vaccination refusers and up to EUR 1.450,-- for people who do not attend a booster vaccination. Furthermore, vaccination refusers face prison sentences of up to four weeks if they do not comply with the new Federal Law.
The mandate was never implemented, because it was deemed a disproportional measure at the time. So what's your point? And how is this possibly relevant for the issue at hand?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19-Impfpflicht_in_%C3%96...
I would assume it will mostly be youths from the former GDR, which is extremely visible on economic maps, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_states_by_GRDP_...
Former East Germany is lit up in red, similar to how you could see the old borders on night satellite photos from the color temperature of the outdoor lights in West and East Germany, which was most easily noticed in Berlin (article has a picture from 2012): https://kottke.org/19/11/the-berlin-wall-of-light
The outdoor lights will eventually all be LED, which will erase the old border from the night skies.
Easy question: all of the above. National unity is more valuable than ever.
Lol, that's not an exhaustive characterization of "this generation". Most people are in neither group.
Also, the AfD folks would be rather fighting for Russia, the leftist activists will conscientiously object, and recent immigrants are not allowed to serve. Very weird to mention "second gen immigrants", as if ethnostate-ish racial tension is a wider issue in Germany and they are not normal citizens. I see no difference to children of Turkish migrants serving in the past. Do you realize Germany had mandatory military service before?
> A mix of all will end up obviously in a disaster but selecting on any group will end up in a civil war or coup.
Obviously! Jeez...
Btw. historically, after WWII, one of the reasons to have mandatory military service for every man was specifically to get a diverse army, as a cross-section of society, instead of clusters of certain dispositions, so the Bundeswehr exactly won't become an ideological, political force. Conscientious objection is a legal right for every soldier, at any moment, because of it. The constitution also prevents any sort of "group selection". A homogenized army is much more dangerous to the democratic order, than a diverse one. People thought of this before...
> Also, the AfD folks would be rather fighting for Russia
This is what I was suspecting a bit.
But how did they get there? didn't the people from the former German Democratic Republic (where AfD is very strong and a lot of recruits are) broke the wall to liberate themselves from Russia and the USSR?
What happened in the last decade that they would now swing back to Russia?
> But how did they get there? didn't the people from the former German Democratic Republic
It's not that complicated really, the eastern parts of Germany are on average poorer, older and less educated than the western parts, well paid jobs are rare, unemployment is higher (although tbf I'm unfair here towards the old generation, since those are not the typical AfD voters - it's rather the young people who tend to vote on the extreme ends of the political spectrum). Most of the smart young people move to where the grass is greener, those who stay are often bitter and disillusioned.
Carve out a similar demographic slice in western Germany, and you'll get similar high support for the AfD.
...basically the same reason why MAGA is bigger in the rural areas of the US than in the big cities.
They discovered that just like under 'communism', in the 'west' not everyone gets the life of the top 10%.
For context, it's important to keep in mind the population density in former DDR regions is very low. Young people often flee towards bigger liberal cities, as soon as possible. Pronounced in eastern Germany, the AfD is a national problem.
In short: Propaganda. Germany is a major target of Russian influence. The AfD itself is heavily funded by Russia. There is no "old love" situation, Russia isn't representing socialist ideals or anything. (Russia wasn't loved back then either, btw.) Quite frankly, AfD followers often are just misled and detached from reason (e.g. objectively voting against their own interests). If you talk to them they often entertain some really fucking wild ideas and conspiratorial thinking. Of all parties in Germany, AfD has probably the most successful social media campaign, especially on TikTok. Mind you, the AfD's "not our problem"/"do nothing" position is aiding Russia in Ukraine. It's easy to put a nationalist/antisemitic spin on it.
Now, the leftist party is another story. There you find a completely misguided "old love" base, which is dogmatically "pacifist" and anti-NATO. They really should check the values Russia represents these days...
> “ A mix of all will end up obviously in a disaster”.
I totally disagree. Everywhere I look, I’m being told that “diversity is our strength”. This will surely be the most awesome military in the history of human civilization.
I'm in the "recent" immigrants group. I qualify for citizenship since a few years, but this Wehrpflicht nonsense is why I haven't sent my application yet.
I don't think that the social situation is as bad as you describe. I just think that people generally don't feel keen to put their life on the line for Germany.
I think if you want the benefits of living in a country then you should be willing to defend it. This attitude of entitlement without responsibility is exactly what gives migrants a bad name.
I'm not getting any benefits. I was raised and educated elsewhere. I have no access to most social services. I have no kids. I'm here to pay taxes and get the bare minimum back. The services I've been getting were really nothing to write home about.
Ever since I moved here, the law made it very clear that this was a transactional relationship. That cuts both ways.
I uphold German values in my everyday behaviour. Killing for Germany was never on the table.
So why are you there then?
> I'm here to pay taxes and get the bare minimum back
I find this point of view to be profoundly sad and I hope it’s not shared by the majority of immigrants to germany
Not just immigrants, most Germans pay taxes for very little in return while bureaucracy keeps growing.
If that makes you feel any better, this is also very much the case in France, actually, it's probably worse.
But I think it's a general trend in Europe and much of the western world who went all in for socialized everything/government control.
You are getting downvoted, but it is true that young people are getting a very rough deal, and a lot of the people in my circle are looking to emgirate. Friends from other countries and students (mostly know them through academia), are also not looking for long-term opportunities here anymore, which was different 15 years ago.
I would be far less annoyed with paying very high taxes and social contributions (around 50% of my income), if the services provided worked. But this just hasn't been the case for me. The healthcare system is close to breaking apart, and after moving to a new city 6 months ago I have been unable to find doctors willing to take me in. Childcare is constantly closing down due to staff shortages, buying a house is unrealistic unless both partners have good jobs or you inherit, and the jobs market is incredibly rigid and inflexible.
Every single one of these points are worse for young people then for older ones, and the only thing the government seems to get done is giving weapons training to young people and gifting pensioners 180b$/year extra.
Yes, the problem is the boomers who keep getting richer for no good reason, under the premise that they are entitled to massive pensions because they have been promised that much by politicians.
Of course, logically it makes no sense, since the whole point of a socialized system is to adjust the wealth of everybody depending on current situation (economic output).
But it was obviously a lie and our social democracy are deeply flawed because they allow anyone to vote regardless of stakes.
Sending young people to military service/war make for a nice distraction because meanwhile they don't get to think about taking the stuff of the elders by force.
I can only explain the downvotes by people who assume I'm somehow against immigrants since I used the term or who actually think that Germany is still worth living in. I have long given up on HN culture anyways.
To add to what nicbou said, I would like to question the idea that the best way to defend a country is to enlist and fight a war. At the contrary, many are of the opinion that to defend Europe we have to oppose this recent trend of spending billions into the unproductive war machine.
When was the last time germans lined up to enlist in the army? How much good was it for their country?
>At the contrary, many are of the opinion that to defend Europe we have to oppose this recent trend of spending billions into the unproductive war machine.
We've tried that after the end of the cold war, now there is an active war in Europe. You can not unilaterally stop military spending if there are other countries ready to take advantage of it.
>When was the last time germans lined up to enlist in the army?
That would have been during the height of the Cold War, the resulting Reunification does have its drawbacks, but certainly beats getting overrun by the Soviet Union.
> I just think that people generally don't feel keen to put their life on the line for Germany.
Yes this what I am sincerely wondering: which group (however you want to define it) of relatively young people, do they believe they can leverage "to put their life on the line for Germany"?
The plan currently involves a net salary of around 2k€/month, which is quite a lot for people fresh out of school.
By drowning the economy in crisises (energy costs, inflation, immigration, various climate taxes for industries, road tolls) while ramping up billions for military expenses. A stealthy way of shifting to a military industry. The Bundeswehr spent a lot of money on advertising over the last 6-7 years.
It feels like a repeat of a situation that wasn't that long ago.
You'd have better success getting people to fight for your cause when you provide them something of value they can't get elsewhere.
When what people get (using their labor to subsidize politicians & boomers via taxes & rent) is the same thing they can get in effectively any country or even under the invader's rule, the incentives to fight said invader become quite scarce.
This isn't even specific to Germany; a lot of people are fleeing conscription on both sides of the current conflict for the same reason - they just don't get enough benefit to make it worth putting their life on the line.
I think people generally aren't keen on putting their life on the line for anything. But even if this was a mandatory conscription, there is still the constitutional right of conscientious objection.
> I qualify for citizenship since a few years, but this Wehrpflicht nonsense is why I haven't sent my application yet.
First world problems...
You will always be able to object military service, it's not difficult at all and absolutely won't be any time soon. I have a hard time imagining you to be forced to do alternative service. In case of actual war, when mobilization becomes a reality, well... your origin country will likely be involved too.
The mix is the centrist way of populism: I large number of people affected are not allowed to vote. At the same time the current government consists of the 2 parties that were mostly backed by already retired people or baby-boomers, soon to be retired. We have state elections coming again and the government is largely unpopular and has not delivered on other things, with economic prospects not looking good either. After seeing years of partially misguided 'rational' governments, Germany is clearly shifting towards a more populist path (unclear which political direction, but we all know who are the best at this game, particularly if the generation 'never-again' won't vote anymore)
Exploiting the south via the imbalanced currency union doesn't work anymore now that their economies can't swallow more debts to buy German stuff, China and the USA are not buying anymore and decades of underinvestments have caught up. It wouldn't be surprising therefore to see the German government fall backs to the only trick they know: constraining wages and limiting consumption. If I was particularly cynical, I could even argue that this youth conscription is fundamentally yet another form of wage suppression but I genuinely think it's a political coup to please the old voters who want something done for defence, preferably with no impact to them and their savings and don't care at all about the young.
At least, the current government tried relaxing the debt brake a little and investing but I fear it's too little, too late. Germany is hooked to competitiveness shortcuts at the expense of their neighbors. The cure would be harsh. Add the quasi-religious adherence to a completely broken economic model turned into an absurd moral system and I personally have very little hope to ever see the situation improves. Then again, I have too moderate my cynicism. I thought for a long time that the eurozone creation, a currency union without transfers, was so stupid it would never be toppled as the worst political decision but then Germany passed the Schuldenbremse. They might manage to outdo themselves once again.
I'm convinced the status quo will prevail. The German public will prefer slow death to any kind of transfers and common investments. They have already blocked the interesting parts of the Draghi plan. Japanification here we come. Let's enjoy becoming Disneyland while we slowly lose any kind of international relevance. I mean at least there most likely will be catering to the elderly and maybe crafting luxury goods as an alternative to tourism. At least, our brightest should be able to leave to places where innovation still happen. Such an exciting future Karlsruhe is leading us to.
I'm just sad my country is tied to the sinking ship.
The old, the prime beneficiaries, can fight for themselves.
Elbows up!
Classic move: make the kids struggle, then offer them a lifeline if they just put on a uniform. The GI bill is great, but you shouldn't have to step on an IED to go to college.
FYI, higher education is practically free in Germany.
Nah... That's a cute idea but here's some actual data:
https://www.bundeswehrkarriere.de/downloads/mannschaften/936
tl;dr: Okay but it's not golden by any means.
FWIW for a lot of East German youths born into poor families that's pretty good money at 18 years age.
Got to love how they camo their letterhead.
Classic FAFO for decel movement.
Aging population and no growth to pay for it (while growing bureaucracy).
The article is using "voluntary" in a very questionable fashion.
> Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, has voted to introduce voluntary military service...
> The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.
> The government says military service will be voluntary for as long as possible, but from July 2027, all 18-year-old men will have to take a medical exam to assess their fitness for possible military service.
> a form of compulsory military service could be considered by the Bundestag.
Well, that escalated quickly. There's nothing here that could be really described as "voluntary".
Military service was only recently abolished in Germany. And compared to the old system, this one would qualify as voluntary for now. This might not remain that way, but that's probably an issue to discuss if and when that happens. There's all kinds of other challenges at that point, and I think at that point challenges based on fairness could be valid (as only some people are drafted, not everyone).
> Military service was only recently abolished in Germany.
Military service was never abolished in Germany. It was only suspended in 2011 (and lots of people were celebrating even this small improvement).
> The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Registration is compulsory, but actual military service is voluntary (for now).
In other words, it's functionally the same as Selective Service forms in the US.
One, I'm not sure what American founding ideals have to do with Germany.
Two, Germany, like most countries and frankly human populations, has a male surplus in its fighting-age population [1]. This is why, historically, large socities tended to wage war with men first. (Even those that e.g. held elite units in reserve, which undermines the usual biological argument.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#/media...
The male surplus is a few tens of thousands, way to small to make up an army; and no, that is not the reason why men and not women go to war.
The reason for war has always been to kill off young men, since they are disposable fertility wise and an internal threat to current holders of power. This has been the case since the stone age and will be the case until the end of time.
That was the topic of T.H.E.M. by G.C. Edmonson (or so I remember -- I read the translation "Die A.N.D.E.R.E.N." many years ago).
Made for a good story, reality is a bit more complex methinks. There's after all a lot of money to be made with war.
Money is nothing but a representation of power. If it was about money itself, rulers could just print limitless amounts (which they have tried a number of times).
You really don't understand a lot of things you are talking about.
> make surplus is a few tens of thousands, way to small to make up an army
...why would you populate your army solely with the surplus? The point is you have a buffer that you can burn without immediately impacting your demographics for the long term.
> that is not the reason why men and not women go to war
It's a serious theory [1]. (It's more correct to say the surplus and it share a common cause.)
[1] https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_931
>has a male surplus in its fighting-age population
The "male surplus fighting-age population" in Germany will flee to the next European host or back to the MENA country they fled from if conscription begins.
We just pretended the genders were equal in a time of plenty now time to face the reality.
>mandatory for men and voluntary for women.
this is what "patriarchy" actually looks like but you sure won't see anybody on the left complain about that....
For the past decade or more, the people that drone on about male privilege were arguing conscription would never happen again so it didn't matter. They knew they were telling a lie then, they'll just come up with a new one now.
Plenty of people are complaining, and we currently have a right-wing government. Your username is quite apt.
I think he is saying nobody on the left is complaining about how it is mandatory for men, but voluntary for women making it a sexist policy. People might be complaining about it is happening overall, but not about the sexist part.
Every leftist org ive interacted with places cis-males basically lower status than anyone else. Ive even had that used around me as a slur, almost like they dont really understand.
Attacking people just because they are cis- and AMAB (assigned male as birth) isn't bad. Its your actions that determine good or bad.
And, throwing men into a potential meat grinder of war is unethical. Frankly, it should all be actual volunteer, and not this doublespeak shit of voluntarily required.
Theres also this now public problem. Do trans-women count as men or women? And do trans-men count as men or women? The best answer is "volunteer". But governments are weird, especially the conservative/fascist adjacent ones.
Seems to be that whether it's mandatory or voluntary is based on one's sex, not on any sort of identity.
Which makes sense otherwise a lot of males would be able to opt out by claiming that they are women in their minds or souls or in enactment of gendered stereotypes or whatever it could possibly mean to identify as the opposite sex.
Men are the ones used as cannon fodder mostly because from a reproductive point of view they are more disposable. They also tend to be physically stronger so are more suited to many combat roles that require raw strength.
>currently have a right-wing government
just no. Maybe next election when the AFD wins which also happens to be against this.
Merz' CDU is certainly right wing. AFD is right wing extremist.
No, this is what the constitution looks like. The current government doesn't have the necessary majority to change the constitution.
> Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal Fresse halten.
- Konrad Adenauer (1969)
> There's nothing here that could be really described as "voluntary".
that's the same "voluntary" they use for Chat Control, by the way.
Germanys problem is mainly not the number of recruits: The didnt invest for decades, so structures in the background to handle all those additional young recruits are no more existing. Even if they would draw just 25% of evey year, they would not be able to manage it.
> The didnt invest for decades, so structures in the background to handle all those additional young recruits are no more existing.
Yes but remember that was the point.
The career and trained militaries were spending most of their time schooling young people and were not focusing on capabilities. This is why most countries put an end on that nonsense.
So right now you can be sure an enormous amount of personnel in the German army switched focused on running this new "Voluntary service". A voluntary service which will produce at best 1% of workable soldiers.
This makes no sense.
Clearly this country would have enough ressources to have a "professional army" like in many other countries; there are really enough peoply willingly "taking some action", also highly motivatd people would make a much better/stronger force than volounteers?
“The change means that all 18-year-olds in Germany will be sent a questionnaire from January 2026 asking if they are interested and willing to join the armed forces. The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.“ - all men have to fill out and return a form, I suppose this will work to increase recruitment. Doesn’t seem very controversial.
Why do they have to fill it in and return it just to say no? Could this be used against them at some time in the future? And why women instead can just ignore it?
Usually HN is very wary of the consequences of the state collecting data about its citizens and restricting freedoms in small steps. Is it not the case now?
When push comes to shove, men and women aren't equal
When it comes to being drone operators or targets it’s probably a negligible difference
Actually you make a good point here. Women have better reaction times then men, so female drone operators, all else being equal, may be better at the job.
In my village's shooting club the women shoot just as well at the men, and quite a bit more consistently as well.
It’s mostly about ability to haul and dig as I understand it. I roles where you don’t need that as much strength is significantly less important
Source?
to add to this, under German law they very much are different in regards to mandatory military service. Neither the old nor the new laws contain mandatory military service for women leading to mandatory conscription being only an issue for men.
The hand to hand combat, super common in modern warfare, should probably be left up to the men. Great point.
No, to a bunch of neoliberal elite politicians, women aren't equal. And those same politicians won't ever serve, nor compulsed to serve, and/or will shield their families from serving unless they really want to.
But let's call it what it is: compulsed military service is slavery for the elite.
Mandatory military service existed before in Germany, not all that long ago. So this is mostly returned to the same mechanisms as back then, though with the actual service being voluntary for now. And to include woman you'd have to change the constitution, as that part is specific to men.
Eighteen year olds in the US have to fill out a “selective services” form. This was for the draft, and continues in case the draft is ever reinstated. So in peace time not problem, in wartime? Different story.
Correction: Eighteen year old men have to register. Women don't.
The problem here that this probably is only part of a larger society militarization plan.
The guaranteed next step is to offer the volunteers a long term paid contract at the end of their term. This would probably be well above what they would be paid elsewhere (young men with no university degree, desperate enough to volunteer in the first place).
Run the scheme for a few years, and you will have a large number of, young, high-school-level educated people that are financially dependent on the army. Thus, a militarized society.
What could possibly go wrong?
At least as of now Germany has a robust enough social safety net and decent path for non-university careers that make a "poverty draft" system as it exists in the US not viable.
On top of that there is a large dislike in the society against military system. To break that you won't just need "a few years", but likely ~2 generations of compulsory military service for both men and women (e.g. how Isreal does it), that forces a personal connection with the military for everyone.
Both Germanies had a conscription army and mandatory military service during the entire Cold War period, and that didn't lead to a 'militarized society'.
And even with the new voluntary service the armed forces will be much smaller than the army of just West-Germany alone during the cold war (which was about 0.5 million).
It's time to wake up to the fact that the Cold War actually never ended.
> Run the scheme for a few years, and you will have a large number of, young, high-school-level educated people that are financially dependent on the army. Thus, a militarized society
Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Thailand each have active conscription [1]. The slippery slop you describe is far from inevitable.
You probably have no idea what you're talking about. Mandatory conscription (which I have personally served) is for a fixed term, so your livelihood is not tied to the army paying your salary. It's more of a semi-unpleasant mandatory intermission in your life plans.
Also, if you have decades of mandatory conscription then there is no slope to slip. Germany on the other hand is now on a slope, since they regress from a fully professional army back to conscription. How much down they will slip, remains to be seen.
> Mandatory conscription
Active != mandatory.
> Mandatory conscription (which I have personally served) is for a fixed term, so your livelihood is not tied to the army paying your salary
You're seriously arguing that countries with mandatory conscription are less militarised than those with active (but not mandatory) conscription?
I mean Singapore has mandatory conscription (for men), and I wouldn’t call it militarized. Especially not in comparison to some countries that are in the latter category.
Is it worse than a metaphorical army of uneducated and underpaid youth that are still dependant on the state?
They only recently (2011?) ended mandatory conscription so this is a pretty big about-face.
Compulsory military service (or alternative national service) never ended in Germany; in 2011 it was only suspended.
I don’t know the details… does the suspension make the current state in Germany similar to the Selective Service requirement in the US? Or is it “easy” for the German government to establish a draft?
> does the suspension make the current state in Germany similar to the Selective Service requirement in the US?
I don't know how the Selective Service requirement in the US works, so I can't answer this question.
> Or is it “easy” for the German government to establish a draft?
Such a (temporary) suspension can hypothetically terminated at any time by the government. The question is basically how the population will react. I guess if the suspension of the general conscription would be terminated by the government, there would be really furious public rallies (and I am rather certain that my boss would immediately attempt to approve a vacation request if I wanted to attend such a rally in Berlin if it happened during the work week - just as an "innocent" kind of support for this cause from behind the lines :-) ) because multiple generations got really radicalized against compulsory military service (I wrote about this topic at https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=46177817 ).
This is why the German government currently attempts to approach the whole topic of quitting the suspension of compulsory military service so indirectly.
In the US, men have to register for potential draft within a few months of turning 18. Women still exempt. But instituting an active draft wound take an act of congress and be signed by president - very unlikely to pass for the same reason you mention in German - the population likely wouldn’t stand for it.
This current US administration, who didn't win a majority in the first place, is under water on every issue, and is currently on a mission gerrymander everywhere they can in order to not lose congress in a year. What the people are willing to stand for doesn't matter.
This may be too far of an obscure historical reference, but is there really nothing specific to German history and nothing within german civic education and contemporary national identity formation that might make this potentially more controversial?
Hint:some of these events involved spheres of influence and control over resources in eastern europe!
I think the much bigger issue is that the older generation (those who, say, turned 18 in the 70s) told the younger generation lots of really nasty stories about the cruel trials people had to endure who wanted to do alternative national service (Zivildienst) instead of military service. These formed the value system of many people in at least two generations ("Soldaten sind Mörder" [soldiers are murders]).
EDIT: If you understand German, here is a song from 1972 about these brutal cross-examinations:
> Franz Josef Degenhardt - Befragung eines Kriegsdienstverweigerers
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDTtMTcj8X0
Additionally, the participation of Germany in the first aggressive wars in Yugoslavia in 1999 and then in Afghanistan from 2001 on (before citizens were told that the Bundeswehr is only a defense army, and would never participate in an aggressive war) lead to a radicalization of another generation against the Bundeswehr - and yes, this generation eagerly listened to the above-mentioned horror stories of the older generations. It is even rumored that this next generation's radicalization against the Bundeswehr indirectly lead to the suspension of the compulsory military service in Germany in 2011.
> about the cruel trials people had to endure who wanted to do alternative national service
Tbf, at least in West Germany people had a choice. In East Germany you ended up as 'Bausoldat': https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bausoldat, and you could forget about any 'carreer opportunities' for the rest of your life.
And as former East German who then went the 'Kriegsdienstverweigerer' path in unified Germany during the 90's I cannot complain about any discrimination or incorrect behaviour, all communication was perfectly correct and respectful and I didn't even have to show up anywhere in person (in hindsight it was a silly decision - but in the 90s it really looked for a little while like the Cold War might be over and armies would no longer be needed in Europe).
> And as former East German who then went the 'Kriegsdienstverweigerer' path in unified Germany during the 90's I cannot complain about any discrimination or incorrect behaviour, all communication was perfectly correct and respectful and I didn't even have to show up anywhere in person
In the 90s, the situation was already very different - doing alternative national service (Zivildienst) instead of compulsory military service got a lot easier (possible exception of which I heard: you were very athletic - it was rumored that then they still made it much more inconvenient to refuse to do military service).
For good reasons, my references were from older generations - the trauma that they had to endure if they wanted do alternative national service (Zivildienst) instead of compulsory military service exactly did lead to the situation that it got much easier in the 90s to do alternative national service instead.
That's certainly some nuance there! I had in mind a more basic concept which due to legal restrictions in Germany maybe make thinking about it as part of German history and a geopolitical conflict likely to naturally reoccur is part of a Denkverbot.
But I think you should legally be able to answer if you can think of anything between 1914 and 1945 that is taught to Germans in schools that might cause younger Germans to feel some aversion towards preparing to fight a land war against russia in eastern ukraine? Anything that maybe resulted in the premature deaths of millions of young german men, initially volunteers who were solicited at the secondary school level?
Massive political differences and ultimate outcomes aside for each conflict, Germany becoming increasingly militarized has a poor track record when it comes to not getting extremely large numbers of teenage german boys killed in eastern Ukraine.
Has a standing army of angry young men, resentful at their economic circumstances in Germany ever historically caused any problems?
This got to be the final scream of a dying regime.
Not so long ago we were told a serious army has now to be a professional and highly trained army. Everything else was useless.
But they seem to plan to just draft young people and fight some sort WWI a bit like the nightmare in Ukraine.
But today Western Europe countries are not Ukraine. If they would engage in a war they would collapse into total chaos very quickly. Those are old, very divided and absolutely not resilient societies.
Just cutting the electricity for a week would collapse the cities. Starting with people putting the buildings on fire because they do not know how dangerous candles are.
"Training" young people for 6 months wouldn't change that.
This is a bit like what happened in WWII when Germany attacked country like Belgium or France. They went right through it because there were a dissymmetry between the German who had it really tough for 20 years and the Belgian or Frenchman at the time.
But the current head of NATO is a former HR at Unilever, so I guess he knows better.
The alternative of doing nothing, pretending the world is the same as 15 years ago and praying for world peace doesn't seem like a better idea.
If anything military service should have been kept everywhere in europe. Not for war, but for national cohesion, for some people it was the only time they'd get out of their little social bubble and stereotypes.
The speedy success of Germany invading France in 1940 had more to do with their use of radios and giving commanders on the field some latitude on how to accomplish objectives than with the consequences of the Versailles treaty on the population. The French Army and the British Expeditionary Force were more stuck in a WWI style of command from the top that proved vulnerable to speed. But it wasn't clear cut as the "fast attack" plan was initially rejected by the German top brass, themselves still stuck in the past.
suddenly when war comes is only mandatory for man
Including women would have been a legal nonstarter.
The german constitution restricts drafting to men[0] and would have to be changed before such a law could even be considered.
Before you ask, yes, the constitution also says that men and women need to be treated equally[1]
> The german constitution restricts drafting to men[0] and would have to be changed before such a law could even be considered.
Just to add, the current government does not have the necessary majority to make such a change. Therefore making a law which includes drafting women is legally impossible without opposition collaboration.
The way to solve that is to introduce a different form of service to the state along side with military service so that the choice in practice become the same.
Is there anything in the constitution that forbids the government from requiring citizens to perform some kind of service to the government?
"gender is a social construct" only goes so far...
Gender is a social construct, biological sex is not. Confusingly, we use the same binary terms for both.
So there are some jobs that only a biological male can do, that a biological female is not qualified to do? If we made a list, which jobs do you think might be on it?
Nowhere near as binary as your False Dichotomy question makes it, but men are generally better suited to:
dig trenches
carry heavy rucksacks
move weaponry and equipment by hand
survive hand-to-hand combat (granted, their odds are still limited to below 50%)
Also math, being doctors, and firemen
Getting killed in war is a job much better suited to males. They are more disposable, especially now in the age of sperm banking.
And also things like math, being doctors, and firemen
Being firefighters, yes to some extent, because males are more likely to have acquired the physical strength needed to lift people out of burning buildings. But there are many female firefighters who excel in the profession too.
There is nothing about males that make them more suited to be doctors. We also can see that in the demographics in some countries (e.g. the UK), there is a roughly equal balance of female doctors to male doctors.
Having mathematical ability is linked to intelligence, not sex.
Europe in general, most countries, are being shaken awake from a long slumber by a number of recent and current events.
The threat was always there but Western side of the continent tricked itself into this narration that normal relations with Russia can be established. While countries who were trapped in Warsaw Pact/Eastern Bloc for nearly a half of the previous century knew already that you can never trust Russians.
Some of Central-Eastern politicians were warning the rest of the continent but they were ridiculed, portrayed as populists or blinded Russian-haters, and "only" full-scale invasion of Ukraine was needed so Western countries would finally understand that imperialistic aspirations of Moscow never went dormant.
Agreed. This is a rational response to the USA's protective umbrella being discarded, and the end of NATO. Europe became far too complacent, and the change is going to be quite uncomfortable at the very least.
Again, this is a very rational response and I applaud the German government for being realistic.
You have a source for NATO ending, I’m sure?
Trump being re-elected was the death knell, let's be honest. We are on our own here now. The next few years will make or break us.
Our only hope is European Federalization, at the very least militarily. I believe we can do it. We must. We have no other choice.
As far as evidence, "generally waves hands around." See the Trump/Putin surrender proposal. Also, see: https://www.france24.com/en/video/20251206-us-threatens-with...
Just that threat of weakness from the US side is the end of traditional NATO.
US forces were what kept us together militarily. We MUST find the new path quickly.
I post this with a tears dropping from my eyes, genuinely.
No matter who is reelected in the USA in the future, the US-led post-war rules based order is over. Something new must take its place. It best be Democracy. We took it for granted all this time. This could its last chance.
Here is some interesting reading:
> The West’s Last Chance
> How to Build a New Global Order Before It’s Too Late
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/wests-last-chan...
- Alexander Stubb, President of Finland
I just realized how triggering that title must be for all the Muskovites.
Meanwhile, the richest boy in the world:
> The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries, so that governments can better represent their people
I don't want to be dismissive or trite, but good luck to any official who thinks the defence needs of (say) Portugal, align with the defence needs of (say) Poland. Could say the same along the N-S axis as on the E-W axis.
The premise of NATO, which is something over 10 years old IIRC, is that if/when tanks start rolling across (say) Poland, (say) Portugal would be wise to take notice. And maybe proactively do a bit more than just notice.
I think we are too quick to believe this move is motivated by the threat of Russia suddenly unleashing hordes of tanks over Europe, so here is some data. Let's compare Russia's forces with that of Germany+Poland+UK+France+Italy+Spain (EU countries with a large population):
Total population: RU=140M, EU=370M
Population available for mil: RU=70M, EU=170M
Present active mil: RU=1.3M, EU=1M
Reserve: RU=2M, EU=1.4M
Paramil: RU=250k, EU=380k
Combat Aircrafts: RU=4k, EU=4k
Tanks: RU=5.7k, EU=2k
Armored Vhc: RU=130k, EU=340k
Artillery: RU=16k, EU=2k
Large combat vessels: RU=100, EU=80
Subs: RU=60, EU=40
Looking at those numbers, I do not believe that the sentiment that "Russia is going to invade the EU unless massive expenses in weaponry" holds a lot of water.
The tremendous amount of efforts and finance that's been thrown at the military during the cold war was not aimed at invading the other side.
I would even add that spending that much on the military is probably what the strategists in the Kremlin are hopping EU will do. After all, if they know the history of their own country, they must know what caused the fatal financial crisis that brought down the USSR in the 80s.
> The most stringent ones seems to be that RU has a lot of fiul, gaz and coal and an industrial network spread accross a vast land that's not easy to target,
Very recent Ukrainian drone self-defences prove otherwise - far away russian refineries are not so far away anymore. And, are very difficult to defend. Throw in an additional few partisans to mess up the railway system (russian lifeline) and I rather suspect a coup to happen soon.
The comments are so naive, in which world do you think Russia would beat Germany on german soil?
Russians are locked in Ukraine and are barely making progress. Also with which army is this takeover of Europe supposed to happen with? Russia lost millions of its young men in Ukraine. Fake fears, being prepared is always nice but the paranoia is ridiculous. Even a US China coaliation couldn't threaten Europe domestically let alone Russia.
How many russian soldiers died in order for them to control Belarus?
How many russian soldiers died in order for them to undermine European security by persuading the British electorate to vote for Brexit?
How many russian soldiers died in order for them to have a US administration that is trying to force an allied country to capitulate to a genocidal terrorist regime?
The Ukrainians are fighting a hot war today because they recognised and wished to release themselves from the shackles of russian soft power.
War isn't only fought with tanks and bombs and guns.
As a Ukrainian I see this take as both perfectly logical and utterly naive at the same time.
Martin Sonneborn on this topic [3 mins]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJjaW4Bsleg
Wait, their military was involuntary previously? Everyone currently serving didn’t choose to do this?
There was mandatory military service until 2011 when it was paused. Since then Germany had a purely professional army like the US. Mandatory military service was 9-12 months basic training, which could be objected on moral grounds. Objection meant doing alternative (civil) service for the time (e.g. working in a hospital, school, THW, etc.).
Just build nukes if you are afraid of Russia then nuke them if they try to invade. Ukraine is not as smart and gave up its nukes in the early 90s, and is now in the middle of a war for the last couple years.
Ukraine gave up nukes that they couldn't afford to maintain and got unenforcable security guarantees 'assurances' in return.
Giving up the nukes allowed Ukraine to attract foreign aid and build an economy for 20 years before invasions began. Who knows what would have happened if they kept nukes and didn't get necessary aid and couldn't build their economy or maintain the weapons.
I think the point isn't if it's been a good decision at the time (I don't think it's been much of a decision at all), but rather that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, if Ukraine was still armed with nuclear weapons. Hindsight is 20/20, but the world took notice.
Are 20 year unmaintained weapons an effective deterent? Would there have been capacity to resist occupation if it wasn't? Would Ukraine have been coerced into some form of union through economic means and would that be better or worse for the people of Ukraine than the invasions?
All sorts of questions to ask. Yes, if our timeline was otherwise unchanged, but the nukes were kept and maintained, it seems unlikely that invasion in 2014 would have happened... But it's a big change to the timeline to keep the weapons, and there's too many unknowns to predict the resulting changes. I do strongly suspect few countries will accept similar assurances in the future, unless under duress, but then Ukraine wasn't exactly free from duress at the time either.
While Ukraine had Soviet nuclear weapons, it did not have the launch codes, infrastructure, technical knowledge, or the economy needed to convert them into an arsenal under their sovereign control. Moscow still “held the keys” for all of those warheads.
Given how insistent the international community was on making sure those nukes were disposed of, and how economically devastated post Soviet countries were, I don’t think Ukraine stood any chance of having a nuclear deterrent.
The international community allowed Pakistan and Israel to get nukes.
More nations with nukes just seems to increase the odds that someone dorks up and possibly gets everyone screwed.
An undeniable truth.
We are faced with multiple horrible possible outcomes, however. Sometimes one swallows subfatal doses of poison AND agrees to be irradiated, to avoid dying of cancer.
> Just build nukes
I'm broadly sympathetic to the argument that the multipolar world we're in now makes a good case for nuclear weapons adoption. But Germany probably isn't the one Europe wants to arm itself. And even if it did, their Greens wouldn't allow it.
Germany already hosts nuclear weapons. And there were talks with France/UK to build the nuclear shield or something like that. It's just a matter of time before that happens, because as of today, that's the only way you can reason with dictators.
> Germany already hosts nuclear weapons
So does Montana. That doesn’t give Helena any sovereignty points.
Their point was the Greens lacked the power you attributed to them I thought.
Apples to oranges.
Montana:USA::Bavaria:Germany
No one has suggested Bavaria become a nuclear power in its own right.
France and UK are already nuke powers. Who else before Germany? Turkey, Greece, Moldova?
I get your joke about the "incident" 85 years ago, but really: Germany is as solid a choice as any, if there must be another.
And what happens when Russia launches nukes in response?
They've been threatening Europe for years to not cross a line otherwise they'll nuke. Lines were crossed and nukes were not launched.
CO2 emissions targets will be met.
I support this strategy.
Build nukes and plenty gigantic bunkers for the population, nothing else. And then follow the doctrine of immediate nuclear escalation upon any territorial infraction. Plane got off course in bad weather? Grab your Sauerkraut and bye bye Moscow.
I'm glad you're just an Internet Warrior(TM), then.
WITH the option to make it mandatory by 5 different mechanisms, including options that do not involve lawmakers (but are not mentioned, essentially the executive (normally the chancellor) can also "activate" non-voluntary conscription under various conditions)
Also the Bundestag agreed in advance to activate conscription if not enough volunteers can be found (which, given the results in France, seems about as certain as the sun rising tomorrow)
In fact filling out the questionnaire at all seems risky.
France is doing something similar now.
Leon Trotsky: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
Send the older generations then. Why should Gen Z be forced to pay the price of the previous governments' poor decision making? Namely, in Germany, nurturing a authoritarian regime by decimating green energy initiatives in favor of Russian oil imports. Russia would never have taken such bold action if Europe responded strongly no later than 2014.
> Send the older generations then. Why should Gen Z be forced to pay the price
Yeah this is perfectly rational and logical. Hard to argue.
Problem is, the other side (russia) will not be sending just the older generation.
OT1H, yes, Dad's Army won't be the most effective troops Germany has ever fielded.
OTOH, pretty soon Russia won't have anything except the older gen to send (and oligarch's sons - haha, just kidding; they'll send women and children first!).
> soon Russia won't have anything
I was confident about that in 2022. I was confident about that in 2023. I was confident about that in 2024. I was confident about that in 2025.
I'm not sure about that anymore.
That point of view was popular in the Interwar period (the 1932 film 'Broken Lullaby' is a perfect example).
It's an admirable attitude, but its popularity contributed to the outbreak of WWII.
So many comments and sentiments in this thread are really not worthy of HN.
What is the HN ethos anyway? The "common thought" and average HNer was different in 2007, 2015, 2025, and will be again rather different in 2035.
One could say the "hacker ethics", love of freedom, tinkering goes beyond time, but this falls apart at any topic beyond that.
Your comment specifically, I believe, falls short of the ideal to get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic becomes more divisive.
We should probably avoid posting shallow dismissals and remember that a good critical comment teaches us something.
Additionally, as your comment leaves readers wondering which parts of the divided comment section you deem "worthy of HN" and which you do not, I cannot help but think of this ambivalence as a method to spark reactions. Another word for this method would be "to bait", I think.
edit: nevermind, title changed?
“The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.”
This is highly misandrist. I can’t believe that we are in 2025 and a - so called - democratic government is still denying women the opportunity to potentially go and die miserably in the front lines on equal footing with men.
We can surely do better. Women and girls deserve more.
Including women in this does have the additional hurdle that a constitutional amendment would be needed, which is less likely to pass, regardless of the merits.
I can’t understand why women and male allies aren’t flooding the streets in protest to demand the constitution changes so that women are fully equal to men then.
Surely that’s the most noble of causes.
"I want my chance to die young or be horribly mangled, just like men!" may be noble, but not very inspirational.
/s surely? Women stay behind or the population would face higher risk of collapse in heavy casualties otherwise.
> "We don't want to spend half a year of our lives locked up in barracks, being trained in drill and obedience and learning to kill," the organisers of the protests wrote in a statement posted on social media. "War offers no prospects for the future and destroys our livelihoods."
Is the idea that it’s better for your livelihood to just start learning how speak Russian now?
I think a lot of young people look at all of the wars waged post-WWII and are rightfully opposed to fighting for their governments. Would you want to die for nothing in Vietnam? Probably not, and a lot of other people didn't want to as well. Some of them did anyway, and it was all for nothing.
So please have some grace if today's kids have looked back at our miserable history and have decided that they'd rather not die for a country that doesn't seem to give a shit about them.
Exactly. Even after Vietnam, in this century. Iraq war 2 was all false pretenses. And the resulting power vacuum created ISIS. Afghanistan accomplished absolutely nothing, things are back to the way it was and all the deaths were for nothing.
The only fairly recent war that the west was involved in that was slightly justified was the first gulf war. But even that wasn't really any of America's business. It wasn't that they actually cared about the Kuwaiti people. Just the oil.
> and all the deaths were for nothing
Deaths and destruction in wars against significantly weaker countries are never for nothing, as certain well-connected people always get filthy rich, regardless of the end result. The ones who make the decisions, they always get their share, whether through the war hardware industry, mercenary business, the reconstruction industry, the resource exploitation industry, or something else. The wider population might end up worse off and poorer, but who has ever asked them about anything when there is so much money to be made by their ''democratic representatives'' if they play along?
But do people think American will translate to Germany?
Germany took part in a lot of those wars.
Did it? Genuine question. I thought they were mostly prohibited by their constitution (a.k.a. what the Allies thought was best) from engaging in offensive warfare.
They didn’t consider them offensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Germany...
Germany already had mandatory conscription for a long time and not once were conscripts send abroad.
Germany didn't fight in Vietnam.
They were in Afghanistan and the U.S. would have no problems with setting up other EU countries as proxies against Russia in order to get Russia out of countries like Syria and Venezuela (as has now happened, courtesy of the Ukrainians).
The Venezuelan escalation happened after the Alaska Summit, and God knows what tradeoffs were made there verbally and with full deniability.
A strong army is only good if you have a strong, independent foreign policy. German chancellors used to be able to contradict the U.S., but that is no longer a given.
Missing the point.
An attempt at mind reading to market an opinion
Putin will happily take over your home, even if you thought Viet Nam was a waste.
You mean the home of a boomer that you have to continuously pay an ever-increasing share of your wages for so he can just sit there and live off your labor?
I don't think you'll find much sympathy for that class among the people this reform is targeting.
Haha you think the youth own homes? It'll be young people dying so old people get richer just like every other war.
Had to imagine Putin moving into someone's 45sqm flat in the suburbs after his evil empire invaded somewhere. Had to chuckle, thanks for that.
Yeah, it will technically not be Putin himself, but someone from russia's poor regions, while you will be forcibly send to the grinder.
This all happened multiple times, and the only reason you can chuckle is ignorance.
I chuckled because of the s/Russia/Putin/g nonsense everywhere. I'm not laughing at anyone's expense if they forcibly lose their home, no matter where and under which circumstances.
You see, millions are already killed in the biggest war in Europe since WW2 and it looks like this is just the prelude.
Russia is threatening to fight Europe as of yesterday, continue to increase weapon production and militarisation. It is obvious that it just cannot stop as its economy and social order is switching more and more to the war-time. China backs russia up and officially declaring that it cannot allow Russia to lose.
The alliance which was created specifically to stop this scenario is now being neutralised by US withdrawing from it.
And you still call it "Russia/Putin nonsense". Do you live somewhere where you feel isolated from all of this?
Please tell me so I can go there as well. Because at the place where I live - Russians drones are flying over important infrastructure mapping it out without government/military being able to stop it. Russians propaganda fills social media, and politicians are corrupted by russia without hiding it too much.
Also what about that "millions" number? Where did that come from? I can barely find any mentions of numbers exceeding 500.000 people being killed thus far.
Sorry, I meant killed and injured. I don't keep up with the numbers, but few years ago it was at least around half a million from both sides. I extrapolated it for last few years.
You misunderstand. I'm not against reporting about Russia. The oversimplification of reducing everything down to "Putin this, Putin that" is my issue. Imagine me saying everything the EU is doing is explicitly because of Ursel. It's stupid, ignorant and reminds me of Trump Derangement Syndrome which had a similar effect on reporting about US issues.
I live in Germany so I'm fucked either way. I'm also aware of NATO expansion until a point where Russia couldn't ignore it anymore. You think Russia will attack Europe, I think the West is keen on fighting a war against Russia. I don't subscribe to any of the narratives you presented, especially since I think it obvious that its the West that finds itself having to wage a war because their currencies, social order and demographics needing a reset. NATO being a defensive alliance is a joke.
Since we're unlikely to come closer to an understanding I'll refrain from going further.
Sometimes it's just easier to agree to disagree.
May we all live through this somehow.
> You think Russia will attack Europe, I think the West is keen on fighting a war against Russia.
And the way it was keen on fighting a war is (check notes) _increase economic ties to the point that the whole of Germany's economic growth was dependent on Russian' gas_? Or to reduce military spending year over the year? Or to stop conscription in all countries?
It is completely a wild take for me to hear that the west was keen to fight a war with nuclear power by the means of reducing its fighting abilities to almost zero while the other side militarises? Am I having some crazy dream?
> I live in Germany so I'm fucked either way.
Honest question: why don't you emigrate to Russia since you seem to admire it so much? They are specifically looking for people who 'share Russian values', and Germany is on the 'white list' - so acquiring citizenship should be really easy and you don't need to live in a country you apparently seem to hate.
Here's how it works:
https://mid.ru/upload/medialibrary/aef/94mfg4ehws6kav1nk8bts...
> I'm also aware of NATO expansion
This is the Russian way of putting it. Guess what, NATO doesn't "expand". Each and every NATO member had to apply for membership themselves, after a national decision to do so. Any guesses why all Russian neighbours want to be NATO members?
Keep on ignoring Western intelligence influence on color revolutions and political instability at your own peril. I'm out.
Of course you're "out" when an inconvenient question lands in your lap.
I'll ask you again.
For how long has NATO been on russia's border?
I know you've seen this comment. I know you've downvoted it and ignored it because it's at odds with your sympathy towards terrorists.
And all this from a guy who has never actually even been to russia.
palm_penetrating_forehead.gif
Bit hard to paint Portugal, Spain, France, and Britain as Russia's neighbours. All enthusiastic NATO members.
You may have to read my comment again, I was not reinventing geography.
I didn't say you were. I live in a NATO member myself which is nowhere near Russia and yet keeps baiting Russia and using it as an easy scapegoat for its issues... Now and then it's true. Thankfully I haven't been accused of being a Russian bot for a while. :)
> I'm also aware of NATO expansion until a point where Russia couldn't ignore it anymore.
Are you?
Tell us — for how long has NATO been on russia's border?
> You think Russia will attack Europe
No, we have observed that russia has already attacked Europe.
> The oversimplification of reducing everything down to "Putin this, Putin that" is my issue. Imagine me saying everything the EU is doing is explicitly because of Ursel. It's stupid, ignorant and reminds me of Trump Derangement Syndrome which had a similar effect on reporting about US issues.
Those oversimplifications are in fact also really at the core of the issues. Russia without Putin would be far less likely to have quagmired itself in this economy-wrecking show of technical and strategic incompetence. His navy is intimidated by a nation without active seamen! His invasion forces got stuck on the way in, for weeks!
And in the US, it has literally been proven career suicide, time and time again, for a GOP politician to buck the line, even a little, against that demented, narcissistic idiot. I can't believe the nation has not only created, but sustained, this freakish coopting of half the government - but it has. If Trump says he likes poop-flavored ice cream, GOP senators will line up for their brown-lipped photo ops. I guarantee it.
It's hard to make adequate satire of these two hellish clowns.
Who isn't a complete jester nowadays? Can you take anyone serious who has some impact and public presence? It's one big complete that most of us aren't in. Zelensky is a coke head, he's surrounded by proud fascists wearing their symbols while EU is talking of saving democracy by propping up a government that cancelled it's elections. Scholz stood next to Biden while he proclaimed that the US will end NS2. People get debanked for having wrong opinions but it's all meant to keep our freedoms. You can't take any of it seriously anymore.
Stop spreading Kremlin bullshit here.
Why do you keep ignoring my question?
How long has NATO been on russia’s border?
1999 or 2004.
Are you of fighting age? In other words, are you putting your life on the line, or you just think that “someone else” should die to protect you?
Everybody who talks like this is unwilling to fight themselves.
Conscripts are generally not allowed to be moved abroad.
That wouldn't be half as bad, by comparison. But it's more like learning how to survive in the Russian "meat wave" corps a bit longer than your peers.
Looking at the parts of Eastern Ukraine that were under Russian occupation since 2014 and are now almost devoid of male population, that's what happens if you're not willing to fight in your own (European) army: sooner or later you end up fighting in the Russian one.
The German government will be the first ones to tell you that the German language and ancestry is totally unrelated to the idea of who gets to be German.
What are you suggesting? That without forced military service Russia will take over Germany? It's not impossible, but basic military service likely does little to thwart invasion by a powerful Russian army — powerful by your suggestion. This is quite an expensive program and a questionable use of taxpayer money.
Technically correct, but more importantly: the lack of trained military personnel does even less to thwart invasion.
"Likely little" >> nothing.
Of course, but a trained military is achieved by proper incentives to have people enlist — willingly.
I would make a terrible soldier, but I attended an info session laat year about how civilians can contribute their skills to the military. Force me into service and all you'd get is resentment. Ironically I can't actually do anything for the military since I don't have citizenship here.
In my opinion pitting our youth against theirs man to man means we have already lost anyway. Lots of people that don't deserve it would have to die. We need to be able to destroy them at the push of a button so they don't even think about invading us. And then we don't need to order kids around to their deaths.
In other words we need a nuclear umbrella. Now that America is no longer our friend we need to build our own. It has worked very well to keep us safe since the 50s. And I don't think the French + English ones are sufficient deterrence anymore.
This is not how reality works at all. Nuclear war is a last resort, not a first response to a ground invasion. Ground troops are essential for defense, even in the era of nukes and drones.
No it is not a last resort. It is a political weapon that helps you avoid war.
It is both. The policy of AMD has never yet failed.
But likewise, AMD only works because there IS a last resort that is unthinkably bad for both sides.
The idea is that it apparently doesn't matter who is the government, German or Russian, because these young men can't start normal lives anyway.
Why fight for a nation that is keen on giving away your taxes to random immigrants? Then forcing you to fight and die?
> your livelihood to just start learning how speak Russian now?
that was a thing in East Germany not that long ago
Learning to speak Russian, and to live with the massive amount of corruption, prosecution, genocide, and much lower quality of life.
Assuming you survive the initial wave of plunder, rape and murder of course.
Why not, at that guy cares about his country
But that they learn how to speak English is not an issue for you, is it?
Voluntarily? Nope.
History shows that the best way to resist, in these circumstances, might be to let them in, and then blow them up in the streets and countryside until they leave. It's cheaper and (morbidly enough) probably has a lower human cost.
What history shows that?
Russia in Afghanistan. America in Afghanistan. America in Iraq. America and France in Vietnam. France in Algeria. France in Haiti. Britain in Ireland.
Honorable mention to Britain in America and Germany in France, where guerilla/resistance forces were instrumental in the eventual allied victories, even though the invaders were eventually toppled by outside armies.
I dunno, maybe Berliners would prefer becoming Ukrainian War-era Kyiv instead of WWII-era Paris after all.
No. That is really bloody and a last resort. And horrible for civilians. Bucha and Irpin are counter-examples.
Russians should only be treated with a very long stick.
Guerilla warfare is not winning, it is making things a huge mess.
War makes things a huge mess. It makes things an even bigger mess than resistance, by inuring the public to its devastation via distance from the front line, and by offering soldiers a respite when they're able to rotate out. The violence of occupation comes anyway, AFTER an initial bloody pitched battle. Might as well skip the traditional fighting and hash out the civil war that's inevitable once tanks start moving.
2-3% of Ukraine's population are at the front lines. While the others are maintaining a reasonably functional society.
There are so many counter examples to your proposal so I think you are just guessing.
Where did the Civil War end up when Soviet invaded Hungary in 1956 or Prague 1967? Or Poland?
Should the Finns have invited the Soviets into their country in 1939 instead of defending it?
Would the British have been better of fighting Germany of the streets of London?
And what about the preventive force a regular army has? Would you want to be without that and simply leave the doors to your country unlocked?
Wouldn't that require military training, too?
Sure, but it doesn't require throwing young people who don't care to fight into pitched battle meat grinders.
Obviously, either path is undesirable. It would be nice if we could use some of those "undermining and overthrowing regimes we don't like" expertise on actual threats instead of countries that just want to nationalize their resources.
I'd rather learn Russian than to get drilled to shoot Russians. Current Germany/Europe doesn't have anything to offer that I'd raise a weapon for.
Each to their own.
So, leave. Emigration to Russia isn't that hard.
Seriously, you're just an internet poser.
I hope German teens are thrilled to fight America's wars
Russia invading Europe would be America's war?
Is America allied with Russia or Europe in this scenario? That's probably not what the parent comment meant, though.
Not really. I meant that America has triggered this war, like pretty much all wars on this planet since the end of the global anti fascist war. Thus, Europeans being good little servants, they will die for Washington.
Congratulations, USSR, young people have forgotten you entirely! /s
That said, it is still insultingly wrong to blame even America and the USSR together for starting 'all wars on the planet' since WWII.
To quote the great historians Chris Hughes and Roland Orzabal: "everybody wants to rule the world"
Honestly, even intra commie wars were also triggered by the US Empire, and for these, Soviets were extraordinary foolish, I will give you that. But I stand my ground; behind the vast majority of wars since WW2, there is the American architect.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Cheers.
Yes. After all, Europe is under NATO occupation, the same NATO whose leader is no one than America.
Nobody would take seriously the characterization of Europe being under a NATO 'occupation'.
That said, for the first half of my life, much of Europe was under a literal occupation by Russia.
As a reminder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall
If you are doubting these statements of mine, how about you look up the great evils the American govt has inflicted unto Americans themselves? I'd start with MKULTRA, the Kent State massacre and go through COINTELPRO files. Then you will slowly be able to move on to US-led election frauds in Europe, and NATO-funded nazi death squads in Switzerland.
Those examples are so tame that it would be absurd to continue. Wikipedia has plenty of information on the USSR - its gulags, war crimes, repression, etc.
Oh yes, ofc, I have forgotten the 100mio who died of Communism. My bad! Funnily enough, the millions of soldiers who fought for it against nazism are counted as part of the death-by-communism. Same for the aborted babies, or the pedo and fascist filth who were rightfully imprisonned. Basically, everyone who dies under communism dies because of it, right? Unlike those who die under fascism, or of malnutrition, or of cold because they are unhoused by the West, those dont count towards death-by-capitalism, obviously.
The Soviet Union rather than Russia. Subtle distinction, but tens of millions of Soviets were not Russian.
Technically true, but 'Russia' works fine, in practice.
Not just technically true, but the reality for vast areas such as the Ukraine and Kazakhstan etc which existed even then. There were numerous cities such as Vilnius or Dushanbe where most of the population did not speak Russian as a first or even native language or consider themselves Russian. It's like when people watch/read "Hunt for Red October" and call Captain Ramius a Russian... He isn't one, and it's a pretty key plot point that he isn't one, hence he defects.
I don't know what to tell you. We used 'Russians' and Soviets interchangeably during the Cold War, even if it was technically inaccurate.
I'm not sure if anyone remembers the song 'Russians' by Sting anymore, but that's a good example.
This is like someone correcting me for saying 'an LP' instead of 'a vinyl' despite my being an analog native :)
I'm sure you did. We did too. Some people still refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "England"... Or all of the Netherlands as "Holland".
You're deep in the technically correct wordplay words, while the rest of us are discussing actual death of millions.
Congrats, you follow the dictionary more closely, even if you added nothing of substance.