The Psychology of Mobilization: Why Not Everyone is Ready to Go to the Front

In the modern world, where war has become an integral part of reality, it is essential to recognize that any nation consists not only of devoted patriots ready to sacrifice their lives and bodies for their freedom but also of individuals who are not prepared to go to the front. A psychologist, who strives to view the world without illusions, notes that this perception fills her life with sadness. She emphasizes that no nation can consist of 100% patriots willing to self-sacrifice.

This is a psychologically impossible situation unless we are talking about countries with authoritarian regimes, such as North Korea, or about ancient Spartan traditions, where rigorous selections were made, leaving only those ready for heroic deeds. In Ukraine, despite all the challenges, a significant number of people volunteered in the early years of the war, and this was undoubtedly an atypical majority. Therefore, blaming the populace for indifference or poor qualities is naive and overly simplistic.

It is strange to be offended by such a situation, as in this case, we are taking offense at a certain norm, at the Gaussian curve that reflects the actual state of affairs. This is merely an effect of the world not appearing as we would like it to be. Any nation, including Ukraine, comprises individuals who are not prepared to go to the front. For such people, the point of entry into military service is crucial.

The more normalized the transition from civilian life to military service is, and the less it resembles imprisonment, where a person's social identity disappears within hours, the more citizens will be able to join the military. The state must employ a complex system of coercion, incentives, and adaptation. The longer the mobilization lasts, the more complicated and sensitive its mechanisms must become.

This should not spiral into a cycle of violence that needs to be intensified but rather be a constant search for a complex cocktail of power application, non-violent coercion, and normalization of the idea of service. Simply using violence will not yield results with a society that has preserved memories of state violence, particularly from Soviet or Russian regimes, for centuries. People have learned to navigate this game at the level of informal cultural norms.

At present, the goal is not to crush the individual who is evading service but to obtain their passive consent. This may be the most unhappy consent, based on humility and acceptance of an unpleasant fate, but it is still inevitable. Thus, normal conditions for holding individuals, communication, and the ability to connect with family are extremely important. Many small details that may seem insignificant from a military perspective hold immense significance for a person who is still outside the system.

Over time, mobilization should become a more complex process of seeking solutions rather than simplifying. The psychologist expresses hope that Ukrainians can find a way to avoid a spiral of mutual revenge that could lead to even greater suffering. Ukrainians are not a nation that can be crushed by excessive pressure and violence. In this context, they embody both heroes and cowards.

This text is published with the author's permission and underscores the importance of understanding the psychological aspects of mobilization in Ukraine, as this issue pertains not only to the military but to society as a whole.