Last night, the German government passed legislation reintroducing compulsory military service (Schneider, 2025). The plan is to screen young men born from 2008 so for meeting required health criteria. Financial benefits will serve to tempt the young to join the army voluntarily; however, if voluntary recruitment fails to reach the target of 80.000, new soldiers by mid 2027, a lottery will make military service compulsory to those pulled. The government justifies this measure in view of growing security threats emanating from Russia.
Germany’s reintroduction of martial law does not come as a surprise; it follows wider defence and deterrence trends across Europe and the EU’s prioritisation of security issues since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As usual, when there is a societal challenge to be tackled, education is being made to play a role in building civil-military relationships. Earlier this year, the EU launched the EU Preparedness Union Strategy, which explicitly mentions to “include preparedness in school education curricula and training of educational staff” (European Commission, 2025). It needs to be noted that the strategy addresses a range of crises rather than limiting itself to military preparedness. It defines ‘preparedness’ as “the EU’s ability to anticipate, prevent, and respond to the new threats and crises” (ibid). To this end, the Commission has started to review national initiatives that build “a culture of risk awareness” in schools (European Commission, 2025a).
Due to the broad framing of school preparedness, it is unclear whether the EU will set a clear framework for teaching and learning about military security issues. However, such a framework is crucial to ensure ethics, accountability, compatibility, and quality in the delivery of security education across countries.
For instance, regulation is needed setting the extent to which national armed forces may cooperate with schools. It has been questioned whether the delivery of political education by army representatives can remain neural (Sachs, 2012; GEW, 2014). On a philosophical level, Gert Biesta (2025) alerts us that the purpose of education is not to bend to external political needs but to empower young people to form their own views of the world and to change it. He argues that “[t]he school […] should, therefore, be closed to society, so that it can be open to the world” (p.8). Europe needs a democratic debate about these tensions—about how to reconcile preparedness and fundamental values in and through education. The question to start us off with might be, how can we protect what matters without losing who we are?
Further, a risk-averse education framework, paradoxically, risks to stifle the social imagination. Narrative focus on “war is coming” might infringe on our ability to imagine a world without war. As discussed in a previous blog, peace/security education is tangled in a dilemma: on the one hand, the conveyance of knowledge and skills on what to do in emergencies works to equip young people; on the other hand, risk-averse education does not prompt us to conceptualise radically different global systems that might not give rise to violent conflict in the first place. Hence, there is not only the danger of “losing who we are” but of losing the better versions of the global community that we could become. Building what has become known as ‘futures literacy’ in young people and civil society more broadly is vital for leaving open this path towards becoming different.
Ensuing research questions
- In the context of current geopolitical tensions, what role does education play in reshaping civil-military relationships in Europe?
- To what extent do risk-averse security education frameworks undermine fundamental values and imaginative dimensions of learning?
- What are the strengths and limitations of a futures-literacy informed framework for security education?
Methodological considerations
We can’t know for certain where preparedness education is headed. The direction will depend on how the further development of geopolitical tensions will develop, how funds will be allocated, and how public perception towards security risks will evolve. Still, we can see emerging trends and develop different scenarios. We can also investigate the implications of trends and scenarios for education and society. From these implications, it should be possible to give recommendations for education policymaking under the shadow of war.
The data:
- Relevant texts on the integration of security issues into education frameworks at European level (policy documents, speeches, debates, media content)
- Relevant texts describing national approaches to security education (policy documents, curricula)
- Conceptualisations of futures literacy and case examples of futures literacy education programmes
Possible analytical approaches by research question:
- Thematic or discourse analysis to identify patterns in how education is positioned as a mediator between military and civilian spheres.
- Freirean/post-critical pedagogy investigation of the implications of risk-averse education frameworks for democratic values and critical agency.
- Analysis of epistemological assumptions of ‘futures literacy’ and evaluation of futures literacy education programmes; discussion of the application of to security-oriented education.
Towards the master’s thesis…
For the master’s thesis, I will have to limit myself to one of the research questions and corresponding research method. Advice will be greatly appreciated.
References
European Commission (2025). EU preparedness union strategy. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/preparedness_en?
European Commission (2025a, October 17). School preparedness: building a culture of risk awareness. European School Education Platform. https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/teach/practice/school-preparedness-building-culture-risk-awareness
Biesta, G. (2025). The future of education in the impulse society: Why schools and teachers matter. Prospects (Paris). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-025-09723-1
GEW (Gewerkschaft Erziehung Bildung) (2024, January 9). Kriegstüchtige Bildung – wollen wir das? GEW. https://www.gew.de/aktuelles/detailseite/kriegstuechtige-bildung-wollen-wir-das?
Sachs, L (2012). Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Bundeswehr und Bildungseinrichtungen: Eine kritische Analyse. Springer Nature Link. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-86226-893-1
Schneider, S. (2025, November 13). Bundesregierung einigt sich auf neuen Wehrdienst. Rbb24 – Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg. https://www.rbb24.de/politik/beitrag/2025/11/berlin-bundesregierung-wehrdienst-wehrpflicht-neues-gesetz-einigung.html
Eva
21 November 2025 — 12:50
Hi, Helena. Very cool topic connected with latest issue in Germany.
However, when considering the issue at the pan-European level, maybe it is inevitable that we would encounter differences in national contexts, which may require greater prudence in our discussions 🙂
s2803797
2 December 2025 — 03:08
Your research is truly engaging and remarkably timely. The way you connect Germany’s reintroduction of compulsory military service with the EU’s broader Preparedness Union Strategy creates a compelling entry point into the emerging security–education nexus. My undergraduate Final Year Project examined the factors influencing Putin’s shift in relations with the EU, which also relates to the background you mentioned. Reading your blog, I immediately felt how your project speaks to debates that I also encountered during my undergraduate work in International Relations, especially around the securitisation of everyday life and the expanding reach of states into social and educational spaces. Your framing captures this shift exceptionally well.
One of the strongest elements in your proposal is the ethical tension you identify between preparedness and the fundamental purposes of education. Bringing in Biesta(2025) to highlight the risk of subordinating education to political imperatives gives the project a powerful philosophical grounding. I also appreciated your attention to the neutrality dilemma when armed forces engage with schools.
For research questions, I feel that the scope of the three research questions you have proposed is relatively broad and sophisticated conceptual territories—civil–military relations, risk-averse pedagogy, and futures literacy. I am wondering if perhaps you could establish one of these as the primary research question, with the remaining questions serving to support the theoretical or discussion sections. This approach would likely yield a more focused contribution to the research.
Your discussion of risk-aversion and its unintended consequence of limiting collective imagination was especially compelling. This aligns closely with IR theories on how threat narratives narrow the range of conceivable futures—what Wæver describes as the “closing down” effect of securitisation. Building on this, you can perhaps draw more explicitly on securitisation theory (Buzan & Wæver, 2009) to show how security discourses not only reframe educational priorities but also actively shape which forms of political subjectivity are deemed acceptable.
Overall, your project touches on some of the most pressing questions emerging at the intersection of security politics and educational practice.I hope these suggestions prove useful to you. I look forward to seeing how your project progresses.