Europe's place in the Western order has rarely looked so precarious. Continental security is facing questions that until recently seemed closed. The transatlantic alliance, with Donald Trump back at the helm of the United States, is now more unstable than at any time since the end of the Cold War, writes Luke McGee, an Emmy Award-winning journalist for the American magazine Foreign Policy.
This has brought back to life the once-dead question of conscription. "For the first time since I have been here, allies are talking about how this model can work again, how to reduce barriers and what are the best practices for recruitment, including compulsory military service," said a senior NATO diplomat.
Conscription was once the norm in almost all European nations. But during the Cold War and its aftermath, it began to be downplayed in favor of smaller, professional armies. The United Kingdom took the lead when it ended nationwide conscription in 1960. Many other countries, such as France and the Netherlands, abandoned or radically changed their programs in the 1990s. Only a few countries, such as Finland and Switzerland, have stuck with conscription.
Today, Europe is surrounded by threats. Russia, though mired in its invasion of Ukraine, has ambitions to reclaim its former imperial possessions. The Middle East is in chaos. Old ideas are back on the table.
Trump’s open contempt for Europe has not abated. He is currently brandishing his threat of a trade war with the Old Continent while keeping NATO officials on edge with his tepid commitment to the Alliance.
Trump’s message to Europe is crystal clear: Be more grateful and start taking better care of yourself. For Europeans, the only acceptable interpretation of this message is as "tough love". He has yet to say outright "You are on your own." But the American guarantee of European security seems more shaky than ever. And the best way to keep Trump on their side, if that’s even possible, is for Europe to become more self-reliant.
"There have always been squabbles, and let’s be honest: Europeans haven’t taken their own defense seriously enough," said Walter Landgraf, a senior fellow in the Eurasia program at the Foreign Policy Institute who served in the U.S. military for 20 years.
"But before Trump, there was no real prospect of America abandoning Europe or NATO. I sincerely fear that that is no longer the case unless the Europeans make it clear that they are spending more and doing more. Recruiting troops is a visible way to do that, so that Trump can clearly understand it.
The possibility of bringing back conscription is not just a response to Trump. Although the exact picture varies from country to country, the general consensus is that as things stand, the armed forces of the European allies are not easily able to repel an attack without US support. Since the end of the Cold War, many countries have significantly reduced defense spending, military personnel, and the purchase of weapons and equipment.
The security policies of many European countries are also wrapped up in other economic considerations, such as how "aggressive" they should be towards Russia and China, in the context of economic partnerships or access to energy resources. NATO is only as strong as its weakest link, and some of those links have become extremely weak.
Here is the paradox: Especially in Western Europe, the demonstration of strength requires forcing young citizens to do dangerous work that is not as well paid as in the private sector and, in many cases, offers a relatively low quality of life. This can mean low pay, poor housing conditions and limited family prospects, for example.
Military service is no stranger to Europeans or NATO. Some Nordic countries, such as Finland, Norway and Denmark, retain some form of conscription, as does Estonia. Other allies, such as Latvia, introduced temporary models after the invasion of Ukraine.
Worldwide, countries that support conscription tend to be neighbors of Western rivals, whether Russia, China, or North Korea. Even there, the issue can be contentious: Taiwan began reducing conscription after 2000, seeking a transition to a professional army, before reintroducing year-round military service last year. In Europe, these countries, such as Finland and Sweden, typically already meet or are close to meeting the 2 percent of GDP target that NATO allies must spend on defense. But they are also smaller countries, where that goal is easier to achieve.
Conscription is much more complicated for countries that are relatively isolated from these threats. French President Emmanuel Macron, one of Europe’s most vocal anti-Russia hawks, wanted to bring back mandatory national military service in 2018, but a lack of political support led to a watered-down voluntary scheme that some have likened more to “Scout camp.”
NATO is prepared to push for some form of conscription among its members. Part of that push comes in the form of capability goals: specific targets for each ally on what the alliance would need them to do in various scenarios—including a ground invasion.
It is possible to achieve these goals through a fully professional army. However, decades of complacency mean that for countries like Germany and the Netherlands, and even for those with relatively powerful armies like France and Britain, recruiting new soldiers poses a serious challenge.
"I bet that more European countries will have to look at conscription if they are to have any hope of meeting their goals," said Håkon Lunde Saksi, a professor at the Norwegian Defence College. "Obviously it is easier in regions that already have experience with it, such as northern and eastern Europe. The question is how to convince countries like Germany, which are even now struggling to meet their defence spending targets.
Allies will need more than just troops if they are to meet the next generation of challenges. "If we buy more weapons systems, if we take cyber and other hybrid forms of warfare more seriously, then we need people to do the job - and people to train them," a senior European Union security official said.
Some senior military figures in NATO allies are personally opposed to the idea of conscription, fearing that it will ultimately become a burden. Professional soldiers have often been skeptical of conscript armies, seeing them as poorly trained and poorly equipped.
NATO cannot tell its members what to do. But talks have begun among allies about best practices if conscription were to happen - and how it could be made attractive to individual countries.
"In border states, we may see the creation of internal forces, people who can be trained to intervene when railway crossings need to be guarded by troops, for example," said a senior European security source who has been involved in high-level talks. "In the West, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a push to increase the number of reservists. That could mean people with professional skills, such as engineers, or with technical experience, who can be trained to carry out specific tasks in the rear. It could also mean more volunteers who can handle national crises, such as flood responses, and take on the burden of trained soldiers.
Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute, said that in countries like Britain there could be a role for reservists in "protecting national infrastructure, preventing cyber attacks, supporting professional soldiers and other national services. There is room for creative thinking about homeland security."
European countries are unlikely to admit it publicly, but it is widely accepted that the United States looks with disapproval on the fact that Europe has allowed its defense to depend so heavily on Washington's goodwill. A significant increase in military capabilities is urgently needed, and has been for a long time. However unacceptable some may find Trump's criticism of Europe, the reason his words hurt so much is because deep down they know he is right.