By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Incoming National Security Adviser Mike Waltz advocates for Ukraine to lower its draft age to 18, believing this would provide hundreds of thousands of additional troops. This measure, Waltz argues, is crucial for stabilizing the front lines and achieving a more favorable negotiating position. This recommendation follows previous US urging of Ukraine to increase its military manpower, although this has reportedly caused tension between the Ukrainian and US presidents. Zelenskyy, however, has prioritized Western weapons and training over lowering the draft age.
Read the original article here
Trump’s future adviser urging Ukraine to adopt a “go all in” strategy, including lowering the draft age, presents a complex and concerning situation. The suggestion itself is jarring, particularly given past pronouncements seemingly aimed at swiftly ending the conflict. However, the very fact that such a drastic measure is being considered, short of outright capitulation, could be interpreted as a positive sign – a recognition of the war’s gravity and the need for decisive action.
The inherent problem lies in the profound discrepancy between the scale of such a commitment and the current reality on the ground. Ukraine faces a critical shortage of weapons, a reality exacerbated by past political gridlock concerning aid packages. This shortage isn’t merely about numbers; it’s about basic necessities like ammunition. Forcing a mobilization of younger soldiers without sufficient equipment risks catastrophic losses and a demoralized army.
This “all in” approach hinges entirely on a massive influx of Western support, far beyond what’s currently provided. Without guaranteed, substantial military assistance, the call to lower the draft age becomes a reckless gamble, one that could easily backfire disastrously. The potential for significant Ukrainian casualties, under-equipped and outmatched, is starkly evident. The argument that sending more soldiers without sufficient weaponry will somehow bolster the war effort is illogical and deeply troubling.
The suggestion echoes sentiments from other political quarters, such as the Biden administration’s prior call for lowering the conscription age. However, it underscores a fundamental disconnect – a call for all-out commitment without a matching commitment to provide the means to achieve it. It’s a facile demand, easy for those unaffected by direct conflict to make, but immensely risky for a nation fighting for survival.
The call also exposes a potentially cynical calculation. By urging Ukraine to take such enormous risks, while simultaneously suggesting a less robust commitment to supporting those risks, the adviser might be positioning themselves to later criticize Ukrainian actions, regardless of outcome. This manipulative strategy would allow for an easy scapegoating of Ukraine for any military setbacks, shifting responsibility away from the lack of adequate Western aid.
This strategy seems predicated on a miscalculation of Ukraine’s capabilities and needs. The country has consistently articulated the critical lack of armament; simply adding more troops without the necessary weaponry to equip them is not a solution, but a recipe for disaster. The previous counter-offensive, lauded as a successful attempt at a “go all in” approach by some external actors, ultimately demonstrated the crippling impact of an armament shortage.
There is a stark irony in urging a nation fighting for its existence to make such a gamble, particularly given the history of inconsistent and often insufficient Western support. Such a move demands an unwavering and substantial commitment from supporting nations, a commitment that isn’t currently evident. To pressure Ukraine into a desperate all-out assault while withholding necessary resources seems to embody a kind of callous disregard for the immense human cost.
The situation underlines the risks of unsolicited, ill-informed military advice from outside actors, especially those with potential ulterior motives. The focus needs to remain on providing the necessary weaponry and resources to allow Ukraine to wage a war effectively and sustainably, rather than forcing a reckless escalation that could lead to needless suffering and potentially destabilize the entire region further. The rhetoric of “all in” is hollow without the actual, meaningful commitment to support it. It’s a strategy that rings hollow, regardless of the source.