Jeanette Serritzlev, 47, has spent years studying how wars are no longer fought only on the battlefield but also in the information space. A military analyst at the Royal Danish Defence Academy and an expert on disinformation, hybrid warfare and Russian influence, she took part as an expert panellist in the latest European Citizens’ Panel on crisis and emergency preparedness. She spoke to EL PAÍS in Brussels at the final session and reflected on the risks faced by Europe, the role of citizens in building more resilient societies and the need to prepare for any scenario.
Question. How has the perception of risk in Europe changed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Answer. There has been a strategic shift both at the political level and among the population, because now war is a risk and hybrid attacks are a reality.
Q. What does that shift mean for the concept of preparedness?
A. Citizens are more aware that we need to be prepared for crises. There are differences between countries; I know northern Europe best, but since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, there has been a change in the assessment of the threat, and that has also served as a wake-up call on preparedness. All the Nordic countries now have official recommendations for people to be self-sufficient for 72 hours and, in Sweden’s case, even for a week, because of geographical factors.
Q. It seems it took a war on Europe’s doorstep for authorities to get serious about it.
A. In most European countries, governments did not prioritize either defense or crisis preparedness as much as they should have, because they trusted that the risk was not imminent. Is that a good thing? No. Is it a fairly human way of thinking? I suppose so.
Q. Do you notice differences between north and south, or east and west, among the panel participants, who come from all 27 EU countries?
A. Not as many as I expected. I thought we would have Spaniards talking about natural hazards and Baltics talking about a war with Russia, and I doubted whether the debate could be focused. It turns out that, after sharing their experiences, they reached very similar approaches when looking for solutions, which I find very interesting and very positive for European resilience as a whole. There are no countries that are more focused on preparedness and saying, “We want to do more, we should do more,” while others reply, “Well, we’ll see what happens, I’m sure we’ll come up with something when the crisis arrives.”
Q. Have governments also changed their perspective?
A. Both my colleagues and I had the impression that authorities were somewhat reluctant to talk about preparedness because they didn’t want to alarm the public. And of course it’s not about causing alarm but about being transparent about the situation: the military threat from Russia, Russian hybrid threats, but also any other risk, whether a migration crisis, natural disasters, the climate crisis…
Q. There will always be people who accuse a government of being alarmist for informing the public…
A. I often say that, hopefully, we will never have to face a war. But crises are already here, and more will come. That is why it’s not about being afraid but about being prepared, because if we are prepared, we will be stronger and more resilient when something happens.
Q. How prepared is the population in your country?
A. Two years ago, all Danish citizens received recommendations on how to be self-sufficient for 72 hours. That includes, of course, water, food, batteries, some cash, a wind-up radio and similar essentials. Overall, the initiative was very well received. But, if I remember correctly, fewer than half the population have actually bought or assembled what they need for those 72 hours. In Denmark, because we are such a well-functioning society, there is a sense that no matter what happens, everything will keep working. The positive thing is that every time there is a crisis, even a relatively minor one, we see an increase in the number of people following these recommendations. The trend is growing.
Q. One of the challenges for preparedness is distrust of authorities. How do you combat that?
A. That is the million-dollar question. Taking part in this citizens’ panel and in these three sessions has made me refine my view on trust. I come from a country where people do not have to agree with the government or with institutions in order to trust them in a general sense. People do not believe that those who work in them are trying to harm the population.
Q. That is not the case everywhere.
A. No, we have to acknowledge that in some countries you cannot always trust, for example, that the police are there to help you. There are issues of corruption and other challenges, including within the EU. It is a very complex issue. Trust has to be earned. That may sound like such a basic answer that it is almost obvious, but it means actually doing what you say you are going to do, being as transparent as possible and acknowledging mistakes when they are made.
Q. Populist rhetoric exploits crises to fuel distrust in institutions. How can that phenomenon be countered?
A. In Denmark, I think we have been relatively effective when decisions were backed by broad parliamentary consensus. For example, that happened with participation in the mission in Afghanistan and also with support for Ukraine. Often political consensus ends up being reflected in public consensus. Building those agreements may take more time, but on important matters, having broad political support is a key element to secure citizen acceptance.
Q. Do you think Europe still does not take the threat of Russian disinformation seriously enough?
A. At the EU level, a great deal is already being done. At the national level, there are enormous differences from one country to another. Even so, in general terms I would say that there has been a significant shift in recent years in recognizing this threat.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
