Civil and Military Preparedness as Pillars of Resilience

Resilience embodies the capacity, both individual and collective, to prepare for, withstand, respond to, and recover from disruptions. Within the NATO framework, resilience is not a peripheral concern but a cornerstone of collective security. From a macro perspective, NATO’s civil preparedness rests on the idea that each member state must be able to absorb and recover from major shocks, whether caused by natural disasters, failures of critical infrastructure, or hybrid and armed attacks.

Military preparedness complements the civil dimension of resilience. Traditionally, it is understood as the capacity of forces, units, and systems to operate effectively in conflict. Yet in today’s fluid and rapidly evolving security environment, preparedness extends far beyond material readiness. It requires advanced analytical capabilities, continuous innovation, and organizational adaptability. Modern readiness is therefore not a static condition but a dynamic process of institutional learning and individual agility, one that ensures armed forces remain capable of anticipating and responding to complex and emerging threats.

Resilience is thus increasingly a shared responsibility. Why? Internal and external security have become intertwined and traditional boundaries separating national defence and societal safety are becoming progressively blurred. A cyberattack on an energy grid or communication network, for example, can produce cascading effects that undermine both civilian well-being and military effectiveness. Conversely, the operational continuity of armed forces depends on resilient civilian infrastructures to sustain logistics, communication, and supply chains. Resilience, therefore, must be conceived as a collective endeavour encompassing civil society, the military, and governmental institutions. NATO’s emphasis on aligning civil and military objectives reflects this evolving reality, yet the enduring challenge lies in transforming conceptual alignment into practical cooperation. Despite its importance, the very foundations of practical collaboration between civil and military organizations tend to receive little attention. However, the essence of resilience is revealed precisely in such cooperation, where policies and strategies are transformed into tangible outcomes.

Achieving practical, integrated resilience between military and civilian actors requires a delicate balance between trust and control. Trust forms the foundation of effective cooperation. It reflects the expectation of positive engagement amid uncertainty. Trust enables open information exchange, mutual acceptance, and coordinated performance. While trust entails risks, such as dependency or opportunistic behaviour, it can develop rapidly in (simulated) crisis situations, when actors are forced to rely on one another. Complementing trust, control mechanisms help mitigate these risks. Through formal agreements, legal frameworks, and established operating procedures, they define roles and responsibilities, ensuring accountability and predictability across civil-military partnerships.

Trust and control are vital foundations for cooperation, yet they are insufficient on their own to sustain effective civil–military partnerships. Civil-military partnerships face deeply rooted challenges, as civil and military actors operate within distinct cultural, organizational, and legal contexts that can hinder mutual understanding. Overcoming these differences requires the development of mutual competencies that facilitate collaboration. Key among these are communicative skills, ethical and environmental awareness, emotional intelligence, and organizational flexibility. These skills can be strengthened through joint training, experimentation, and scenario-based exercises that enable partners to align objectives and develop shared situational awareness from different perspectives. Over time, repeated collaboration not only deepens trust but also fosters institutionalized networks and agreements that reinforce and protect the viability of civil-military partnerships.

In conclusion, resilience is not the outcome of isolated actions but the product of sustained, collective effort. It emerges from a shared recognition of interdependence and from continuous cooperation across civil and military domains. Through the deliberate cultivation of trust, the establishment of clear control mechanisms, and the development of strong collaborative competencies, NATO members can build a coherent security system capable of withstanding and recovering from the complex challenges of the modern strategic environment. In doing so, they reaffirm that resilience, far from being a purely technical capacity, is a collective responsibility that constitutes the credibility of the Alliance itself.

Huib Zijderveld - 1GNC/ NLDA