Mass student protests took place in 90 cities in Germany on Dec. 5 against the possible reinstatement of compulsory military service. Students said they would rather live under occupation than risk their lives in a war, Ukrainian news agency UNIAN reported.
Earlier, Germany’s legislature approved a draft law reforming the conscription system.
Under the bill, starting in 2027 all men born in 2008 or later, around 300,000 people each year, would be required to undergo a medical examination.
Women would be able to participate only on a voluntary basis.
Students say the prospect of war robs them of their future and forces them to prepare to kill, with some openly stating they would choose occupation over war.
In a comment to the Ukrainian World Congress (UWC), Rostyslav Sukennyk, head of the Association of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany (AUOG), explained the reasoning behind the German authorities’ decision. Below are his remarks that were edited for clarity.
As a NATO member country, politicians in Germany have begun to realistically assess the risks posed by Russia. A key trigger was statements by U.S. President Donald Trump suggesting that Europe’s security is Europe’s own responsibility. This recognition of reality has led to a political awakening and, among other steps, to the adoption of a new conscription law.
Public reactions to the law vary. Part of society that recognizes the threat is responding pragmatically: many young people are willing to defend the country and are already voluntarily training for military roles. Another segment consists of pacifists who hope that “someone else will do the dirty work” and always have their own justifications.
This type of pacifism is fuelled by populist political forces that play on pro-Russian sentiment, as well as by parents’ fears for their children’s safety, which adds emotional pressure to society.
German society remains divided, with opinions both for and against compulsory military service.
As a tool of defence policy, conscription has several significant advantages that are aimed at strengthening national security and societal determination. The primary argument in favor is improved defense capability: increasing the number of soldiers and trained reservists enhances a country’s ability to defend itself effectively. This, in turn, strengthens the mobilization reserve and allows for the rapid deployment of trained personnel in the event of a crisis.
Another argument concerns social cohesion. Joint service by young people from different social backgrounds can help reduce social divides and foster a shared identity. Conscription can also ease the burden on a professional army, as conscripts may perform basic and support tasks.
In addition, alternative service mechanisms can support social services by providing extra workforce for hospitals, care homes and emergency services.
At the same time, compulsory conscription faces strong criticism related to individual freedoms and economic efficiency. Critics argue that mandatory service directly infringes on personal freedom, limiting young people’s ability to control their time and plan their lives.
There are also concerns about fairness and selectivity, as usually only part of a generation is drafted, and service conditions often differ significantly for men and women. From a military perspective, short terms of service can result in low effectiveness, while training conscripts requires substantial resources.
Economically, conscription is seen as a loss, as it removes young people from the labor market or education. An unpopular draft can also generate social conflict and deepen polarisation. A final argument against it is the high cost to the state, including funding training, maintaining infrastructure and administering a complex conscription system.
Cover: Shutterstock
Latest news
#DefeatRussia
