Ukraine’s Mobilization Dilemma: A Nation Divided in a Post-Heroic World

Source: Author’s Facebook page

Ukraine’s mobilization debate has reached a breaking point: while front-line soldiers demand urgent and uncompromising measures to replenish the ranks — even defending illegal “bus raids” and calling for force against those obstructing enlistment offices — the nation wrestles with the cost of such methods for its democracy and unity.

The main argument is clear: if Ukrainians fail to mobilize their army, they risk serving in the enemy’s ranks. This is a valid concern. While international partners provide weapons, technology, and financial support, it is evident that no allied expeditionary force will set foot on Ukrainian soil. Without a sufficient number of motivated personnel in uniform, neither weapons, funds, nor technology alone can secure victory—a lesson confirmed by the conflict in Afghanistan.

At the same time, the “party of evaders” raises legitimate points. Opponents of mobilization often highlight its social injustice, as military service remains, in practice, a duty borne primarily by the honest and the poor. The former serve out of conscience, the latter because they cannot afford to avoid it. However, the number of conscientious volunteers is dwindling, while resistance among those seeking to evade service is growing more vocal. They argue that lawmakers, ministers, officials, and their families—including police officers, NABU, and SBI personnel—should serve first, before they consider fulfilling their constitutional duty.

And this blatant social injustice and pervasive corruption hinder Ukraine from becoming like Israel, where “there cannot be a situation in which the children of high-ranking officials, ministers, or diplomats do not serve in the army,” and where, consequently, “there are practically no people who try to evade military service.”

These two segments of Ukrainian society are unlikely to find common ground. The state must ensure the replenishment of the army, not through arbitrariness, repression, or tightening the screws, but by fostering genuine motivation to serve. This requires a comprehensive approach: patriotic education, adequate financial incentives, restoring the prestige of military service, providing clear career prospects after service, a relentless fight against Soviet-era atavisms in the army, zero tolerance for corruption, and effective social benefits and guarantees for veterans.

However, the problem runs even deeper. Edward Luttwak, national security advisor during the Reagan administration, argues in his seminal work Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace that we live in an era of “post-heroic wars.” While during the First and Second World Wars Western countries could mobilize millions and accept massive casualties—even in single battles—since the Vietnam War, mobilization and war casualties have become major political challenges.

This “post-heroic era” in the West explains why the U.S. hastily withdrew from Somalia after losing only 18 commandos in 1993, and similarly, why it abandoned Afghanistan in 2021. Over the last 50 years, large-scale wars have become politically unacceptable for the West. This is also why Trump repeatedly insists that the war between Ukraine and Russia is “not his war,” whether it is necessary or not.

In this context, it is the duty of the state not only to enforce mobilization but to build a system that inspires commitment and unity, transforming military service from a burden into a respected and sought-after duty that unites society rather than divides it.

As Luttwak writes, “as long as social institutions, political leaders, and the public are willing to accept the losses of war, they will engage in it for the most banal reasons. If they are no longer willing, then any number of arguments will be put forward to explain why the upcoming battle, whenever it occurs, is not worth such sacrifices.”

Thus, according to the “paradoxical logic of war” (Luttwak’s term), our westward movement and integration into European and Euro-Atlantic communities may lead to defeat. These societies have long existed in a “post-heroic era.” Western civilization, where the highest value is not freedom, dignity, or statehood, but the life of each individual, embodies this “post-heroic era” with all its allure and vulnerability to the barbarians from the East.

NATO was created and developed under the American nuclear umbrella. The willingness—or—unwillingness—to use nuclear weapons against an aggressor ultimately determines the effectiveness of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Neither the Americans, nor the French, British, or Canadians will fight as fiercely as we or the Russians do. And I say nothing of the Germans, Italians, Greeks, Belgians, or Spaniards. In the post-heroic era, such a price is politically unacceptable for these postmodern nations. Even if Russia were to attack…

And that is why the movement toward the EU demobilizes Ukraine. An instrument that proved to be an incredible success in peacetime—granting Europe an unprecedented seventy years of peace—has turned out to be counterproductive now that war is knocking at Europe’s door. It is no coincidence that “principled” Europe and “cynical” Israel have such fundamentally different stances on the issue of Palestine. Israel understands that victory is determined by the willingness to kill and to die, not by cherishing individual life as the highest value.

Turkey, Israel, and South Korea are far better prepared for war than atomized, cosmopolitan Europe, spoiled by the benefits of long-term peace. I realize this may sound like heresy. Yet what seemed yesterday like an obvious answer and clear path has become a challenge and a problem today.

We Ukrainians opened the door to the European post-heroic world with one hand back in 2014, and even stepped in with one foot. That is why we face such a glaring problem with mobilization. But over the past decade, the world has changed radically. And in Europe today, there is no clear answer to what to do if attacked by an Eastern barbarian, and America is not ready to protect you.

The Mercedes S-class is a great car for peacetime. But in war, an uncomfortable armored Kozak or Novator is far more useful.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.