In recent weeks, the European Commission and several national governments have activated a communications machine reminiscent of the darkest days of the pandemic—or the onset of an imminent war. Survival manuals in France, “civil resilience” strategies from Brussels, recommendations to stock up in the home on water, medicine, and food, and a shared narrative centered upon the urgent need to prepare for the worst: an armed attack, a climate catastrophe, a collapse of digital infrastructure, or a hybrid assault.
On the surface, all of this seems to serve the noble purpose of protecting citizens. But behind the growing alarmism lies a political, military, and financial project of colossal proportions: the creation of a new European defense complex that will mobilize nearly €1 trillion—most of it financed from public debt—without, as of today, a clear roadmap or a genuine democratic debate on its implications.
The Commission warns of deteriorating security conditions in its brand-new Union Preparedness Strategy. It proposes 30 actions to ready the population for all types of emergencies, from cyberattacks to natural disasters, including sabotage of critical infrastructure and, of course, the ever-present threat of Russia. However, a close reading of the document reveals a clear pattern: fear has become the primary political fuel for justifying massive spending and centralizing power in Brussels—the official document was released on Wednesday, March 26th.
The tone of the document is almost apocalyptic, with the Commission’s draft stating
We must prepare for large-scale cross-sector incidents and crises, including the possibility of armed aggression affecting one or more Member States.
The video, posted on the account of Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management Hadja Lahbib, tries to explain what a “survival pack” should contain. It has a particularly 1950s feel to it, very much in the vein of the video game Fallout, set in a supposedly post-atomic era.
Today, the EU launches its new #Preparedness Strategy.
“Ready for anything” — this must be our new European way of life. Our motto and #hashtag. pic.twitter.com/fA1z8ZvMDA
— Hadja Lahbib (@hadjalahbib) March 26, 2025
Such messaging assumes Europe will suffer an armed attack, infrastructures will collapse, and society will fall apart without civilian support for the armed forces. Where does that leave diplomacy, national defense, or subsidiarity? Everything seems to be dissolving in favor of a project that, under the pretext of security, seeks to reconfigure the European Union’s political and fiscal architecture in a deeply interventionist and top-down direction.
Encouraging citizens to keep flashlights, non-perishable food, medicine, and water for 72 hours at home may start out as prudent advice. But when this measure is part of a broader strategy that simultaneously foresees massive military investment and a narrative of “inevitable war,” it becomes legitimate to ask whether we are witnessing more of a psychological conditioning campaign than actual civic preparedness.
In France, the government plans to distribute a survival manual this summer, with instructions on everything from how to seal windows in the event of a nuclear attack to volunteering for civil defense. The official version avoids explicit references to war, but the overall atmosphere—especially in President Macron’s speeches—clearly carries pre-war overtones.
The Swedish case, which inspired the French initiative, tells us that Sweden has distributed similar guides to its population for the fifth time since World War II. But now, with NATO membership finalized and a growingly bellicose political discourse, these campaigns take on a far more unsettling tone.
The hidden cost: debt, loss of sovereignty, and EU militarization
What is most concerning about this strategic shift in Europe is that it unfolds without honest public debate, citizen participation, and enormous opacity regarding its financial, social, and political costs. The EU plans to mobilize up to €800 billion for its rearmament plan, of which €150 billion will come from common debt. In other words, the future of entire generations is being mortgaged in the name of a security concept that no one can clearly define.
Moreover, this military push is being used to advance European integration, which is increasingly detached from its foundational principles of national sovereignty. The “spirit of solidarity” invoked by Brussels authorities seems more like a euphemism to justify the absorption of military, industrial, and strategic competencies that should remain within the purview of the member states.
The alleged emergency will allow the European Commission to propose new legislation to unify future criteria, further accelerating the creation of the so-called “superstate.”
The document emphasizes embedding preparedness and security considerations into existing and future EU legislation, policies, and strategic initiatives. To achieve this, the Commission has identified 30 priority actions grouped into seven thematic areas: cooperation between civil authorities and military structures, enhancing coordination among public institutions and the private sector, and fostering preparedness within the general population.
An annex accompanying the draft details approximately 60 actions over the next two years. The urgent priorities for the current year are enhanced tracking and management of disinformation threats, comprehensive evaluations of preparedness within the financial sector, and integrating preparedness training into educational programs and school curricula.
The civil resilience discourse is also becoming a Trojan horse to promote military-civil cooperation, joint exercises, and the subordination of everyday life to a logic of permanent emergency. What kind of society are we building if our children grow up not with history books but with guides on how to survive a biological attack or a digital collapse?
The great paradox of Brussels’ catastrophist discourse is that it presents itself as a passive reaction to an increasingly dangerous world while failing to acknowledge that many of the causes of this insecurity have been encouraged—or, at the very least, poorly managed—by the very same European institutions and EU member states.
The unchecked eastward expansion of NATO, unregulated migration policies, ideologically driven energy dependence, and the breakdown of international balances through sanctions and blockades have created a far more unstable geopolitical environment. Now, instead of revisiting those decisions, we are being asked to accept more control, more spending, more debt, and less sovereignty.
It would be irresponsible to deny that we live in a volatile world where emergency preparedness has a legitimate role. But prudence and planned alarmism are not the same thing. The line between a prepared society and a frightened one is thin—and today, Europe seems eager to cross it.
Under these conditions, European rearmament is not a defensive policy. It is an ideological bet, a transformation of the EU into a centralized military actor fueled by fear and financed by collective debt. And that should alarm us far more than any drill or survival manual.
