Lithuania will introduce universal male conscription despite public resistance to compulsory military service, the country’s government has announced.
The Baltic state reinstated selective conscription in 2015, seven years after abolishing it. Under the new plan, the draft would be extended to all eligible men, while women would continue to serve voluntarily.
Annual recruitment will increase from just over 5,000 to around 7,500 men, President Gitanas Nauseda announced on Thursday following a State Defense Council meeting.
Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkevicius described universal conscription as “necessary and inevitable.”
The decision follows similar recruitment pushes elsewhere in Europe. Poland is considering restoring compulsory service, which was abolished in 2009, and introducing a system covering both men and women. A recent poll, however, found that 53% of Poles aged 18–24 opposed reinstatement of the draft.
Germany has already introduced mandatory military registration for 18-year-old men. Enlistment remains voluntary, but parliament can activate compulsory service if recruitment falls short or the security situation deteriorates.
Berlin’s recruitment drive has met resistance, with some 45,000 people joining student protests across roughly 100 German cities and towns in September, with some carrying banners reading “We won’t fight in your wars” and “Russia is not our enemy.”
Applications for conscientious objector status reached over 12,000 between January and August, compared with 3,879 throughout 2025, according to figures reported by German media.
European officials have nevertheless continued discussing preparations for a possible war with Russia by the end of the decade. Estonian Defense Minister Martin Herem “joked” last month that if Estonia mobilized and Russia did not attack, it would be “economically more correct to attack ourselves” rather than keep troops waiting.
Moscow has repeatedly stated that it has neither reason nor intention to attack NATO countries, describing such allegations as “horror stories” intended to prepare European populations for further militarization.
Russian officials have warned that Europe’s military buildup could itself lead to confrontation and that expanding NATO infrastructure near Russia’s borders would prompt additional security measures. Moscow has stressed that it is prepared to defend itself if attacked.
The leaders of Norway and Finland are criticised for breaking with the European consensus on boycotting diplomacy by calling President Putin. Their decision to undermine this solidarity is seen as dividing and weakening Europe. I argue the opposite. It was a brave and necessary move, as the European consensus is based on a rhetorical trap that isolates Europe, makes it increasingly irrelevant, and risks taking it to war with Russia – the world’s largest nuclear power. I will make a further argument: we should develop a healthy scepticism towards the notion that speaking with one voice is always a strength.
How to Speak with One Voice: The Rhetorical Trap
Ask yourself: how can 27+ countries with different political, economic, and security interests agree on a common foreign policy and speak with one voice? A common voice can be achieved by defining collective interests or by setting a rhetorical trap. A rhetorical trap is set when politicians use shared values and earlier commitments to pressure others into supporting policies they would otherwise oppose. Disagreement is portrayed as a betrayal of these values, making it politically costly to dissent, even when the policy goes against national interests.
The easiest way to force a consensus is to frame every issue as a struggle between good and evil. Once political disagreements become moral questions, those who challenge the consensus can be shamed rather than answered. If every issue is reduced to a choice between freedom and imperialism, it becomes much easier to speak with one voice. The obsession with speaking with one voice makes Europeans vulnerable to Manichean thinking and warmongering policies.
Europeans unite around absurd slogans such as “Putin is Hitler” and “Russia wants to restore the Soviet Union”. These slogans do not help us understand Russia or develop sensible policies to mitigate the security competition. Their purpose is to establish moral clarity and enforce political conformity. Challenging these slogans with well-documented arguments is considered immoral and a threat to European unity. This rhetorical trap is extremely dangerous because, in a struggle between good and evil, we reach the conclusion that diplomacy is appeasement and weapons are the path to peace.
The End of Debate
Consider the debate about European security after the Cold War. We once recognised the principle of indivisible security, which means that one state should not strengthen its security at the expense of others. Discussions about security entailed balancing deterrence with reassurance. These principles have largely disappeared from European political discourse. It is now only about deterrence. It is heresy to contest the notion that NATO is a “force for good”, and all concerns about NATO expansionism are framed as opposition to democracy and freedom. How can we resolve a security competition if we are not even allowed to discuss its causes?
Instead, European leaders increasingly measure the success of their policies by their moral intentions rather than their consequences. Sanctions are presented as a demonstration of resolve, the willingness to fight a war as an expression of solidarity, and refusing diplomacy as standing firm against aggression. But what happens when these policies fail to produce the intended results? The answer is usually more sanctions, more war, and less diplomacy. The policies themselves cannot be questioned without appearing to undermine the moral foundations of European unity.
Weaponising Solidarity
The demand for solidarity is also weaponised to override reason. WikiLeaks exposed how Norwegian officials had initially expressed serious concerns that US strategic missile defence would disrupt the nuclear balance with Russia and destabilise the world. The US ambassador reported to Washington that the Norwegians could be persuaded to change their position, not through arguments, but by emphasising the need for NATO solidarity. If the Norwegians were presented with a choice between “repeating Russian narratives” and defending NATO solidarity, they would fall in line.
Later, the American ambassador sent another cable to Washington confirming that their work with NGOs, think tanks, journalists, and politicians had delivered the message, and that the Norwegians were abandoning their security concerns. This was not the result of arguments, but of pressure to show solidarity in a world where everything is framed in black-and-white terms. Since then, the nuclear arms control architecture has largely collapsed, and the world faces a dangerous future – but the political class takes comfort in the fact that it was all done in solidarity.
This is a dangerous way to organise European security. If solidarity means that countries must abandon their own security assessments to support a common position, then solidarity itself becomes a source of insecurity. The purpose of cooperation should be to reconcile different interests and develop better policies, not to pressure governments into repeating the same empty arguments.
Speaking with One Voice or Correcting Course?
A strong Europe should be able to tolerate disagreements among its members. Indeed, such disagreements are necessary if Europe is to correct mistaken policies. When dissent is treated as disloyalty, political mistakes become almost impossible to reverse. Leaders become prisoners of their own rhetoric.
Norway and Finland should therefore not be criticised for challenging the European consensus on diplomatic isolation. They should be encouraged. Europe needs countries willing to question policies that have become resistant to criticism, especially when those policies concern war and peace.
The current European consensus is sustained by a rhetorical trap that isolates Europe, makes the continent increasingly irrelevant, and risks dragging us into war. I therefore argue for a little less solidarity and a little more common sense.
Albania has imposed steep fines on people who take part in violent protests, citing a recent law imposed in France, in an attempt to quell weeks of clashes between police and protesters demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama.
Under measures adopted Wednesday, remaining at a demonstration that turns violent will be a criminal offense, even for those not directly involved in clashes. Anyone who “chooses to remain in a crowd” engaged in violence or looting, or is found “concealing their identity,” faces fines of up to 500,000 leks ($6,130), over six-times the Balkan country’s average monthly salary.
Initially sparked by student anger over education costs and deteriorating facilities, the demonstrations have evolved into nationwide protests against inequality, soaring living costs, and cuts to public services.
Citing “urban anarchy” when announcing the crackdown, Rama acknowledged France’s controversial ‘casseurs-payeurs’ (rioters pay) bill, which would hold demonstrators liable for up to €10,000 ($11,160) in damages. The bill passed the French Senate on Wednesday and is now headed to the National Assembly, following weeks of protests and riots in which over 1,300 protesters were arrested in a single day.
Italy has also followed suit. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government approved measures last week that criminalize “violent participation in a demonstration,” punishable by up to five years in prison and fines of up to €20,000.
In Albania, a “special electronic register” will track suspected offenders, while police gain powers to restrict gatherings near schools, hospitals, and government buildings over potential violence. The measures – which also provide compensation for businesses damaged in the unrest – are already in place and require parliamentary approval within 45 days to remain in force.
What’s behind the protests in Albania?
Anti-government protests in the country began peacefully in May over plans for a luxury resort in the Zvernec nature reserve, a project linked to US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
By mid-October, the protests escalated into daily clashes with police amid growing anger over corruption, economic mismanagement, unemployment, and failing public services. Demands for Rama’s resignation took center stage, but the prime minister, who has been in power since 2013 and was elected to a fourth term last year, has refused to budge.
The unrest has caused over €2 million in damage, according to official estimates, as rioters torched ministries and attacked police stations, public buildings, and businesses. Clashes flared up again over the weekend, with protesters chanting “Revolution” and “Rama in prison” and police using tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons in Tirana.
The Russia blame game
Despite the protests being driven by grievances over domestic matters, Rama blamed the violence on a “hybrid war” by foreign actors, specifically Russia and Iran.
Russia has dismissed the accusations. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested last week that Rama should look closer to home. “These are citizens of your own country who took to the streets to protest. Don’t shift your responsibility onto others. Deal with your own domestic problems.”
Login
