The consultative online survey “Your view on military service” (November 2024; 1,048 participants) sketches a society that sees war as a “last resort” when it comes to defense, yet remains divided over bringing back mandatory conscription—and, perhaps even more importantly, over who would run it and within what kind of system.
The broadest agreement appears where the issue is classic national defense: 72.14% say war is justified if it prevents aggression against one’s own country, and 62.69% say the same when the aim is preserving sovereignty. Support drops, however, once war is framed as “correcting historical injustices.” Here, a majority says “no”: 51.53% (injustices against the state) and 52.29% (against the nation/people). The same pattern holds for the idea of uniting most members of the nation into one state: 52.86% say war is not justified in that case. In other words, the dominant frame is defensive, not expansionist or revisionist.
The geopolitical picture is fragmented. 27.19% want neither the EU nor NATO nor BRICS; 18.51% would choose the EU; 16.60% would choose the EU and NATO; on the other side, 18.42% would choose BRICS, while 19.27% would choose BRICS and the CSTO. This is not a single “bloc,” but several parallel identity maps.
On weapons, the results show a blend of experience and distance. A notable share reports knowing how to use firearms (sport 13.69%, work 13.61%, “family tradition” 12.46%), yet 28.36% say they do not know how, and 12.62% do not want to answer. Firearm ownership is lower: 53.36% say nobody in their household/extended family has a weapon, with 13.45% refusing to say. War experience from the 1990s remains present in families: 29.07% report participants in their household, 36% in their extended family, while 18.74% say nobody participated.
When it comes to reintroducing conscription, responses point to a “bundle of motives,” but also clear reservations. The most common reasons in favor are strengthening defense capabilities (20.36%) and “building character and discipline” (20.09%). Security narratives follow—Kosovo (13.52%), defense from NATO (9.87%), defense of Republika Srpska (10.48%), and protecting Serbs in the region (10.33%). Still, 12.31% say none of the listed options is a reason to reintroduce conscription.
The direct support question reveals a split: 49.24% support reintroduction, with an additional 9.26% saying “yes, but I need more information,” while 34.45% do not support it (plus a smaller group “against, but I need more information”). Interestingly, 65.36% simultaneously agree that the state is stronger if it has a strong army—suggesting the dispute is not about defense as such, but about the model: mandatory vs. voluntary, professional vs. mass, meaningful vs. “marketing-driven.”
That becomes visible in preferences on duration. 34.26% are not in favor of mandatory service at all; among those who are, very few believe in a short training cycle: only 1.05% choose two months and 4.10% three months, while the most common answers are six months (29.39%) and twelve months (25.19%). At the same time, civil-protection training performs better: 60.11% would support mandatory training of up to one month for floods and natural disasters.
The sample is predominantly male (88.74%), with strong representation of younger and middle-aged groups (19–55 make up the majority), and relatively high education levels (university degree and above: 42.18%). The findings should therefore be read as a signal from a consultative online study rather than a representative “measurement of Serbia.” Still, the signal is clear: people are willing to discuss defense, but they demand meaning, trust in the system, and clear social benefit—hence civil protection receives broader support than classic mandatory conscription.