Chris

The facts are accurate. The inference is not. In WW1 we didn’t conscript until 1916, after the initial swell of volunteers pretty much stopped. There were demonstrations against it but enough men accepted it as necessary, if undesirable, for the policy to work.

We conscripted from the outbreak of WW2 but extended it to unmarried women and all men up to 60 in 1941 because ancillary services (civil defence, police, women’s army auxiliary) were getting too few volunteers.

The British armed forces have never wanted to go back to conscription because it always causes training and discipline issues you don’t get in a willing, professional volunteer army. There is no reason to suppose human nature is very much different in Ukraine today.

So, yes, jfman’s words are factually correct. But like a sort of Farage of the Far Left, he is very good at leaving inferences hanging in the air (which he might later deny he made if they prove objectionable). And the inference here is that people being conscripted against their will is evidence that the war does not have popular support, and that the Ukrainian ‘regime’ is unpopular, avoiding democratic accountability and possibly illegitimate.

As others have noted, we faced our own existential struggle between 1939 and 1945. In that time, as well as conscripting people into various forms of national service far more broadly than Ukraine has done, Parliament passed Acts on 2 occasions extending its own life beyond the norm (The Prolongation of Parliament Acts, 1940 and 1942). There is nothing happening in Ukraine that is out of the ordinary for a democratic state facing an existential threat. Unless of course you’ve been captured by that part of Russia’s information operations that has led you to think otherwise. Note, they don’t need you to think Russia is in the right. They just need you to think Ukraine might be in the wrong for your voice to contribute to their wider aim of making support for Ukraine in democratic western states harder to sustain.