NATO state to conscript women
The move comes as NATO, of which Denmark is a member, increases its military readiness, citing a perceived threat from Russia after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. At the bloc's summit in The Hague last week, member states agreed to ramp up defense spending.
In May, the European Union approved a €150 billion ($171 billion) borrowing plan to support its own military buildup.
The Kremlin has consistently dismissed allegations of hostile intent toward Western nations as 'nonsense' and fearmongering.
The newly adopted Danish legislation mandates 'full equality between men and women in relation to military service.' It requires that 'women who turn 18 on or after 1 July 2025 will have to… draw a [draft] lottery number and thus could be ordered to serve military service if there are not enough volunteers.' Female conscripts will serve under the same conditions as men.
The bill also extends the mandatory service period from four to eleven months, according to media reports.
Denmark's armed forces rely on both volunteers and conscripts, who are called up when volunteer numbers fall short. Roughly 4,700 Danes completed military service in 2024, with women accounting for approximately 24% of that figure.
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen unveiled plans to conscript women in March, framing the decision as part of a push for 'full equality between the sexes.'
Latvia, another NATO member, is planning to conscript women by 2028. It reintroduced mandatory service in 2023 after scrapping it in 2006.
Norway and Sweden have already implemented gender-neutral conscription, in 2015 and 2018 respectively.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has also proposed reinstating the draft for men, which was abolished in 2011.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Halt to US military aid could spell doom for Kiev
The US decision to suspend its supply of weapons to Ukraine could make Kiev's situation dire in less than two months, the German tabloid Bild has reported, citing military experts. Without America's support, the Ukrainian military would struggle to fight Russia in several major fields, the outlet stated. Washington's envoy to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, confirmed to Fox News on Wednesday that the decision to halt arms shipments was made as part of the 'America first' policy. He also said that the US needs to focus on maintaining its own 'strategic defense capabilities' and particularly make sure that 'we have enough Patriot missiles.' Patriot missiles were included by several Western media outlets, including Politico and NBC News, among the categories of weapons that will no longer be sent to Kiev. The list also includes Stinger and AIM air-to-air missiles, hundreds of Hellfire and GMLRS systems, and thousands of 155mm artillery shells. According to Bild, the lack of Patriot missiles could deal a particularly significant blow to Ukraine's air defense capabilities as the US-made weapons are reportedly the only ones capable of intercepting Russian ballistic missiles. The halt in deliveries of AIM missiles could potentially leave the Ukrainian military struggling to intercept Russian strike drones, the tabloid stated. The lack of GMLRS munitions would also reportedly be 'devastating' as it would make US-made HIMARS multiple rocket launchers used by the Ukrainian military 'virtually useless.' Kiev's forces have just enough western-supplied weapons to last them until late summer, Bild reported, citing Carlo Masala, a political scientist and defense expert heading the Intelligence and Security Studies program at the Bundeswehr University of Munich. After that, the situation 'will become critical,' Masala told the tabloid, adding that the Ukrainian military is heavily reliant on Western arms shipments. US President Donald Trump has previously questioned the rationale behind endless aid to Ukraine. He also made no specific promises to Kiev at a meeting with Vladimir Zelensky on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague last week. Moscow has repeatedly stated that Western weapons supplies only prolong hostilities and human suffering while having no effect on the eventual outcome of the conflict.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Moscow responds to NATO chief's ‘Jesus' comment about Lavrov
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte mentioning Jesus Christ when talking about Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov means that Moscow's top diplomat is doing good job, ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. She was referring to a brief interview Rutte gave Fox News on Wednesday. The NATO chief sought to diminish the role of the Russian foreign minister by claiming that he 'has been foreign minister of Russia … since the birth of Jesus Christ. And since then, nothing… useful came out of his month.' 'Not for nothing has Sergey Lavrov been working for so many years since he has made the NATO Secretary General remember Jesus Christ,' Zakharova quipped in response in a Telegram statement. A veteran diplomat, Lavrov has headed the Russian Foreign Ministry for more than 20 years, since 2004. Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister, has been in the NATO top job for less than a year, but already found himself at the center of controversy at the bloc's summit last week. Some European officials were unhappy with the level of flattery he used to win over US President Donald Trump during the meeting, according to Politico. 'People are so embarrassed,' one official told the outlet, adding that 'the sucking up was pretty over the top.' Rutte called Trump 'daddy' during the summit and sent him a gushing message praising the US attack on Iran's nuclear sites ahead of the summit. The US president was quick to post the NATO chief's message online. The White House also shared a clip on social media showing Trump's participation in the summit and accompanied by Usher's song 'Daddy's home'.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
NATO circles China in more ways than one
The June NATO summit, held in The Hague, ended with a significant headline: a collective pledge to increase annual defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This bold target, far exceeding the current 2% benchmark, signals a new era of militarization in the West, reflecting anxieties about a rapidly changing world order. While China was notably absent from the summit's final declaration, the specter of the Asian giant loomed large over the event. The omission appears tactical rather than strategic – a thinly veiled attempt to avoid escalating tensions, even as NATO members ramp up rhetoric and military preparations clearly aimed at containing Beijing. Though the summit declaration remained silent on China, the alliance's leadership left little doubt about their true concerns. NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, used the summit sidelines to sound alarm bells over China's 'massive military build-up'. Echoing the now-familiar Western narrative, Rutte linked China – alongside Iran and North Korea – to Russia's military operations in Ukraine, accusing Beijing of supporting Moscow's war efforts. These remarks followed Rutte's June address at London's Chatham House, where he described China's military expansion as happening 'at breakneck speed' and labeled Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, and Moscow as an 'awful foursome.' This framing makes clear that the NATO establishment and US leadership regard China not as a partner or even a rival, but a threat. The perception of China as an imminent danger was also echoed at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in May, where US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned of a potential Chinese military move against Taiwan and reiterated Washington's commitment to regional allies – albeit while pressing them to increase their own defense budgets. His remarks left no doubt: the US strategic focus is firmly on the Indo-Pacific, even at the expense of its traditional European commitments. In a notable diplomatic snub, the leaders of Australia, Japan, and South Korea – the so-called 'Indo-Pacific partners' of NATO – cancelled their plans to attend the summit in The Hague. This decision, viewed by observers as a pointed message, undermined NATO's aspiration to consolidate its influence in the region. Since the 2022 Madrid summit, when NATO adopted its 'Strategic Compass' and for the first time classified China as a 'systemic challenge,' the alliance has moved steadily to incorporate the Asia-Pacific into its strategic thinking. It now considers developments in East Asia as directly relevant to Euro-Atlantic security. As such, NATO seeks deeper cooperation with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand to uphold what it calls the 'rules-based order' – a euphemism for Western hegemony. However, the absence of these Indo-Pacific leaders suggests a growing discomfort with NATO's expanding footprint. For many regional actors, NATO's presence in Asia represents not stability, but the risk of being drawn into geopolitical conflicts under the guise of shared security. Further adding to regional unease, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a controversial message at the Shangri-La Dialogue, warning Beijing that NATO could be involved in Southeast Asia unless China convinces North Korea to withdraw its troops from Russia. This statement not only mischaracterized Beijing's independent foreign policy and its complex relations with Pyongyang but also marked a sharp departure from France's previous resistance to NATO's involvement in Asia-Pacific matters. Such remarks, however, are increasingly aligned with the alliance's real trajectory: NATO is no longer content with transatlantic defense. Its strategic horizon is now global, and its compass points East. NATO-China relations, once limited and mostly symbolic, are now strained to the point of near-hostility. The first Chinese representative visited NATO headquarters in 2002, and both sides cooperated on anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden after 2008. Since then, however, the relationship has eroded amid intensifying geopolitical competition and diverging security philosophies. Beijing has become increasingly vocal in its criticism. Chinese authorities responded sharply to Rutte's remarks at The Hague, accusing NATO of spreading disinformation about China's stance on Ukraine and conflating the Taiwan question – which Beijing insists is a purely domestic matter – with a war between states. Chinese officials emphasized that NATO's role in the Asia-Pacific is unwelcome and destabilizing, viewing the alliance as a Cold War relic now repurposed to uphold US dominance and contain China's rise. For China, NATO is not just a military alliance, but a political tool used by Washington to limit Europe's engagement with Beijing. From this perspective, NATO's eastward ambitions threaten to derail the potential for constructive China-Europe cooperation, replacing it with division and distrust. China's concerns are not limited to NATO. The revival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), the emergence of the 'Squad,' and the 2021 formation of AUKUS – a trilateral pact between the US, UK, and Australia – have only deepened Beijing's fears of encirclement. The AUKUS agreement, under which Australia is to receive nuclear-powered submarines from the US worth $240 billion, has introduced a new and dangerous element into regional security dynamics. Canberra will gain long-range strike capability for the first time and become only the second nation – after the UK – to receive access to US nuclear propulsion technology. Though the Trump administration has initiated a formal review of AUKUS, few expect significant changes. On the contrary, the pact is likely to reinforce the militarization of the region and increase the risk of nuclear proliferation. In contrast to NATO's bloc-based approach, China promotes a regional security framework rooted in multilateralism, inclusiveness, and dialogue. Beijing advocates for an ASEAN-centered architecture and supports institutions like the ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES), and the East Asia Summit. It also backs the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and has launched the Global Security Initiative to advance regional stability. Most significantly, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has emerged as a key platform for Eurasian states to coordinate on security, with the June meeting of defense ministers in Qingdao underscoring its role in promoting collective peace without resorting to confrontation or hegemonism. The NATO summit may have avoided naming China, but it failed to conceal the reality of growing confrontation. While the alliance doubles down on military spending and expands its strategic reach into Asia, the Global South and a number of key Asia-Pacific states appear increasingly wary of NATO's global ambitions. As the world stands at a strategic crossroads, two competing visions of international security are on display. On one side, NATO and its partners advocate a 'rules-based order' backed by military alliances and deterrence. On the other, China offers a model grounded in multipolarity, multilateral cooperation, consensus-building, and mutual respect. The choice, increasingly, is not between East vs. West – but between confrontation and coexistence.
