Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine has made the issue of building national resilience and identifying best practices in this area one of the key topics addressed by both the European Union and NATO. These questions have taken on particular significance in the countries on NATO’s eastern flank, which, due to their geographic location and threat assessments, are most vulnerable to military and hybrid actions by the Russian Federation. Consequently, an intensive search has begun for effective solutions to strengthen the resilience of the state and society. A key element of these efforts is the development of resilience indicators and methodologies that enable its measurement, assessment, and comparison at the national and local levels, as well as the identification of areas requiring further strengthening.
The results of research conducted by the authors of this text in 2026 in the Scandinavian countries, Germany, and Italy, along with an analysis of best practices, indicate that while the process of building resilience encompasses all levels of a country’s administrative division, it takes on particular significance primarily at the local level. It is local governments and communities that are the first to experience the effects of crises and are required to respond and take control of the crisis through planned actions, as well as to address its consequences. The response of higher-level and central authorities is usually based on the principle of subsidiarity, and for this reason alone, it often does not begin until later stages of crisis management. For this reason, in strengthening resilience, special attention should be paid to the lowest levels of the administration, as well as the active involvement of local governments, civil society organizations, and residents. The response of higher-level and central authorities is typically based on the principle of subsidiarity, and for this reason alone, it often does not begin until later stages of crisis management. For this reason, in strengthening resilience, special attention should be paid to the lowest levels of the administration, as well as the active involvement of local governments, civil society organizations, and residents.
Scandinavian Countries Lead the Way
A comparative analysis shows that the most advanced solutions in this area are in place in the Scandinavian countries, particularly in Sweden, where resilience-building is based on systematic regional training, cooperation between the government and citizens, and the “whole-of-society” approach. Exercises are also conducted regularly with the participation of public administration, emergency services, the military, local governments, and other entities responsible for security. The goal of these exercises is to test cooperation procedures, identify weaknesses in the system, and develop solutions that allow for its continuous improvement.
In Finland, on the other hand, resilience is developed within the framework of a comprehensive security model based on close cooperation between state authorities, local governments, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and citizens. Of particular importance here are systematic exercises, business continuity planning, the stockpiling of supplies, and maintaining a high level of threat awareness. Resilience is not viewed solely as the responsibility of security agencies, but as a shared responsibility of society as a whole.
The high effectiveness of Nordic models for building resilience stems from many interrelated factors. One of the most important is the high level of public trust in public institutions, which facilitates the implementation of government recommendations, the mobilization of citizens, and effective communication during crises. In Sweden, this level remains relatively high compared to other OECD countries, with the police at 69%, and the courts and the justice system, at 64%, enjoying the highest levels of trust. Even higher figures were recorded in Finland, where 89% of respondents express trust in the police, 75% in the courts, 68% in the civil service, and 49% in the national government. Furthermore, 84% of Finns rate the quality of administrative services positively. These results indicate that public trust in the Nordic countries is based primarily on the professionalism of public institutions, the high quality of citizens’ day-to-day interactions with the administration, and the belief in the state’s ability to carry out its assigned tasks efficiently, honestly, and in accordance with the law.
Another factor strengthening the resilience of the Scandinavian countries is the culture of cooperation that has developed within their societies. In the Nordic countries, residents show a relatively high willingness to help one another and to engage in community activities. The culture of cooperation in the Nordic countries stems from a combination of several social and institutional factors. It is rooted in strong traditions of local self-government, well-developed civic organizations, a high level of education, and a deeply held belief that the state and society share responsibility for the public good. The development of this culture of cooperation has been influenced by high educational standards as well as geographical conditions, including low population density, significant distances between settlements, harsh climatic conditions, and periodic transportation limitations.
Countries on the Rise
In the other countries of the region, the process of building resilience is still in an intensive development phase, and its pace has clearly accelerated as threats from the Russian Federation have intensified. Germany is focusing primarily on developing new methods for measuring resilience, strengthening the capacity of local governments, and fostering cooperation among local governments, public services, and civil society. In Poland, this process is also advancing rapidly through the implementation of new initiatives in the areas of civil protection and national resilience.
One of the most interesting attempts to study national resilience was undertaken by Dr. Oksana Huss, a researcher at the University of Essen and a fellow at the NDC in Rome. What sets her research apart is that, unlike most studies, which actually measure preparedness, she examined resilience itself understood as the ability to withstand destructive factors and continue functioning despite their occurrence. Huss investigated precisely what enabled Ukrainian municipalities (hromadas) to maintain their ability to function, or to resume functioning, while under Russian occupation or when the front line passed through them. It turned out that this concept of resilience was fostered by factors traditionally associated with research on social capital and factors promoting sustainable development. Not geographical barriers or elaborate shelters, but a community that stands in solidarity and helps one another despite difficulties.
The issue of systematically building resilience has also been addressed in Poland. In December 2024, Poland enacted the Act on Civil Protection and Civil Defense, which provided specific legal and financial tools to launch a major national resilience-building plan. The Polish think tank ACAS, led by Jacek Cichocki and affiliated with the War Studies University in Warsaw, developed the “The Decalogue for Municipal Resilience,” (Dekalog odporności gmin) which covers processes and tasks carried out during normal state operations, in the event of a crisis, and in the face of an external threat to national security. It thus combines three areas: civil protection and civil defense, crisis management, and the execution of defense tasks at the municipal level. The Decalogue serves as a uniform standard for assessing, measuring, and managing the process of building resilience at the municipal level in Poland. Drawing on existing, scattered regulations, they developed a catalog of what municipal authorities are required to do in the area of resilience. This has resulted in a self-assessment tool that allows authorities to determine to what extent they are properly fulfilling their responsibilities regarding resilience-building.
Conclusions
The process of building the resilience of the state and society in Europe is a long-term endeavor and requires the consistent commitment from public institutions, local governments, the private sector, civil society organizations, and citizens. It is not limited solely to creating new legal regulations or modernizing infrastructure, but also encompasses the development of adaptive capacities, cooperation mechanisms, early warning systems, public education, and crisis response procedures. For this reason, resilience should be viewed not as a one-time achievement, but as a continuous process of learning, updating procedures, and adapting state structures to the changing security environment.
The Nordic countries remain leaders in this area, particularly Finland and Sweden, which have been developing comprehensive security models encompassing both civilian and military dimensions for many years. Their high level of resilience is linked not only to well-developed institutional frameworks but also to cultural factors. Of particular importance are the high level of public trust in public institutions, a well-established culture of cooperation, a sense of shared responsibility for security, and citizens’ willingness to participate in community-oriented activities. These factors facilitate effective crisis communication, rapid mobilization of resources, and the effective implementation of government recommendations.
Local communities play a key role in the entire system; they are the first to feel the effects of crises and, in the initial phase, are often forced to respond on their own before full support from central authorities is mobilized. For this reason, national resilience should be built starting at the municipal and regional levels, by strengthening local institutions, neighborhood networks, civic organizations, emergency services, and residents’ capacity for self-organization. It is precisely at the local level that threats, vulnerabilities, and available resources can be identified most accurately.
This article was written by Karol Kujawa, Tadeusz Kęsoń, Maciej Gurtowski, and Bogusław Kogut.
