By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Several European nations are bolstering civil preparedness in response to heightened security concerns stemming from the war in Ukraine. This includes Sweden distributing a preparedness pamphlet advising citizens on topics ranging from food storage to shelter locations, Finland offering an online crisis guide, and Norway providing similar guidance to its citizens. Germany is developing a bunker location app and implementing a national bunker plan to address its current shelter deficit. These actions reflect a growing awareness of the need for increased national resilience across the region.
Read the original article here
The recent headlines proclaiming Germany and Nordic countries are preparing citizens for war, based on advice to have 72 hours’ worth of supplies on hand, seem a bit dramatic. It’s true that these governments are encouraging citizens to build up emergency supplies—enough food, water, and essential medicines to last three days. But framing this as explicit war preparation feels like a misinterpretation, and possibly even fear-mongering.
Many commenters, especially from Nordic countries, pointed out that this kind of advice is nothing new. For years, citizens have been encouraged to be prepared for various emergencies – power outages from severe weather, for instance, or disruptions to supply chains. In some Nordic countries, the advice to have supplies for a few days is almost routine, an element of general preparedness alongside other safety advice. This long-standing tradition of emergency preparedness isn’t a sudden, war-related development.
The fact that this advice is being highlighted now, amidst a global crisis, doesn’t necessarily make it a war-related directive. The timing might simply be a coincidence, or a decision to leverage current circumstances to remind people of the importance of being prepared, generally speaking. It’s understandable why some interpret the messaging as war-related, especially given the current geopolitical climate, however the underlying message seems to be more focused on preparing for a range of potential crises, rather than a specific conflict.
The comments reveal that some countries, like Finland, have a much more ingrained culture of preparedness, thanks to factors like universal conscription and pre-existing emergency infrastructure. Having bomb shelters, or extensive underground facilities in cities, shows a higher level of preparedness than simply having a three-day supply of water and food. This ingrained preparedness goes back decades, and this recent advice doesn’t represent a significant shift in policy or perspective.
There’s a marked difference in preparedness levels between countries. Some commentators highlighted the UK’s relatively poor state of preparedness compared to countries with stronger traditions of emergency planning. The UK’s lack of readily available shelters or widespread emergency planning contrasts sharply with the seemingly more proactive approaches in Germany and the Nordics. This difference in public awareness and governmental preparedness is a striking feature in the discussion, demonstrating that the issue isn’t just about individual responsibility, but also about government-level planning and investment in infrastructure.
Several commentators correctly point out the misleading nature of framing a 72-hour supply kit as evidence of imminent war. Survival for 72 hours without much effort is actually quite feasible for most people. The primary focus of the advice seems less about preparing for a full-scale conflict, and more about bolstering resilience against shorter-term disruptions.
The idea of bolstering national resilience is important, and extends beyond simply individual preparedness. The comments hint at discussions about strengthening critical infrastructure, such as electricity and water supply networks, to withstand potential shocks. This is a different level of preparation than simply advising individuals to have three days’ worth of supplies. It involves investments in robust infrastructure and logistics to ensure that essential services are resilient and can be maintained during times of crisis.
In conclusion, while the headlines might sensationalize the situation, the core message of having a few days’ worth of emergency supplies seems more about general preparedness for a range of crises, rather than specific war preparations. While the timing may be influenced by the current geopolitical climate, the advice itself seems to fall within the scope of responsible disaster preparedness. The differing levels of preparedness across countries, and the contrasting perspectives on the issue, highlight the need for clear and effective communication regarding national emergency planning.