The potential withdrawal of the USA from European defence arrangements has sent shockwaves through the continent. With Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine ongoing and Donald Trump’s second presidency raising serious questions about NATO’s future, European governments are finally waking up to the reality that their long-standing reliance on American military power may be coming to an end.
In response, several nations are now reassessing their military capabilities after decades of underfunding and neglect. Some, like Poland and Latvia, are turning to conscription to bolster their ranks. Poland has already committed to increasing its army size to 300,000 troops, including a voluntary one-year military service program aimed at preparing civilians for potential conflict. Latvia, which scrapped conscription in 2007, has now reinstated compulsory military service, requiring 11 months of training for young men aged 18–27. Even Sweden, long a neutral state, has revived conscription, with an annual intake of about 5,000 recruits to reinforce its military.
Others may follow suit. But what about the UK?
At first glance, the idea of reintroducing National Service might seem attractive, given the current geopolitical climate. However, in reality, it is an impractical and unlikely solution — at least in the short term.
The British military is already in crisis when it comes to recruitment and retention. The Royal Navy lacks sufficient sailors to properly crew its fleet. The RAF is short of pilots. And the British Army is well below its recruitment targets, with its personnel numbers shrinking year on year. Worryingly, more individuals are leaving the armed forces than joining, a trend that must be reversed before we even consider expanding the pool of recruits through compulsory service.
Britain’s defence strategy has always been different from that of many European nations. Unlike countries with land borders facing direct threats — such as Finland, where approximately 80% of men serve at least six months of mandatory military training — the UK has historically relied on its naval power and air force, with a smaller but highly professional army geared towards expeditionary operations with allies.
Throwing today’s youth into a conscription program would likely do more harm than good, causing resentment rather than fostering a sense of duty. Any move towards such a system would require extensive planning, infrastructure investment, and, crucially, public support — none of which are in place. The last time Britain had National Service, from 1949 to 1960, it was used to maintain global commitments during the early Cold War. Today’s strategic situation is vastly different.
That said, while full-scale conscription remains unrealistic, Britain must start laying the groundwork for a system that could scale up military personnel in a time of national crisis. Expanding training areas, barracks, and equipment reserves should be a priority. Without the logistical capacity to house, equip, and train new recruits, any sudden influx of personnel would be meaningless.
A voluntary halfway-house system, such as an expanded Territorial Army or national resilience force, could be an effective middle ground. It would allow young people to gain military training and experience without the coercion of mandatory service, ensuring that the UK has a pool of trained personnel ready to step up if the security situation deteriorates further.
For now, reintroducing conscription in Britain remains unlikely and impractical. The real priority must be fixing the current recruitment and retention crisis, ensuring that the armed forces are adequately manned and equipped for future conflicts. If European nations are now scrambling to strengthen their military capabilities, Britain should be doing the same — starting with the basics, rather than resorting to knee-jerk calls for National Service.
Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a political and defence commentator and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk
