This week, I’m joined by Michelle Haas, a PhD researcher at the University of Ghent focusing on NATO and European defense policy. She is also a fellow at the Egmont Institute, a board member of the Royal Higher Institute for Defense, and an active reservist in the Special Forces.For Dutch speakers, I highly recommend her podcast, de Paniekzaaiers: https://open.spotify.com/show/133zoy8FpiOehF5WA47KLy?si=80af5952da0e4addThe episodes with Jan Balliauw on Russia and, before that, discussing the US potential withdrawal from Europe are great. In this episode, we discuss the precarious state of the transatlantic security relationship, the lessons Europe can learn from the Nordic and Baltic states about societal resilience, and the critical lack of strategic communication from political leaders about evolving threats.The Transatlantic AllianceOur conversation started with the transatlantic security relationship, the cornerstone of European defense for the last century. Michelle argues that while the alliance is not dead, it is under ”immense pressure”. She believes the possibility of a US withdrawal of troops from Europe is ”very likely” and that Europe is simply not prepared for.A sudden, unpredictable withdrawal would be a ”shock to Europe” and could cause a ”serious break” in the relationship. This isn't a new development; the US has been signaling its pivot to Asia for 10-15. However, Europe's strategic disunity, stemming from different threat perceptions among member states, has prevented it from developing genuine strategic autonomy.Lessons from the Nordics & BalticsWe then turned to the Nordic and Baltic countries to learn lessons from their defense approaches. Michelle notes that these countries have greater ”strategic clarity” regarding the Russian threat. For them, the war didn't begin in 2022 but in 2014, and there is a sense of frustration with Western Europe's delayed reaction. Key aspects of their approach include:Total Defense: They embrace a ”whole of society” approach, understanding that defense is more than just a military matter and that the entire population must be included and prepared. Finland is a prime example, with hundreds of thousands of reservists and an extensive civil defense infrastructure.Societal Resilience: The goal is to build a society that can withstand disruption. This includes practical measures like ensuring the population can take care of itself for at least 72 hours in a crisis, a standard that should apply across Europe.Deterrence by Punishment: Estonia, for example, is investing in long-range missiles to demonstrate an ability to strike back at Russia, shifting from a strategy of deterrence by denial to deterrence by punishment.The Strategic Communication GapA major theme of our discussion was the failure of strategic communication. There is a ”disconnect” between political leaders and the public, who often don't understand what threats they are preparing for or why massive defense investments are needed.Michelle argues that political messaging in Western Europe is often alarmist (”we are not prepared,” ”we have zero stocks”), which is counterproductive. The Nordic and Baltic approach is more constructive and empowering: ”we are prepared and we are preparing and everyone can take a part in this”. She points to recent examples of Belgian politicians calling increased defense spending a ”social bloodbath” and creating ”collective hysteria,” which only serves to increase the polarization our adversaries want to achieve. The goal should be to balance realism with an optimistic story that gives people a sense of agency, rather than creating fear.Photo by Thomas Nolf.