The looming specter of war has cast a long shadow over Europe, forcing it to confront a harsh reality: the threat is real and imminent. As a group of defense experts gathered in the heart of the British government, Whitehall, to assess the readiness of the United Kingdom and its allies, their verdict was stark. They concluded that Europe is not adequately prepared for a potential conflict that could erupt in the next few years. This grim assessment highlights a critical issue: the need for a comprehensive shift in mindset and increased investment in European defense.
The experts, including current and former military personnel, government officials, and defense industry professionals, are not alarmists. They base their conclusions on the widely accepted intelligence assessment that Russia is actively preparing for a possible direct conflict with Europe. The only way to prevent this, they argue, is to ensure that Europe emerges victorious if war were to break out. This realization has prompted a call for increased investment in chronically underfunded European defense, but it also underscores the need for a broader cultural shift.
The experts warn that European governments must engage their citizens in this conversation and make it clear that the era of ignoring the threat of war is over. They point to the growing consensus among experts that Russia is already waging a hybrid war on the West through sabotage operations, chaos, and disinformation. Evidence includes repeated incursions into NATO airspace by Russian planes and drones, GPS jamming in the Baltics, and sabotage attacks against critical infrastructure in multiple countries, all traced back to Russian secret services. Russia has consistently denied involvement.
The attacks have already shifted the views of many in Europe, even if some politicians remain reluctant to label them as hybrid warfare. The experts express concern that the public is becoming more aware of these threats, with drones spotted outside airports and a growing sense that it's only a matter of time before one brings down an airliner. While Moscow has not carried out direct attacks against NATO allies, experts caution that this could change in the future.
NATO's Secretary General Mark Rutte warned earlier this year that Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul echoed this concern, stating that German intelligence services believe Moscow is at least keeping the option of war against NATO open by 2029. Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged that while Russia is not planning to go to war with Europe, they are prepared if Europe initiates a conflict.
The Baltic countries share a consensus that an attack against them could occur as soon as three years from now. Researchers at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs found that the most frequently mentioned years for a potential Russian attack are 2027 and 2028. This recognition has led NATO to develop contingency plans for defending against a possible Russian aggression in the Baltics.
However, experts warn that the alliance's plans are inadequate. Jack Watling, a senior research fellow at RUSI, highlights the risk of structuring a defense response based on a wish list rather than reality. He emphasizes the need to accept available resources and plan accordingly.
The British government commissioned a strategic review of UK defense, led by former NATO chief George Robertson, Gen. Richard Barrons, and Fiona Hill. They presented a manual outlining the steps needed to prepare for war, emphasizing the need to rethink infrastructure resilience, build up armed forces, reserves, and civil defense, and invest in health services, industry, and the economy.
Barrons stresses the urgency of the situation, noting that the UK must act now. He points to the lack of haste due to other societal and political concerns. While the UK is moving in the right direction, it would take about 10 years to be fully prepared at the current pace.
The past few decades have seen European capitals, including London, largely ignore defense due to decades of relative calm and peace. Successive governments have spent money on welfare instead of defense, relying on the United States for protection. However, two recent events have shaken this status quo: Donald Trump's presidency and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
These events have prompted most NATO's European members to increase defense spending. According to NATO data, 31 of its 32 members are set to meet the target of spending 2% of GDP on defense this year, up from just six in 2021. Iceland, a founding member without its own armed forces, contributes financially and with civilian personnel and air defense systems.
NATO members agreed to increase the target to 5% of GDP by 2035, but analysts are skeptical about the goal, especially given financial pressures in most European countries. Explaining the need for resource reallocation and increased reserve or regular forces is a challenge for politicians.
Eurobarometer surveys this year revealed that an overwhelming majority of Europeans are concerned about the EU's defense and security in the next five years, with a third believing defense should be a spending priority. However, Gen. Fabien Mandon's warning about France needing to accept losses to protect its identity sparked an outcry.
The willingness of people across Europe to understand the threat and contribute to countering it varies significantly. Those in eastern Europe, bordering Russia, are more aware of the threat and taking steps like preparing public shelters. Sweden and Finland updated guidance on surviving war, while several countries have reintroduced conscription or voluntary military training programs.
The level of trust in a country's institutions influences public acceptance of sacrifices for the greater good. Nordic states, with high welfare, happiness, and well-being rankings, have deeply ingrained concepts of civic duty and 'total defense'. However, it remains to be seen if this model can be applied to societies with low trust in public institutions, like the UK.
