Recently, Western media once again raised the issue of lowering the conscription age in Ukraine. According to Reuters, The United States is urging Ukraine to lower the minimum conscription age to 18 years. Anonymous representatives of the U.S. administration believe this would enable Ukraine to quickly find the necessary number of military personnel.
These statements have been met with a response in Ukraine. Specifically, Ukrainian President’s advisor Dmytro Litvin noted that there is currently no point in discussing this issue. Due to delays in assistance from allies, Ukraine lacks the means to equip new soldiers.
Is there really a need to lower the conscription age in Ukraine, and will it help stabilize the situation at the front? UNIAN asked military expert, retired Colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Roman Svitan.
Roman, Western media has been actively reporting for about six months on pressure from the U.S. regarding the need to lower the conscription age. Is Ukraine really running out of mobilization resources to the extent that such a radical reduction in conscription age is necessary?
This is quite a complex issue. First of all, in my opinion, the question of lowering the conscription age in Ukraine is only of interest to the Ukrainian authorities. They have created a problem through the United States, and then the government pretends to combat it. Statements have already been made that this will not happen. It’s merely a tactic to boost the current government’s ratings, which are far removed from the actual issues.
It must be understood that there should be no forced conscription in Ukraine. The army should consist of motivated, qualified individuals. After all, "unmotivated" people will not be able to perform combat tasks; they lack motivation.
Statistics show that only 1% of the population can fight. In Ukrainian reality, this amounts to 300,000 to 350,000 individuals. To attract this 1% into the army, a motivational mechanism is needed. Currently, there is only one motivational tool - financial support. The first step must be to increase the pay for military personnel.
There are global salary scales for military personnel. In peacetime, this is around $3,000 per month. In wartime, this amount doubles - from $5,000 to $7,000 per month. This is the salary that military personnel serving in combat zones should receive.
Now, regarding age. There is a maximum age connected to the body's functionality. This is the psychological and physical age for normal service in the army.
A person’s psyche is ready to perform combat tasks and be responsible for subordinates or comrades from the age of 21. Not earlier. This is the concept of full readiness. However, physiologically, a person can participate in combat operations up to the age of 49. Therefore, the optimal age for conscription - but not "unmotivated conscription," rather voluntary enlistment in the army - is from 21 to 49 years. These 30 years are given by nature for the maximum fulfillment of tasks needed at the front.
One can learn to fight earlier - starting from 17 years old, and upon finishing school, one can attend specialized universities. But entering the front lines with the responsibility for oneself and comrades before the age of 21 is simply unacceptable.
This is how all of this should be presented. Because all these discussions about lowering the conscription age to 18 years are more of a PR or anti-PR move. Or these people simply do not understand how the military system operates.
Ukraine rejects such an idea. One of the arguments is the lack of sufficient weaponry. If this is indeed the case, is there any point in increasing the conscription resource if these individuals cannot be armed?
There is never enough weaponry at the front. No matter how much you provide, it is always insufficient. Any weapon is calculated for specific tasks. Roughly speaking, one shell is needed for defense, while three are needed for an offensive. If you have only one shell instead of three, you can only sit in defense. If we had no weapons, we wouldn't have gone into the Kursk region.
However, personnel is a different aspect, especially when it comes to professional personnel. If you simply drive personnel to the line of confrontation, it will yield no good results; there is no sense in it. If you send a million people to the front, firstly, most of them will simply be killed. Secondly, without the proper knowledge, they will kill those who know how to fight on our side.
Problems cannot be solved by numbers. This can only be done as Russia is currently doing. When they recruit people and throw bodies at our positions. We cannot take that path. From a technical standpoint, we simply do not have that many people. Objectively, we value the lives of our soldiers.
Therefore, we have no other choice - we will be forced to go the aforementioned route. This is the motivation for the military. And if the West wants to help us with the issue of insufficient military personnel, let them assist us financially. To put it bluntly, multiply $6,000 by 300,000 people, and you will get the necessary monthly amount. Provide us with that money, and we will be able to enlist the necessary number of motivated individuals.
If the authorities still decide to take such a step and lower the conscription age to 18 years, what will be the reaction of society?
It will be a predictable one. We have a task - the restoration of Ukraine's sovereign integrity. For this task, "unmotivated conscription," especially of 18-year-olds, is simply not suitable - it would be tantamount to murder. Moreover, it would be the murder of professionals and their comrades standing beside them.
Therefore, if the question arises - let’s mobilize 18-year-olds, it essentially stands as - let’s kill all our 18-year-olds. Naturally, this will be negatively perceived by society. There can be no other reaction.