In an increasingly unpredictable world, the European Commission's recent recommendation for citizens to be prepared with a 72-hour survival kit in case of a crisis has sparked a heated debate. Aimed at preparing Europeans for potential threats ranging from natural disasters to armed conflict, the suggestion has been met with a mix of support and skepticism. While some view the EU’s push for crisis preparedness as prudent, others accuse the Commission of stirring unnecessary fear. But does the push for survival kits signal an essential step toward resilience or a dangerous overreaction?

Preparing for the Unpredictable

The European Commission’s advice is rooted in the evolving nature of crises that are becoming more frequent and severe. With natural disasters like wildfires, floods, and storms affecting much of the continent, coupled with heightened geopolitical tensions, including Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, it’s not hard to see why the EU would advocate for readiness. The survival kits, which include items like food, water, medicines, a flashlight, and a portable radio, are designed to ensure citizens can survive for at least 72 hours without state assistance in the event of a crisis. The aim is clear: to prepare citizens to act swiftly and autonomously during emergencies, thereby enhancing overall resilience.

"New realities require a new level of preparedness," said Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. The reality she refers to includes not just the threat of natural disasters but also the risks of terrorism, cyberattacks, and even armed conflict. Given the increasingly unpredictable nature of these threats, the Commission’s strategy seeks to foster a sense of preparedness, encouraging citizens to act preventively rather than reactively when disaster strikes.

This proactive mindset echoes the thinking in countries that have long prioritized civil protection. Finland, for example, has ingrained emergency preparedness into the culture, with citizens familiarized with shelters and stockpiling essentials in case of military or nuclear threats. As geopolitical tensions with Russia continue to rise, many countries bordering Russia, including Sweden, Estonia, and Latvia, have also ramped up their crisis preparedness initiatives. Poland, in particular, has gone as far as distributing survival guides to every household, highlighting the increasing normalization of crisis preparedness across the EU.

Fearmongering or Practical Prudence?

However, not everyone is on board with the EU’s survival kit campaign. Critics, particularly from the right, have accused the European Commission of creating a culture of fear. Kinga Gál, a member of the right-wing group Patriots for Europe, dismissed the Commission’s initiative as "war hysteria," claiming it incited panic and anxiety. While it’s easy to see why such a perspective might gain traction—especially in the current climate of heightened political tension—this criticism overlooks the growing body of evidence suggesting that the risk of crises is rising, both in terms of natural disasters and man-made threats.

Indeed, experts argue that it is not fear but pragmatism that should guide citizens' actions in times of crisis. Being prepared for an emergency isn’t about anticipating a worst-case scenario every day; it’s about ensuring that individuals and communities are equipped to handle unexpected situations. After all, the costs of being unprepared are evident. The chaos that ensued during the COVID-19 pandemic, when panic-buying left shelves empty, highlights the dangers of not having a plan in place. The same could easily happen during a natural disaster or a sudden power outage if citizens aren’t equipped with the necessary tools to survive independently.

A Diverse Approach to Preparedness

One of the challenges in implementing the EU’s preparedness strategy is that different member states face different risks. While Spain and Greece frequently deal with wildfires, Bulgaria and Romania are more vulnerable to earthquakes. The EU’s strategy acknowledges this, suggesting that each country should tailor its approach to its specific needs while still adhering to broader guidelines. This is an essential step in harmonizing crisis management across the EU, which, as the European Commission’s report highlights, currently suffers from a fragmented approach.

In this context, Brussels’ role becomes one of coordination and support, helping to standardize preparedness protocols while leaving it to individual nations to adapt them based on local realities. The establishment of a centralized EU crisis coordination hub is a vital component of this strategy, ensuring a more integrated and efficient response when crises occur.

But while preparedness may differ based on geography, the fundamental principle remains the same: citizens should be ready to act swiftly and autonomously. The inclusion of preparedness lessons in school curricula is a particularly valuable recommendation, as it ensures that future generations are equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to navigate crises effectively.

Striking the Right Balance

While there is no question that being prepared is essential, there is also the risk of overblowing the threat. Striking the right balance between fostering awareness and avoiding unnecessary alarmism is crucial. It’s one thing to encourage citizens to prepare for potential risks; it’s another to make them so anxious that they become hypervigilant in everyday life.

As Emma Hakala, a researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, points out, while the mindset of preparedness is important, it's equally important to avoid creating a climate of fear. The key, she says, is to educate citizens without making them paranoid. With the rise of disinformation on social media, it becomes even more essential to provide clear and accurate guidance that can help citizens discern legitimate threats from false alarms.

Fear or Foresight?

The European Commission’s push for 72-hour survival kits and better crisis preparedness is undeniably practical. In a world increasingly shaped by climate change, geopolitical instability, and technological vulnerabilities, being prepared for emergencies is not just sensible—it’s necessary. However, the Commission must tread carefully, ensuring that its message of preparedness does not inadvertently sow fear or division. In the end, the goal should be to empower citizens to handle crises with confidence, not to leave them questioning whether they are living in a constant state of peril. It’s about preparing for the worst without surrendering to panic.