European Conscription for the Meat-Grinder War Against Russia! By Richard Miller(Londonistan)

 The article: https://michaeltsnyder.substack.com/p/european-leaders-warn-that-conscriptionhighlights a sudden shift in European rhetoric and policy, with multiple nations issuing warnings and taking concrete steps to prepare their populations for war. In Sweden, a historically neutral country that hasn't fought a war in over two centuries, the government began distributing over 5 million copies of a 32-page booklet on November 18, 2024, titled "If Crisis or War Comes." This booklet advises citizens on how to prepare for war, including instructions on warning systems, seeking shelter during air raids, and maintaining psychological and digital security. This move follows earlier statements from Swedish officials, such as Civil Defense Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin's January 2024 warning that "there could be war in Sweden," and former army chief Micael Byden's call for Swedes to "mentally prepare for war."

Neighbouring Nordic countries are following suit. Norway has distributed "emergency preparedness" pamphlets, citing the possibility of war affecting its territory in a worst-case scenario. Finland, sharing a long border with Russia, has released a digital booklet to prepare citizens for "incidents and crises," emphasizing its historical readiness for war due to its proximity to Russia. The article notes Finland's growing "paranoia" about Russian aggression, reflecting its strategic vulnerability.

Further south, Germany's Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned in late October 2024 that Russia could attack a NATO country within five to eight years, urging Germany to become "war-ready." This comes as Germany debates reinstating conscription, a policy abandoned in 2011, with Pistorius advocating for a return to mandatory military service to bolster defenses. Poland, another frontline NATO state, has similarly intensified its military posture, with its leadership pushing for greater readiness amid fears of Russian expansionism.

The article ties these actions to the broader context of the Ukraine war, which began in February 2022, and NATO's increasing involvement. It suggests that European leaders are reacting to Ukraine's use of U.S.-provided long-range missiles against Russia on November 19, 2024, and the possibility of a weakening U.S. commitment under a potential Trump administration, which has expressed scepticism about NATO's role. Snyder interprets these moves as evidence that "something really big is in the works," with European nations anticipating a direct confrontation with Russia.

While Europe's preparations signal a resolve to counter Russian aggression, there are compelling reasons to argue against escalating this tension into a full-scale war:

The war in Ukraine has already resulted in significant loss—14,000 Ukrainian war dead and 2 million internal refugees from Russia's 2014 and 2022 invasions, per the article. A broader conflict involving NATO and Russia would dwarf these numbers, potentially leading to millions of casualties across Europe. History shows that wars with Russia, such as the Napoleonic invasion or World War II, exact a devastating toll on all sides due to Russia's vast resources and willingness to endure prolonged conflict. Europe, with its dense population and interconnected economies, is ill-prepared for such destruction.

Russia possesses a formidable nuclear arsenal, including tactical and strategic weapons. Even if its conventional forces are strained by Ukraine, as some X posts suggest, its nuclear capability remains a deterrent. A war could escalate unpredictably, risking nuclear strikes on European cities. Sweden's and Finland's proximity to Russia heightens this danger, as does NATO's collective defence pact, which could draw the U.S. into a nuclear exchange. The article doesn't explicitly mention nuclear threats, but the subtext of "something big" implies catastrophic potential that leaders should avoid.

Europe's economy is already strained by inflation, energy crises exacerbated by sanctions on Russian gas, and the costs of supporting Ukraine (e.g., the U.S. alone has spent $200 billion, per related posts). A war would disrupt trade, destroy infrastructure, and trigger a refugee crisis far worse than Ukraine's 2 million displaced. Countries like Germany, reliant on industrial output, and Norway, dependent on energy exports, would face economic collapse, undermining the very stability they aim to protect.

Europe's militaries are small and underfunded, with declining populations limiting recruitment pools. Reinstating conscription, as Germany considers, would take years to yield a capable force, and even then, it couldn't match Russia's manpower or resilience. Sweden's booklet and Finland's digital guides are symbolic but insufficient against a seasoned adversary. A war would expose these vulnerabilities, likely ending in a costly stalemate or defeat.

The article questions why European leaders aren't pushing for negotiations instead of war preparations, especially since Ukraine's conflict has dragged on since 2022 without decisive victory. Russia's leadership has historically responded to strength but also to pragmatic deals—e.g., the Minsk agreements, however flawed. A negotiated settlement, even if imperfect, could halt escalation, preserve lives, and maintain European security without risking total war. Ignoring this path, as Snyder suggests Zelensky has, is a missed opportunity.

There's little evidence of "patriotic euphoria" in Europe for war, unlike in past conflicts. Sweden's 200-year peace streak and Germany's post-WWII aversion to militarism reflect societies unready for sacrifice. Forcing conscription or war on reluctant populations could spark domestic unrest, weakening national unity at a critical time.

In conclusion, while Europe's moves—booklets in Sweden, conscription talks in Germany, and warnings in Poland and Finland—signal a defensive posture against Russia, the case against war is rooted in its disproportionate risks: mass casualties, nuclear escalation, economic ruin, and military overreach, all with viable diplomatic alternatives ignored. Leaders should heed the article's implicit warning of "something big" not as a call to fight, but as a plea to de-escalate before it's too late. They may not live to regret it.