Defence officials tell Munich Security Conference forum Europe could not sustain prolonged war with Russia
International AffairsWell-covered
|
The Facts
- Defence planners working with NATO said Europe could not currently sustain a prolonged war of attrition with Russia.
- The officials spoke at a forum convened this week by the Munich Security Conference, a private security foundation.
- Participants identified insufficient public preparedness, rather than weaponry alone, as the main weakness.
- Because of low public appetite for a long war, NATO must plan for a relatively quick conflict, officials said.
- Officials said Russia may be making gains in a hybrid campaign against Europe using cyberattacks, disinformation and social media.
- A recent British cabinet member said Western governments had explained the scale of the hybrid confrontation poorly to their populations.
- Rising support for populist parties in Europe's main military states is endangering a proposed five-country coordination group including the UK.
- The proposal responds to the United States preparing to reduce its commitments to the conventional defence of Europe.
Context
What is meant by a 'hybrid war'?
Officials at the forum used the term for non-military pressure on European states, including cyberattacks, disinformation and influence operations on social media aimed at shaping public opinion and weakening political will NEWS.am,ТСН.ua. Speakers said Russia's success in this domain narrows the options available to NATO war planners in the event of a direct military conflict Guardian,Yahoo.
What is the proposed five-country coordination arrangement?
Sources describe a proposal for a group of five European countries, including the UK, to take on a new coordination role in European defence as the United States prepares to scale back its conventional commitments to the continent Guardian,Irish Examiner,Yahoo. Munich Security Conference President Wolfgang Ischinger said the foundation was seeking to develop a military format to strengthen European defence cooperation beyond existing structures PressTV.
What did officials say governments should do?
Participants said European governments and populations were not sufficiently prepared to sustain a long war and urged NATO and the EU to plan for a conflict that could be ended quickly PressTV. Officials also said governments had not adequately prepared the public for higher defence spending and the costs it implies Glavred.
Where Left and Right agree, and where they split
- Where Left and Right agree
- Planners' own finding is accepted by both: Europe's binding constraint is public preparedness rather than weaponry, and governments have explained the hybrid confrontation to their populations badly.
- Where Left and Right split
- Whether the story is about governments owing their publics honest explanation and durable coordination, or about public appetite setting the outer limit of what governments may commit to.
- Why they won’t converge
- This is a values divide over the status of public consent — whether low appetite for a long war is a democratic limit governments must size their commitments to, or a condition they are obliged to change by explaining the threat honestly — and agreeing that planners named preparedness the main gap settles neither.
How left and right read it
Public resilience is defence infrastructure, and treating it as an afterthought is the actual vulnerability here. Planners named insufficient public preparedness, not weaponry alone, as the main weakness, and a recent British cabinet member conceded governments explained the scale of the hybrid confrontation poorly to their own populations — which is why concern is growing that Russia may be winning a hybrid war that narrows Europe's options. With the United States pulling back from conventional defence, European governments owe their publics honest explanation and durable coordination, not war plans built around a shortened attention span.
“The pessimism reflects concern that Russia may be winning a so-called hybrid war with Europe, weakening the options available to Nato war planners in the event of military conflict.” — The Guardian
Low public appetite for a long war is a limit on what governments may commit to, not a weakness to be engineered away. Planners have already conceded as much. At a private foundation's forum they called insufficient public preparedness Europe's main gap and said NATO must therefore plan for a quick conflict, while rising populist support endangers the proposed five-country group — so size commitments to the consent that exists.
The receipts — all 13 sources
Independent coverage (13)
Facts first. Then every angle.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief — the facts everyone agrees on, then the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.