The looming threat of war in Europe, cast by Russia's shadow, is a stark reality that cannot be ignored. A recent gathering of defense experts in Whitehall, the heart of British governance, revealed a grim assessment: Europe is ill-prepared for a potential war in the coming years.
These experts, including current and former military personnel, government officials, and industry professionals, are not alarmists but informed individuals. They base their concerns on the widely accepted intelligence that Russia is gearing up for a potential direct conflict with Europe. The only way to prevent such a scenario, they argue, is to ensure Europe emerges victorious if war breaks out.
While increased defense funding is crucial, security experts emphasize the need for a significant shift in mindset. European governments must engage their citizens and convey the message that the era of ignoring war threats is over.
"Societies are open to having these conversations," says Sam Greene, a professor of Russian politics at King's College London and an expert in democratic resilience. "However, governments seem hesitant to engage their publics on this matter."
There is a growing consensus among experts that Russia is already waging a hybrid war against the West. This includes sabotage operations, injecting chaos and disinformation into political discussions, and repeated incursions into NATO airspace by Russian aircraft and drones. GPS jamming in the Baltics, disinformation campaigns, and sabotage attacks on critical infrastructure in multiple countries, traced back to Russian secret services, provide overwhelming evidence of this hybrid warfare.
Greene believes these attacks have shifted public opinion in Europe, even if some politicians hesitate to label them as such. "People are becoming increasingly concerned, especially as these incidents become more visible. The sight of drones near airports suggests it's only a matter of time before one brings down an airliner."
While Moscow has not directly attacked NATO allies in Europe, experts believe this could change. Russia knows it cannot defeat NATO with its current capabilities, but there are increasing signs that this perception may shift.
NATO's Secretary General, Mark Rutte, warned earlier this year that Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years. This warning was echoed by German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, who stated that German intelligence believes Moscow is keeping the option of war against NATO open by 2029 at the latest.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that while Russia is not planning to go to war with Europe, "if Europe wants to go to war with us, we are ready right now."
Baltic countries believe an attack could come as early as three years from now. Researchers at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School found that the most commonly mentioned years for a potential Russian attack against NATO are 2027 and 2028.
In response to this threat, NATO has developed contingency plans to defend against potential Russian aggression in the Baltics. However, experts warn that these plans are inadequate.
"There's a plan with numbers, but governments are not taking the necessary steps to implement it," says Jack Watling, a senior research fellow at RUSI. He emphasizes the risk of basing defense strategies on wishful thinking rather than reality, and the importance of accepting and planning with available resources.
The British government has sought advice from high-profile experts, including former NATO chief George Robertson, Gen. Richard Barrons, and Fiona Hill, a former senior director at the US National Security Council. They presented a strategic review of UK defense, emphasizing the need for a quick pivot to a war footing, including investing in health services, industry, and the economy.
Speaking at a RUSI event, Barrons said, "We don't need more analysis; we need action. The problem is a lack of will, both societal and political, and a lack of competence. We need to do better."
Many European capitals, including London, have neglected defense for decades, enjoying the longest period of continuous peace in centuries since 1945. This relative calm allowed governments to prioritize welfare over defense, relying on the US, the world's biggest military spender, as a safety net.
However, two events have shaken this status quo: Donald Trump's presidency, which made it clear that NATO allies could no longer heavily rely on the US, and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Most NATO's European members have increased defense spending in response. 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, the year before Russia's invasion. NATO members have agreed to increase this target to 5% of GDP by 2035, but analysts are skeptical, especially given the financial pressures facing European countries.
Explaining the need for reallocating resources and potentially increasing military service is a challenging task for politicians. Eurobarometer surveys this year showed that 78% of Europeans are concerned about defense and security in the next five years, and a third believe defense should be a spending priority for the bloc.
Despite this, Gen. Fabien Mandon, France's armed forces chief, caused an outcry by warning the French public about possible future losses against Russian aggression. He stated that France must "accept losing its children" to "protect who we are."
Robin Potter, an academy associate at Chatham House, notes that the willingness of Europeans to understand and counter the threat varies. "In the east, bordering Russia, in Poland or the Baltic states, the threat is very real, and people are taking more steps, like building public shelters, as they believe the risk of air attacks is higher."
Sweden and Finland updated guidance for their citizens on surviving war last year, distributing booklets with instructions for dealing with communications outages, power cuts, and extreme weather. Several countries, including Lithuania, Latvia, and Sweden, have reintroduced conscription, while others, like Germany, Poland, Belgium, Romania, and Bulgaria, have implemented voluntary military training programs.
Potter believes citizens with deeper trust in their institutions are more likely to accept sacrifices for the greater good. "In Nordic states, where welfare, happiness, and wellbeing are high, and the concept of civic duty and total defense is deeply rooted, people are more inclined to give back to the state."
"However, can this model be successfully implemented in societies with low trust in public institutions, like the UK?" Potter asks.
