Staff Writer Emma Cooper outlines what the debate around compulsory military service might mean for Europe.
Europe has seen a resurgence in compulsory military service. Although posed as fortification of national security, unity and patriotism; the process is often denounced due to its perception as outdated and risk of fostering resentment towards one’s country.
Though perhaps a bygone concept to those in many European countries, latterly the prospect of military service has greatly increased. Such a rise likely catalysed by the 2014 Crimean crisis and Russia’s subsequent invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Nine European Nato states currently enforce conscription. Croatia’s lawmakers voted late October 2025 to reintroduce mandatory military service in response to rising global tensions.
Sixty-three years ago, a review of Britain’s defence resources reassessed the suitability of a conscription-based army, leaving the last national serviceman demobbed in May 1963. Yet, as we entered the reign of reintroduction of a 2019 Conservative government, Britain saw calls for a return to tradition. Blue passports, stricter criminal law, and a proposal for a return to national service served as a last-ditch attempt to salvage the party. Such a proposal was a demonstrable failure and instead caused a stir amongst teenagers within Britain.
Whilst Sunak and other members of Gen-X saw the scheme as a return to traditional values of patriotism, discipline, and a reduction of unhealthy youth culture, those who have participated in military service overseas may disagree. Roar conducted interviews with two KCL students whose countries instil a mandatory period of military service.
A KCL student, who served in Singapore for two years, told Roar that patriotism can act as a “dual edge sword.” He described the way in which the enforced and restrictive nature of the service made him feel “conflicted at times.” A natural response of any teenager whose freedom is being forcibly restricted. He claimed to have met “some people who feel more disconnected to society than ever” specifically one man in basic military training who “felt as though he was morally opposed to wielding a weapon”, claiming that the process “turned us into dogs or robots for the government.”
Within an era that priorities free will and restricted governmental influence, a process which essentially strips back personal choice to enforce discipline appears archaic. On this issue, former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed that “citizenship brings with it obligations as well as rights.” But who decides these obligations? Such a statement feels oppressive, as if we must earn our rights rather than having them inherently given. A comment which feels more like dystopia than 21st century Europe.
According to the KCL student, those opposed “express their discomfort verbally but never act out”, a worrying idea for those who have little faith in the intentions of the armed forces. Despite this, he added that “I have always believed in the need for some level of defence, especially when your state is small and vulnerable”, posing a conflict between the price of individual privilege against state protection.
British politicians appear driven by a misconceived notion that military service will straighten out a generation of seemingly wayward teenagers, perhaps even ultimately reducing crime rates. Such a fallacy has perhaps been created by an older generation determined to restore traditional values, with former Home Secretary James Cleverly commenting that “too many young people live in a bubble within their own communities.” A 2023 YouGov poll found that young British citizens ‘strongly oppose’ the idea of a year-long period of mandatory military service, whereas older Britons are five times as likely to ‘strongly support’ this. Yet other European countries seem to view military service primarily in terms of defence.
Another KCL student, who served for one year in Finland, told Roar that this ‘crime reducing conclusion’ can largely be dismissed as a myth.
“I don’t think there would be any way of scientifically proving that. Nothing works in isolation. However, you can loosely play on the idea that military service builds responsibility for young men.”
With such a responsibility, many believe discipline should also follow, to which he responded, “there’s no discipline better than social order, if you do something wrong you’ll feel the disapproval of the group.” Therefore in theory, the beliefs of many British seniors may have some basis after all. Providing leadership opportunities and duty for young men appears the perfect recipe for obedience. Yet, The Economic Journal study found quite the opposite effect. Conscription in Sweden was found to increase post-service convictions of those between 23 and 30 by 32%, specifically from those of low socio-economic backgrounds.
We are then forced to question why it is that the first KCL student believes “people from disadvantaged backgrounds are given a sense of purpose, stability in their life and if they choose to enlist within the military, employability.” Such a difference in experience may be down to the culture and history of each country. Singapore has a longstanding history of military service, where “it’s become such a strong part of the culture, it’s a rite of passage. Conscription is so institutionalised, it takes a population which buys into it.” Whereas the more turbulent history of Sweden’s service, which was abolished in 2010 and then reinstated in 2017, has perhaps resulted in resentment and disruption, resulting in negative consequences.
So, could Britain ever have a population which ‘buys into’ the idea of mandatory military service? When asked about this, the second KCL student told Roar that “it would have to be a very slow process. If there’s not a democratic taste for it, then it’s not going to work.”
When gathering a generic sense of the British population’s views on military service, and the idea of “getting up at 6AM and in five minutes you’ve got someone at your door asking for your name and if you’re in the correct gear”, the response is overwhelmingly negative. Perhaps obstinance to such rigidity is within our nature, reminiscent of secondary school PE lessons where we scrounged for excuses to avoid running a 500-metre in the relentless drizzle. Or perhaps such a resistance emerged from the fear of being selected last for teams and slipping down the social hierarchy. When asked about the risk of bullying within the service, the first KCL student replied with the opposite conclusion, stating that it can “break down prejudice.”
Perhaps then, it’s exactly what the often-toxic British culture needs.
When asked about the overall rise of military service within Europe, the first KCL student stated that “practically speaking, it’s becoming more of a necessity. It might be the price you have to pay if you want to keep your sovereignty.”
Thus, we must question if the danger posed by a hostile Russia and an unstable America are great enough to enable the risk of a failing national service program.
In 2025, the German Parliament approved a plan for an obligatory screening of all 18-year-old men to assess military service suitability. Such a proposal received immense backlash, with demonstrations led by young people in 90 towns and cities. Desiree Backer, of Die Linke, urged adolescents to stand against the law, commenting that “young people have other plans than risking their lives for the rich.”This brings a clear moral dilemma to light: conscription intrinsically calls for a surrender of autonomy and free speech. Tying participants to non-disclosure agreements and forced contribution to a system may violate one’s moral beliefs. Whilst military service itself is not inherently violent, by utilising the justification of bolstering military posture, the moral failings of the armed forces must be disputed. Such remains the irrefutable fact that despite the perceived necessity of certain military operations, there is a risk of collateral damage and war crime. Meaning any participants are, however unwillingly, involved in enacting such inordinate harm.
As the first KCL student suggested, the service may act as a saviour for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, “since there is a conscious decision to put people of different educational and social backgrounds into the same unit.” Yet, the glamourisation of the UK military provided by a boost in advertising towards those with restricted options following GCSE and A-level results day resulted in the moral burden falling upon those who are underprivileged. The risks remain the same with conscription, when it is viewed as a gateway to further service.
It appears that our reluctant culture has emerged for a good reason, whilst military service can certainly be advantageous, it seems that many European cultures are not willing to sacrifice the privilege of choice just yet. Especially those with strong anti-war movements and a resistant young population. Yet, with an undeniable shift in favour of service within Europe, and an increasingly turbulent political climate, the possibility remains present.
