Is Europe preparing for war? Key discussions from Warsaw Security Forum

The Warsaw Security Forum held its 11th annual meeting this year, with the International Center for Ukrainian Victory (ICUV) serving as a partner for the third consecutive year. This international conference serves as a platform for high-level dialogue between government officials, international institutions, think tanks, and experts in policy and defense.

During the conference, we hosted a roundtable discussion on recognizing Russia’s war against Ukraine as genocide. The systematic killing of civilians, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and forced deportation of Ukrainians to Russia – particularly the forced removal and “re-education” of children – all point to Russia’s intent to destroy Ukraine as a nation.

The discussion featured two Ukrainian survivors of Russian captivity: Oleh Pylypenko, a community leader from the Mykolaiv region who was captured during a humanitarian mission and tortured for three months, and Olena Turas, a senior combat medic from the 36th Marine Brigade who treated wounded soldiers in Mariupol before enduring imprisonment and abuse in both Olenivka and Russia’s Taganrog.

The roundtable also emphasized the importance of properly documenting Russian war crimes, including public calls by Russians for the destruction of Ukrainians. While legal proceedings are lengthy, our partners can take immediate action.

As Rihards Kols, former Latvian MP and current Member of the European Parliament, stated: “National parliaments must show political courage by calling Russia’s actions what they are – genocide. So far, only a few have done so. Failing to take a firm stance now is political cowardice.”

Ukraine at the center of discussions

The Russian war against Ukraine emerged as a central theme, either directly or indirectly, in virtually every forum discussion. This focus was natural given the conference’s location in Warsaw, which heavily influenced the tone and direction of the debates.

Despite recent tensions between Polish and Ukrainian politicians over historical issues, these matters were notably absent from the forum’s public discussions.

Polish President Andrzej Duda was unequivocal in his address: “Our societies must understand that the price we’re paying now is nothing compared to what we’ll be forced to pay if Ukraine loses.” He emphasized that while partners are providing financial support, equipment, and training, they are not paying the ultimate price in human lives as Ukrainians are.

Jacek Siewiera, head of Poland’s National Security Bureau, stressed that Russian imperialism remains the primary threat, making Ukraine’s victory a direct Polish interest.

Ukraine’s highest-ranking official at the forum was newly appointed Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiga. He outlined Ukraine’s support priorities: air defense systems, artillery, drones, and joint defense production projects. Regarding key strategic goals aligned with the President’s victory plan, the minister highlighted the NATO membership invitation, lifting restrictions on using Western long-range weapons against targets deep within Russia, and partner assistance in intercepting missiles and drones over Ukraine. However, a recurring question during the forum – why partners, particularly the US, help Israel intercept drones and missiles but cannot extend similar assistance to Ukraine – remained largely unanswered.

Beyond government officials and parliamentarians, Ukrainian experts were also active at the forum. Our team focused on several crucial issues, including the confiscation of frozen Russian assets, implementing a “war tax” on partners’ purchases of Russian liquefied gas, protecting Ukrainian energy infrastructure, countering Russian imperialism, and other strategic matters.

Is Europe preparing for war?

The forum’s central theme focused on a new perspective on European security and the increasingly pressing question of Europe’s self-defense capabilities, particularly as American elections rapidly approach this November.

American officials emphasized that America needs Europe just as Europe needs America. James Carafano, representing the Heritage Foundation (a think tank close to Republicans and Trump), stated that “whoever wins the election, we won’t leave NATO or abandon Ukraine,” noting that key differences would instead emerge in positions on the Middle East, energy, and border security.

Various assessments presented at the forum suggested Russia could rebuild its capabilities for direct confrontation with NATO within 3-5-8 years. This timeline demands serious European preparation. The Estonian Defense Minister provided striking statistics: while EU countries’ defense spending increased by 43% over the last five years, Russia’s grew by 592%.

Two priorities emerged at the conference: the speed and volume of aid to Ukraine, and the pace of replenishing own stockpiles. This presents a challenge for Ukraine, as countries with limited resources may prioritize strengthening their own defense capabilities. However, the ICUV proposes a solution: the full confiscation of frozen Russian assets to make Russia pay now, directing these funds toward Ukraine’s defense needs.

Seizing Russian assets for Ukraine: a no-nonsense guide

In July this year, 23 of 32 NATO members announced they met the 2% GDP defense spending target – a goal set at the 2014 NATO Wales Summit following Russia’s initial aggression against Ukraine. But is this enough now? Poland and Estonia propose raising this threshold to 2.5-3%, though NATO hasn’t yet adopted this suggestion.

Poland leads NATO countries in defense spending, allocating 4.12% of GDP this year, with plans to reach 4.7% next year. Estonia follows at 3.4%, planning to increase to 3.7% by 2026.

Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur noted that over 50% of this amount goes to capability development. He added that Estonians understand the need to do more, with the government planning to introduce additional “security taxes” for both population and businesses starting next year.

Tytti Tuppurainen, leader of the Social Democratic Parliamentary Group in Finland’s Parliament, emphasized that Europe “needs a new social contract that prioritizes security and defense.”

Lessons from Ukraine

Several European countries face a concerning issue regarding their citizens’ willingness to take up arms in defense of their nation. NATO Defense College researcher Florence Gaub pointed out that this readiness is lowest in the Netherlands, Italy, and Germany, where only 15-20% respond positively in surveys (in contrast to the highest readiness levels found among Finns and Estonians).

The conference also highlighted the widespread recruitment challenges faced by European armies, a problem set to intensify given Europe’s aging population trend. Many European societies need to work on shifting away from pacifist mindsets and reimagining how military service is perceived (for instance, emphasizing that military service isn’t about killing but about protecting oneself and one’s country, about brotherhood, etc.).

Ukraine can serve as a model here, demonstrating a highly motivated army with direct experience fighting Russia that could significantly strengthen NATO.

Therefore, Ukraine’s NATO membership isn’t just about enhancing Ukraine’s security but about strengthening European security as a whole. As Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže put it: “Ukraine will become NATO’s most powerful ally in Europe.”

The forum also addressed modernization priorities which, according to Major General Karol Dymanowski, Deputy Chief of the Polish Armed Forces General Staff, should focus on readiness for large-scale military conflict, specifically a full-scale symmetric war with a peer adversary. His assessment highlighted the following priorities:

• Effective air defense
• Deep strike capabilities (air, land, and sea)
• Cyber capabilities
• Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities
• Electronic warfare systems
• Unmanned aerial systems – whose importance is underscored by Ukraine’s war experience

NATO allies also emphasized the need to strengthen national resilience and the “whole of society approach,” which encompasses:

• Logistics and secure supply chains (both military and civilian)
• Defense production
• Adequate stockpiling of ammunition and other essential supplies
• Energy security
• Pharmaceutical supplies
• Digital security
• Information and cyber space operations.

The discussion also covered emerging technologies as combat multipliers – technologies transforming the battlefield – and the importance of anticipating future weapons systems, technologies, and required investment in their development.

Key technologies highlighted included instantaneous battlefield monitoring across all domains – space, satellite, surface, maritime, air, and ground. The forum emphasized both updating existing equipment with new technologies and developing future technologies like hypersonic systems and artificial intelligence.

Participants identified AI as a future game-changer, ranging from near-term applications in health monitoring and predictive diagnostics to long-term developments in collaborative combat aircraft and multi-asset remote control by single operators.

The GE Aerospace F110 engine was presented as an example of continuous technological upgrading. This engine, used in F-16 jets recently received by Ukraine, has been enhanced with new materials allowing for extended operation at higher temperatures.

3D printing was cited as another innovative defense technology, enabling remote repairs and reproduction of discontinued parts.

Participants stressed the need for greater standardization and interoperability within NATO. Ukraine’s experience with its “zoo” of Western-supplied equipment highlighted how, despite existing standards, allies often use incompatible weapons systems (different calibers, communication systems, etc.). Deeper technology and intelligence sharing among allies was also identified as crucial.

However, American partners cautioned that countries cannot simultaneously deepen their use of Chinese technology while expecting increased intelligence sharing from the US

Congressman Jason Crow noted that while America needs to reduce its overprotective stance on defense technologies and licensing – given limited US production capabilities – the use of Chinese technology remains a serious concern. Crow, serving on the House Intelligence Committee, emphasized that Huawei and 5G investments in European telecommunications infrastructure significantly restrict US intelligence sharing capabilities.

***

While corridor discussions revealed growing war fatigue among Western partners (notably, not from Ukrainians), Finnish MP Tytti Tuppurainen’s statement resonated strongly: “We cannot allow ourselves any fatigue regarding Ukraine.”

Related: