Between war and peace: what the Belgian Chief of Defence tells us about our daily vulnerability
Recent statements by Belgian Chief of Defence, General Frederik Vansina, highlight a concrete transformation of our security environment. His call to recognize a "hybrid state where the threat is increasing" is a signal that should not be ignored. What are the implications of this analysis, and how can we adopt an appropriate response to contemporary uncertainties?
A lucid analysis of current vulnerabilities
The statements of the Belgian Chief of Defense clearly reveal the state of the situation:
"It's either war or peace, but today we find ourselves somewhere in between, in a hybrid state where the threat is increasing" - General Frederik Vansina, Het Laatste Nieuws
This assessment, issued by Belgium's highest military authority, transcends traditional threat classifications. It invites us to reconsider our conceptions of contemporary security. The notion of a "hybrid state" directly echoes the analyses of geopolitical experts who observe the emergence of multidimensional risks that go beyond the conventional framework of conflict.
Gap between threats and institutional responses
General Vansina's diagnosis of military procurement processes illustrates a deep structural problem:
"We always conduct our purchases in a peacetime tempo, while Putin does not. Tanks, planes, and cannons leave his factories day and night. While we have to work with cumbersome and time-consuming public procurement." - General Frederik Vansina, Het Laatste Nieuws
This observation goes far beyond the military to highlight a fundamental imbalance: our institutions operate in ways designed for a stable world, even as that environment is rapidly transforming. Faced with this mismatch between evolving threats and our collective ability to adapt, a crucial question emerges: how can citizens adjust their own level of preparedness?
Individual preparation as a rational response
In this context of growing uncertainty, a measured approach to individual preparedness appears not as an alarmist reaction, but as a rational approach. This position is based on the objective observation of recent events that have highlighted our collective vulnerabilities.
The global pandemic, energy tensions, extreme weather events, and critical infrastructure failures demonstrate the fragility of the systems on which our daily lives depend. The apparent increase in the frequency and intensity of these disruptions warrants a structured approach to preparedness, both at the family and individual levels.
Analytical vigilance: between lucidity and serenity
The statements by the Chief of Defense invite us to develop analytical vigilance in the face of changes in our environment. This stance is clearly distinct from two counterproductive attitudes: excessive anxiety, which paralyzes action, on the one hand, and unfounded optimism, which prevents any preparation, on the other.
The lack of preparedness is not due to well-founded optimism, but rather to a lack of understanding of current trends. Our article "Preparedness: These Countries Where It Has Become the Norm (and Why)" already observed that:
"(...) other countries have made preparedness a practice integrated into daily life, not out of fear, but out of lucidity. It is not a question of fantasizing about an imminent tragedy, but of recognizing a reality: our modern societies, however technological they may be, remain fragile."
This assessment converges significantly with the analysis formulated by General Frederik Vansina concerning the "hybrid state of the threat." Both perspectives, although coming from different fields, lead to similar conclusions: we are going through a period of change that requires structural and methodical adaptations.
The appropriate response to these transformations is not an emotional one, but a rational adaptation methodology. The preparation we advocate is part of a reasoned anticipation approach, based on the objective assessment of observable trends and the development of proportionate responses.
From military analysis to civic responsibility
When General Vansina asks the government to "define this crisis" in order to implement "a series of measures that we would not take in peacetime," he underlines the need for institutional adaptation to emerging security challenges.
This same logic of adaptation applies at the individual level. Personal preparation constitutes a form of responsible anticipation that not only strengthens our own resilience but also contributes to the collective capacity to absorb shocks.
Preparation as an expression of responsibility
The Belgian Defense Minister's call to officially recognize a crisis situation represents a significant signal of the evolution of our security environment. This assessment justifies a reassessment of our level of collective and individual preparedness.
In this context, personal preparedness is fully in line with an approach to civic responsibility. It helps reduce our vulnerability while contributing to the overall resilience of society.
Our approach deliberately avoids the two extremes of carelessness and alarmism. It offers a balanced path based on objective risk analysis and the adoption of proportionate measures.
Faced with the growing uncertainties that characterize our times, methodical preparation does not reflect a pessimistic vision, but rather demonstrates responsible lucidity.