Amid growing geopolitical turmoil, European leaders have become more candid about the weak points in Europe’s defences. Emmanuel Macron’s speech in Davos, warning of a global move away from rules and international law, reflects a sober reading of where the continent stands. But there is one vulnerability that remains largely absent from these debates, despite its importance: social cohesion. While Europe’s military shortcomings are openly discussed, its limited capacity to sustain social solidarity under pressure receives far less attention.
According to a 2024 Gallup poll, fewer and fewer EU citizens are willing to fight for their country – 29% of respondents in Spain, 23% in Germany and only 14% in Italy. This stands in contrast to war-torn Ukraine, where such readiness rose from 50% in December 2021 to over 80% in the first few weeks of the invasion in March 2022.
Similarly, according to the World Giving Index 2023 by Charities Aid Foundation, Ukraine leads Europe in civic activity: 77% of adults helped a stranger, 67% donated money, and 27% volunteered in the past month. Meanwhile, the EU average stands at approximately 53% for helping a stranger, 40% for donating money, and 20% for volunteering. The number of volunteers and grassroots humanitarian initiatives in Ukraine has skyrocketed since 2022, facilitated by the activities of the Ukrainian government.
How did Ukrainians manage to mobilize so efficiently in the face of an existential crisis? The answer lies in the remarkable self-organization and historical resilience of Ukrainian society, which managed to preserve its identity despite centuries of oppression and political subjugation.
Modern Ukrainian history is a story of recurring struggles for freedom. The state was rarely on the side of society, passing from one occupying power to another, making Ukrainians suspicious of any ‘official’ national authorities. According to the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology polls from 2016 to 2026, the Church, volunteers, NGOs and the Armed Forces of Ukraine have on average been ranked as the most credible and trustworthy social institutions. At the same time, the Parliament, the Cabinet of Ministers and the President have always been at the bottom of the list, with exception of President Zelensky’s positive ratings since 2022.
This nurtured a unique sense of independence and self-sufficiency in society, as horizontal connections and community-building were key for survival. A hundred years ago, the whole village would know about the Soviet soldiers coming to confiscate local food stocks, because the neighbouring village would have already notified it via a messenger horseman. Similarly, WhatsApp or Telegram community chats work now as the main platform to request some help or offer it in case a Russian missile hits a local residential building.
A key component of the Ukrainian resilience formula is being proactive rather than waiting for the government. Since 2022 this phenomenon has resulted in a symbiotic relationship between the government and the people, unlike the typical “recipient-provider” relationship, where the population pays taxes in return for state protection. One of the most prominent examples of such cooperation is the Telegram post by the official account of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine from 25 February 2022 (the second day of the invasion), instructing how to craft Molotov cocktails to be used against Russian tank columns.
Is there a similar symbiosis between the people and their governments in other parts of Europe? In 2024, former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö published the “Report on European Preparedness”, where the cooperation between the state and the civil society was emphasized as a key element for building crisis resilience. And yet, the implementation of its provisions remains sluggish. On the one hand, this has to do with the EU’s limited competencies in intelligence, warning and response systems, and civilian education and training. On the other hand, it is the local societies themselves that seem to show little interest in actively defending their countries.
In a pre-war period, bottom-up initiatives, such as civil resilience NGOs, individual influencers and volunteers, must take the lead where institutions lag behind. Yes, the authorities could act more decisively. But the key question is: are there enough national and local grassroots initiatives to prepare European societies for a real war?
The three decades following the Cold War gave Europeans a false sense of security and instilled a conviction that major wars were a thing of the past. Until 2022, conflicts in the Balkans, Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine (2014-2022) were often perceived as peripheral instability, distant from the European core. But now it seems that the only way to adapt to a new, uncomfortable reality, where Putin threatens Europe with a nuclear winter and launches drones from the East, and Trump verbally claims Greenland from the West, is for people to initiate, and for the authorities to endorse. In practice, local NGOs are often the institutions most capable of delivering civilian training and emergency preparedness.
Regardless of what is written in Treaties, safety must be a shared duty of EU, national governments and every European citizen. Ukraine learned this lesson early and acted on it. Despite daily missile and drone strikes, power outages, and winters without heat, resistance has been sustained, because every Ukrainian is part of a shared effort. As more officials admit that warfare on EU territory is becoming increasingly plausible, it is now a mtter of survival to develop civil resilience rapidly. If a local community invites the military to run civilian masterclasses on basic terrain orientation, the national governments should recognize these efforts, publicize them, and help scale them, so that others can replicate the model. The impulse, however, should come from civil society itself, through NGOs, influencers and informal community leaders.
The point is that in the face of an existential threat, the peacetime social contract breaks down. What matters then is joint action – both civil society and the state going beyond their formal obligations to ensure survival.
