European readiness to confront potential Russian threats remains mixed, with notable strengths overshadowed by critical vulnerabilities, experts and officials say. While NATO’s overall military capacity significantly exceeds that of Russia, gaps in European defence and civil resilience present ongoing challenges amid Moscow’s strategic maneuvering.
At the United Nations General Assembly last week, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski directly addressed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, condemning Russia’s aggression and asserting that, despite the human toll, Russia has failed to achieve its objectives. Sikorski highlighted the economic disparity, noting that Europe’s combined GDP is ten times larger than Russia’s and NATO’s GDP is 25 times greater. He urged Russia to cease hostilities, emphasizing the long-term threats posed to both Russia’s future and global stability.
Experts caution, however, that military strength alone does not guarantee effective deterrence. K. Glod, a security analyst, points out that Russia adeptly exploits political ambiguity, conducting calibrated attacks that sow confusion among Western governments about whether an action constitutes an armed attack and appropriate responses. This ambiguity complicates a unified defense posture.
Despite NATO members’ July commitments to increase defence spending, significant shortfalls remain. Dr. Schatz, a defence specialist, underscored the need for enhanced air and drone defences, larger ammunition reserves, and rapid deployment capabilities. Glod cited specific national vulnerabilities, observing that Britain is only now expanding its homeland air and missile defence systems, while prolonged post-Cold War budget reductions have constrained troop numbers across parts of the armed forces. Such gaps may invite Russian probing actions aimed at identifying and exploiting weaknesses rather than confronting NATO’s strongest elements head-on.
Beyond military capabilities, civil preparedness is increasingly recognized as a crucial component of resilience. Glod emphasized that a society’s capacity to maintain critical services—such as electricity, communications, transport, and water—under attack is vital. Several European countries have placed stronger emphasis on “whole-of-society” readiness, including public advisories for households on coping during initial crisis periods. Britain has begun to shift towards this approach but still faces a significant gap between recognizing the need and achieving genuine societal resilience.
These vulnerabilities in civil infrastructure could incentivize disruptive strikes against critical facilities, according to Glod. Conversely, a population and infrastructure capable of absorbing and recovering from disruption diminish both the effectiveness of intimidation tactics and the incentive for attacks targeting non-military assets.
Overall, while Europe and NATO maintain a military advantage over Russia, experts stress that readiness involves a holistic approach encompassing military strength, political cohesion, and societal resilience to effectively counter Russian strategies.