Noah Greene / Apr 2026
Photo: Shutterstock
Last year, French Army Chief of Staff General Fabien Mandon made an impassioned plea for the fifth Republic’s citizens to prepare for the worst case scenario with respect to a Russian attack, saying that if France “wavers because we are not ready to accept losing our children” then “we are, indeed, at risk.” Mandon attempted to convey an urgent need for French citizens to physically and mentally prepare for a possible conflict with Russia. The negative response by the public and a wide spectrum of French politicians because of his comments highlight a deeper issue for Europe. Many European leaders have failed at convincing their citizens why it is worth spending more of the state’s resources deterring the Russian Federation.
Among NATO and European Union member states, views about the severity of a Russian security threat are not monolithic. Some pockets of the continent remain more convinced than others that Russia poses an existential risk to its way of life. Chief among these are the Eastern and Northern European states that share a common border with Russia. These countries often find themselves the targets of hybrid attacks from the Kremlin. In recent years, these states have invested heavily in traditional military equipment, as well as societal resilience measures intended to make an attack by Russia costly, no matter the scale.
Farther west, society shows more resistance, in Germany, the Bundestag led by a Chrisian Democratic Union coalition passed a new law requiring men starting at age 18 to indicate whether they are interested or willing to serve in the armed forces. The law, along with other rhetoric by the German government has been met with disdain by some students, leading to strikes across the country. For Spain, public sentiment reflects a desire for the countries leadership to focus more of its resources on domestic policy concerns such as affordable housing and educational opportunities. Each country in the transatlantic alliance finds itself dealing with some variation of this tension, with pockets of their citizens fighting against the notion that war is ever an option or unconvinced that Russia’s actions should be met with more military readiness on the part of the West.
These views should not be interpreted as a passive sense of approval for Russia. Quite the opposite, based on a poll by French magazine Le Grand Continent, slightly more than half of respondents felt that the “risk of war with Russia was elevated,” and 80 percent did not believe that Russia wants peace. There is not a deficit of disdain for Russia, but rather a deficit in the willingness of many on the continent to sacrifice guns versus butter.
Some transatlantic leaders such as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have attempted to convince the public that increased military spending is necessary. In December, Rutte laid out a few ways that Russia has sought to disrupt the European way of life, arguing that through hybrid activities, “There have been attacks on commercial warehouses and shopping centers, and explosives hidden in parcels, and Poland is now investigating sabotage against its railway network.” Speeches like these are essential for European citizens to understand the threat, and more importantly, prepare for it. The time to convince citizens of the danger, is not when the shooting starts, but before it.
European leaders are going to have to double down on their efforts to convince citizens based on the merits of their arguments. The merits of these arguments have several contentions; Russian hybrid warfare has already taken many forms across the continent in recent years and is only poised to increase. Instances of hybrid warfare have “nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024, after quadrupling between 2022 and 2023.” This is an extension of the fact that Russia’s leadership views itself as waging a constant struggle against the Western world. The outlook for European states should not be limited to fear, but also opportunity. As European states continue to build up their defense industrial base, there is an increasing opportunity for domestic economic growth, in some cases, among blue collar workers. This case is consistently being made in many parts of Eastern and Northern Europe. Western Europe needs to catch up, even as competing demands for financing and time find its way into policy debates in France and the United Kingdom.
The focus on a positive vision of the future is as important as a framing of the problem. The optimists’ vision of Europe is one of less military reliance on the U.S., while still being able to field an effective joint force, on mass, collectively. The threats that have been made by Russia, the United States, and China toward Europe affirm the benefits of this independence.
The resources governments have at their disposal are not infinite, and the domestic cuts in some areas will have real social implications for many Europeans. This makes it even more important for governments to outline the long-term benefits of being able to defend against hostile Russian activities. For European populations to connect the dots between defense spending and long-term security, European leaders must avoid talking about security as just another abstract dilemma, but instead the key to maintaining a stable way of life. Resource investment in some domestic areas may be a sacrifice, however can ultimately enable a less uncertain future.
The challenge of bringing citizens with you rather than dictating to them is the proverbial quagmire for democracies. In the case of Russia, the elite have been able to place the economy on a wartime footing not through transparent debate but through a double-barreled effort of dictating to its people and inaccurate information sharing. Yet, even in Russia, there is a conscious understanding of the need to create some positive vision for the future. This is done through framing the war as a quest to denazify Ukraine. For the soldiers used as cannon fader by the Russian state, it frames this sacrifice as a worthy cause, leading to family compensation.
European democracies may at times lull themselves into a false sense of security. As if the results of their struggles against autocracies are inevitable and that the forces for good are destined to defeat the malevolent ones on their doorstep. This conclusion is not inevitable. The forces for European democracy, must work tirelessly to present convincing and a well-reasoned explanation of the world as it is, otherwise they risk ceding their ground.
