Why Desertion Happens

Historical conscription was more brutal, but at the same time, it made more sense.

While modern states offer no rewards for military service, historical armies offered genuine benefits to everyone who fought for them.

Not that they were utopias or anything like that. Ancient and medieval states were simply less effective at coercion. They had to compensate their soldiers if they wanted any soldiers at all!

Modern states are not any more morally superior than their historical counterparts. They're just more sophisticated and effective, and can demand loyalty for nothing in return.

Historical Warfare Had Rational Incentives

This is often glossed over in history lessons. While coercion did happen in war, it was not the core driving element of ancient and medieval armies. For historical levies, often, war made sense.

Ancient, Medieval, or Early Modern soldier's calculation:

Costs:

• Risk of death (but most soldiers survived most wars)
• Hardship, disease, injury
• Time away from home and family

Benefits:

• Loot - potentially life-changing wealth. Sacking a city could set you up for life.
• Land grants - veterans received actual property.
• Social mobility - less common, but peasant —> knight was possible through valour.
• Regular pay and food - being fed twice per day was a legitimate improvement for many.
• Ransom money - capturing nobles meant huge bounties.
• Slaves/Servants - spoils of war you could keep.
• Status - warrior identity had genuine social value.
• Adventure - break from the monotonous peasant life.

For a poor medieval peasant, going to war was often the best available economic opportunity. It was risky, yes. But the potential upside was enormous.

Especially nobles:

• Territorial expansion meant income (taxable land)
• Plunder meant immediate wealth (nobles claimed the lion's share of all loot)
• Political advancement through military success (can claim: "I am brave! I deserve more titles/lands.")
• Honour and prestige translated to marriage alliances, influence, and the king's favour
• Ransoming captured enemies (unimaginable wealth)

**Important honesty check**

The benefits were not universal. For example, you couldn't "conquer" yourself a slave in all parts of the world. Likewise, not all states could afford regular wages for its troops. I had to generalize to get the overarching point across.

My point being: War had a functional economy where participants could rationally expect a profit commensurate with the risk.

Modern Conscription Offers Almost Nothing

The economic sense is flipped in modern times. Nobody apart from career soldiers (tiny minority) thinks that war —> economic uplift. Indeed, most people associate war with devastation and financial loss!

Modern soldier's calculation (Ukraine 2022 example):

Costs:

• High probability of death or severe injury (modern weapons are more deadly)
• PTSD, permanent disability
• Years of life lost
• Economic opportunities foregone
• Family abandonment

Benefits:

• Soldier's salary (poverty-level)
• Vague promises of "veteran benefits" (often unfulfilled)
• Social status (ambiguous — people say they support troops, but also avoid them)
• Being called a "hero" (doesn't pay rent)

The benefit-cost ratio collapses:

No loot. You can't sack cities and keep valuables. That's a war crime now.

No land grants. Ukraine isn't offering every soldier a house, apartment, or a plot of land.

No economic upside. You're paid a salary that's likely less than you'd make as a civilian. Definitely not worth the risk.

The modern state expects you to risk death for essentially zero material compensation. Subsistence wages and abstract "duty" are your only rewards.

Modern States Cannot Offer Historical Incentives

There are several reasons why.

1. Looting is criminalized. Modern laws of war forbid plunder. Soldiers who take valuables are prosecuted — doesn't matter if it's civilian or army valuables. The state claims monopoly on all captured resources. You can steal a handgun or a pack of cigarettes, but no more.

2. No territorial division. If Ukraine won (2022), the recaptured territory would go back to its previous owners. If the owners are dead or imprisoned, the state claims ownership. Individual soldiers get nothing. Even if Ukraine annexed Russian territory, the state wouldn't divide the conquered land among veterans.

3. Professional armies. Historically, armies disbanded after campaigns and soldiers returned to civilian life with their gains. Modern states want standing armies and career soldiers. There is no "get rich and retire" pathway.

4. Ideological shift. Modern warfare is justified through a nationalistic lens. The state needs you to accept an ideological payment instead of a material one. You don't fight because, "You personally benefit." You fight because your nation, democracy, and territorial security need you.

5. Slavery banned. Capturing slaves meant you could sell them for profit or use them on your land. Now that's illegal. No personal gain from prisoners. The state is responsible for prisoners of war.

6. No slack in the system. Ukraine especially cannot offer material compensation because they can't afford it. If they promised to redistribute wealth from oligarchs to veterans, the system would fail. Likewise, offering a real pathway to political or military power for veterans would upset the status quo for the entrenched elites.

The states want to survive, but not at the cost of the existing elite giving up power or wealth. They extract sacrifice from the powerless through force rather than incentivizing them through reward.

What Modern States Actually Offer

Rewards exist, but mostly in your imagination.

During recruitment:

• The "defend your homeland" ideology
• The "protect your family" emotional manipulation
• "Be a hero" promises of status
• Training and discipline (training often rushed, inadequate, and dubious benefits for civilians)
• Modest salary and abstract benefits

After the war (if you survive):

• Veteran benefits (often inadequate)
• Medical care (usually, for injuries the war caused)
• Preference for government jobs (if you're functional enough to work)
• Social recognition (performative, diminishes quickly, often turns into persecution and avoidance)
• PTSD treatment (which the war caused, often ineffective and trauma is permanent)

You're compensated for problems the war created! It's like being paid to shoot yourself in the foot, given crutches as compensation, and blamed for developing PTSD.

I wish I was grossly exaggerating. But that's exactly what happens to "brave patriots" who fight for their country. Offensively and defensively. Modern conscription offers almost nothing material while demanding everything. Is it any wonder nobody wants to fight? 

Why Desertion Is High

When war had economic logic, people participated more willingly despite worse state power to enforce compliance. Medieval kings with primitive enforcement could raise armies because soldiers expected profit. Modern states with total surveillance, closed borders, legal systems, and international "asylum bans" for military-age males struggle to maintain armies despite having vastly more coercive power!

Modern warfare relies on nationalism, emotional manipulation, and coercion because the state refuses to pay market rates for the risk it demands. The state calls rational actors cowards and traitors because it can't admit this truth: If we offered real compensation, we wouldn't need to force people.

But "honour" and "duty" don't pay the bills. The state doesn't care if you are clothed and fed, especially after the war is over. You have to take care of that yourself. The civilian population does not care either. If you are unable to care for yourself after the war, which is true for many veterans worldwide, you become a tramp.

Historical soldier thinks:

"Yeah, I might die. War is terrible. BUT I can win life-changing wealth and status. Risky, but potentially worth it."

Modern conscript thinks:

"I will certainly die, or end up permanently disabled. Modern weapons are deadly at range. Even if I survive the war unscathed, I will battle with PTSD for the rest of my life. I will be unable to hold down a job, handle my civilian responsibilities, and will end up homeless, drug addicted, imprisoned, or dead in a gutter. Poverty-level salary and abstract gratitude are definitely not worth it."

Modern desertion is a perfectly rational response to a terrible incentive structure. The state offers almost nothing material while demanding you risk everything.

The modern states still use death as punishment for desertion, even the democratic ones. Formally or informally. But it's a lot more common for deserters to be prosecuted and sent to prison which, for many forced conscripts, is a huge improvement.

If I stopped here, you might have concluded that war is completely pointless. If you can't gain anything from war, why does war exist at all?

The answer is: elite interests.

Medieval noble thinks:

"I can expand my territory, capture enemy prisoners, gain political power, and massively increase my wealth."

For nobility, war had practical benefits. They personally took part in campaigns. They didn't always lead charges from the front, but they were there.

Modern Ukrainian oligarch/politician (2022 example):

"I stay in Kyiv, send my family abroad to safety, maintain power, maybe profit from war economy, but don't personally fight."

For politicians, it's beneficial to support the war verbally, but not fight in it.

The incentive structure is inverted. Historically, the people with most to gain fought willingly. Now, the people with most to gain stay safe while forcing the people with least to gain to fight.

Historical desertion happened too, but often after:

• Failed campaign (no loot)
• Winter approaching (season over)
• Undelivered pay (breach of contract)
• Conditions became unbearable

Modern desertion happens because there is no positive incentive at all. Only threats and ideologies.

States Hate Desertion

States hate desertion because:

• Desertion leads to more desertion
• Morale collapse for the army and nation
• Morale boost for the enemy
• State loses authority internationally and internally

Desertion is punished more than violent crime. Stories of deserters being prosecuted 20+ years post-desertion circulate far and wide. Or deserters persecuted by the state after completing their prison sentences, maliciously charged with bogus offences for the rest of their lives just to punish them further. Sometimes, the modern states even retaliate against deserters' families!

States justify this by saying:

"You cannot abandon your military unit without consent. Every soldier has a duty to protect the common good of the nation, to bravely defend its people and homes with his life. It is a moral imperative of all called-upon to sacrifice themselves for the country that raised them, protected them, and gave them a sense of purpose and cultural heritage."

Mendacious statement, repeated non-verbatim by every state bleeding soldiers in a war.

What if:

• You did not consent to being forcibly conscripted?
• You are a minority who did not consent to be part of the nation?
• You do not have a home or family in this country?
• Your country failed to protect you as a child?
• Your country commits atrocities?
• Your country actively oppresses you?

Do you still have a "moral duty" to fight for a nation like that?

Every state will reply:

"We do not oppress you. You are a liar. We are democratic."

Back to my earlier question: Do you still have a moral duty to fight for a nation like that? Not only does it oppress you, but now it pretends you are lying about its oppression and injustices.

"You are just ungrateful and a coward. =Country's name= is the best place in the world. Every member of our society is treated well. You are a freeloader who doesn't want to repay his people for providing you with a decent life."

But we've already been through this. What if your country actively oppresses you? Are you really a "coward" because you don't want to fight for somebody that doesn't care about you?

"It's not your place to question your orders. If everyone thought like that, our army would collapse and its people be conquered by foreign invaders."

Not my place to question you? I thought we were a democracy. I guess I was wrong about that little fact.

"=Country's name= is a democracy! That's why you have a moral duty to defend it and contribute to the common good! You cannot have your liberty if the state doesn't exist! Military duty is a price of maintaining a free society."

That still doesn't answer my previous question. What if this "democratic state" is oppressive, unjust, and corrupt? What if it commits atrocities, disenfranchises its citizens, and lets its people live in deep poverty? If that's what you are fighting to preserve, why should I be a part of this fight? I fundamentally disagree with your aims.

"=Enemy state= is a lot worse! Our country is not perfect, but you can help us improve it after the war. Accept that you are fighting for the lesser of two evils."

Yeah. Except the enemy state says the same thing. And I have experienced your oppression first-hand. I have no reason to trust the enemy, but I have even less reason to trust you.

State replies again

This conscript-state conversation can go on indefinitely.

Democratic states will pretend to be more reasonable than authoritarian states who would just shoot dissenters on sight. But when you stand your ground long enough, they drop their façade and use authoritarian means instead, including shooting you.

Elite interests > State interests > Individual well-being.

Gender Asymmetry

This asymmetry has to be explored.

For most of history, men monopolized violence because those who were violent would monopolize all the benefits.

• Women couldn't be knights (no land grants)
• Women couldn't claim loot (officially)
• Women couldn't gain male-coded status (in war)
• Women couldn't rise through military ranks

Men had material incentives to exclude women from warfare. They wanted the benefits for themselves.

In modern warfare, men are forced to fight while receiving almost no benefits.

• Women not conscripted (correctly avoiding a terrible deal)
• Men forced to fight (trapped by gender expectations and legal coercion)
• Benefits are minimal for everyone
• Status? Dubious benefit

The male monopoly on combat shifted from privilege (access to wealth and power) to burden (forced to die for an ideology).

Women fleeing Ukraine (2022) made the obviously correct choice. Men tried to flee too, but got stopped at the borders because their state needed warm bodies.

Of course, many states can pretend that this isn't real. That draft laws allow both men and women to volunteer in their armies.

Click to show "Women in Military - Obligation 2024 (wikipedia.org)"

But that is only a voluntary draft. One that happens in peacetime. Not one that obliges you to fight.

Symbolism!

When a war breaks out, the pattern is for men to be forced to fight (Ukraine, 2022), while women are given resources and opportunities to evacuate and live abroad (millions of Ukrainian women no longer live in Ukraine; many say they will never return).

There are exceptions. Israel, for instance, is a tiny state surrounded by enemy countries and is in a constant state of war. Israel has to conscript everyone who isn't completely disabled for state survival.

Apart from that, nearly every state will evacuate its women and force men to fight. Women have no reason to fight and nothing to gain, and the state gives them resources to leave the country, so they flee. Men have no reason to fight and nothing to gain, but states use coercion to make them fight, so they stay.

Nobody expects women to fight, even though they are just as ideologically captured as men. Many women, just like men, feel "love" for their country and enjoy the same benefits their state provides — infrastructure, education, democratic liberties, etc. But only one gender is expected to repay for this boon. The other one is excused.

What Happens Underneath?

Every human being has a self-preservation instinct. Modern states try to override it with ideologies and "education" because it's cheaper than providing material incentives.

Many people claim they are American, English, French, German, Polish, Ukrainian, etc. But when danger ceases to be abstract, and they are faced with armed enemies, the self-preservation instinct vetoes their ideological brainwashing.

Their brains make the rational choice not to fight and desert.

Those with the necessary foresight or resources plan ahead and use deception to avoid fighting before it even begins.

• Women claim to be weak, unskilled, or have a family that depends on them (demonstrably false on all accounts)
• Elites stay in the capital/flee abroad to "coordinate strategy" (false; generals coordinate troops)
• Elite families are sent abroad to safety. The working class pays the bill.
• Institutions claim to be instrumental to the country's survival (police, teachers, doctors, etc)
• Upper classes fight "with their knowledge" (code for "fighting is scary"), although usually they bribe their way to safety (fleeing abroad)
• Middle classes flee when smuggling networks emerge.

The only people who stay behind are those with no option to flee. These are the people who desert. And the state pretends that it's "dishonourable". The privileged groups are spared such value judgement.

People CAN be brave and fight even when afraid. But the calculus in their heads has to be rational.

• Protecting the community that raised you? Fight.
• Protecting the home and land you own? Fight.
• Protecting real legal and social advantages? Fight.
• Protecting imaginary borders far away from home? Don't fight.
• Protecting an abstract state that never gave you anything? Don't fight.
• Protecting an abstract state that oppresses you? Resist the state

No state wants to admit:

"We do nothing to protect our citizens, lift them out of poverty, give them real legal and social benefits, or protect them from crime and institutional abuse. At the same time, we expect them to sacrifice for our elite interests while giving them nothing real in return. That's why we have no volunteers, and that's why conscripts desert en masse."

No state has ever admitted something like that. Even though it's undeniably true.

Modern states run on ideological fuel. Admitting they are just organized value-extraction systems would destroy their legitimacy. They couldn't continue to pretend to care about their citizens, that resources are scarce, and that they "do the best they can with what they've got".

The social contract is a lie.

As of 2026, there is enough land and food to assure survival for everyone. The real issue is that states concentrate these resources at the top — not in the treasury, but in the hands of the elites. That accumulated wealth and land are held in private hands, and the elites who are usually not ideologically trapped have international mobility. If a war breaks out, and "their side" starts losing, the elites take whatever they can and flee abroad. They don't use that wealth to try and win the war; they use their wealth and power to save themselves, and leave everyone else behind.

Fighting in modern wars is completely irrational, even if you genuinely believe in "your country". Because even if you fight and sacrifice everything, most of your country's resources will be stolen and taken abroad anyway. All this sacrifice for no personal material benefit, and your country dies anyway.

The elites would sooner let "our mortal enemy" conquer your country and oppress you than sacrifice even 1% of their personal wealth to contribute to the war effort.

Your sacrifice is completely meaningless.