A piece in Filipstads Tidning argues that Sweden’s expanding defence system rests on conscripts, yet some units still fail to respect the rights that should protect them during compulsory service. Citing a fresh Pliktrådet report, the editorial warns that informal punishments, especially collective punishment, violate the legal rules governing military discipline.

The editorial highlights collective punishment as the most common unlawful sanction, citing the case at Göta trängregemente where whole platoons were punished for individual mistakes. It argues that such measures are especially serious because conscripts cannot resign or end their training voluntarily without risking criminal penalties. Pliktrådet proposes a whistleblower function for conscripts, while the paper says the deeper problem is a command culture that must learn to treat conscripts as adults with legal rights.

Such punishments are serious. Not only because informal disciplinary measures break the law, but also because recruits cannot resign or voluntarily interrupt their training without risking imprisonment. Conscription is a coercive measure that restricts the individual’s right to self-determination. It is therefore highly problematic that commanders either lack knowledge of, or completely disregard, the regulations that exist to ensure legal certainty during basic military training.

Read the entire piece in Filipstads Tidning.

We have also written in detail about this issue in our latest policy paper, The Nordic Conscription Myth.

“Another abusive leadership tactic is collective punishment. At half of the units surveyed, 14 out of 28, the Conscript Council received reports that entire groups had been punished for the mistakes of individuals. “It can be about extra physical exercise, a ban on asking questions or other disciplinary measures that affect everyone.” This practice is plainly unlawful in Sweden as well. It also predictably fuels bullying, exclusion, and resentment, turning military service into an ordeal of group pressure and harasmment. As one scholar at the Swedish Defence University has observed, it is “a way for officers to shift the burden of discipline onto the group instead of taking responsibility themselves as leaders.” In her view, the result is a pattern of “threats and punishment, unfairness, self centered leadership, failure to deal with problems or conflicts, failure to provide structure and planning, and lack of clarity.”

One more prevalent aspect is the denial of conscripts’ right to care.“Some units apply so-called first-choice assessment, where an officer assesses whether a conscript should be allowed to seek care or not. According to the report, conscripts are sometimes questioned and denied an appointment with the Defence Health Service or recovering in a hospital bed, despite obvious symptoms of illness.” This is also entirely inappropriate and against mandated procedure, as officers don’t have the skillset to diagnose injuries and illness. 

In one case reported by Swedish media, such treatment appears to have left a conscript with lasting psychological damage. David, who had reportedly never suffered from anxiety before his service, later described recurring panic attacks, heart palpitations and was eventually diagnosed with PTSD after leaving conscription. According to his account, one of the leaders repeatedly entered his room during isolation, shouted that he was “useless” and accused him of being “shot scared” dismissing what he says was a genuine physical and psychological collapse.

The nonchalance regarding medical care results in entirely avoidable harm. Swedish officers’ union magazine report that “During the first two months of this year, 134 incident reports concerning cold injuries were filed in the Swedish Armed Forces. The vast majority of those affected are conscripts and trainees. Joakim Giöbel, head of the Swedish Armed Forces’ ground safety division, sauted to the injuries. “We have many young officers out there, and as I interpret it, they carried out the exercises assigned to them without regard for the weather conditions. They simply did not manage risk the way they should have.”

In one case reported in the media, a 20-year-old conscript suffering from severe back pain was ordered by officers in Boden to take part in an exercise instead of being allowed to rest. “If the Swedish Armed Forces had not ignored my prescription that I had received from Defence Health, I would not have been in this situation and two back surgeries could probably have been avoided,” he said. According to NSD, he now lives with constant pain and, 14 months later, remains on sick leave with nerve damage.

Another conscript, Johan Månsson, was told to “bite the bullet” while in the field after reporting radiating pain in his hand. When he later reached the emergency department, medical staff reportedly warned that, had he waited any longer, the injury could have developed into blood poisoning.”

The full policy paper is available here.