One for all and all for one

Two years ago, Norway introduced a new concept: beredskapsvenn — which means an “emergency buddy”. The term was coined by the Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection, which runs annual awareness campaigns to help people prepare for crises. In autumn 2024, it tried a new approach. Instead of simply reminding people how to cope in an emergency, it encouraged relatives, neighbours and even strangers to team up so they could look after one another when disaster strikes.

The idea proved so successful that beredskapsvenn — a word that had not previously existed in the Norwegian dictionary — was named Norway’s Word of the Year.

The ethos behind the concept lies at the heart of how the Nordic countries think about security. Although Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland are less alike than is often assumed, they share the same approach to national security: solidarity and collective responsibility. Rather than waiting for someone else to come to the rescue, people are expected to take the initiative themselves. It is defence based on the principle that everyone has a role to play.

That mindset has made the Nordic countries global leaders in total defence – the integration of military and civilian preparedness and defence.

“Defence based on the idea that everyone has a part to play”

The concept works in the Nordic countries because it has the backing of society as a whole. In Sweden, for example, almost nine in ten people support it. Geography plays a part, given the country's proximity to Russia, but the more important reason is that total defence is well organised, has deep historical roots and is firmly embedded in the national culture.

The concept was developed in Sweden during the Second World War. Aware that the country — like most of Europe — faced the prospect of invasion, the authorities mobilised every available resource: society as a whole. Around two million men were assigned military roles, while about 100,000 women served in the Lottas, a voluntary auxiliary defence organisation supporting frontline forces. They carried out tasks including communications, medical care, catering and administration.

The government also launched public information campaigns explaining how people could grow their own food, while members of the state youth preparedness movement helped out on farms. None of this was convenient, but it was far preferable to facing occupation unprepared.

After the Second World War, the total defence system continued to expand. That seemed necessary because Sweden had chosen to remain neutral, while Denmark, Norway and Iceland became founding members of NATO. Finland also remained neutral, albeit on the condition that it made a series of concessions to the Soviet Union. Even so, the Finns developed a sophisticated defence system that included bomb shelters and strategic stockpiles.

“People want to overcome their sense of helplessness”

Sweden has also adopted an idea from Switzerland: Geistige Landesverteidigung, or “spiritual national defence”. This aims to build public support for neutrality, democracy and national defence via information campaigns, while making society more resistant to hostile influence.

Free from the constraints imposed by the Soviet Union, Sweden went a step further. Military service was a fact of life for men of conscription age, who were regularly called up for training. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of volunteers joined organisations such as the Lottas or the Home Guard (Hemvärnet). For many, contributing to national defence became part of everyday life —  and even a leisure activity.

The state also kept strategic reserves of essential goods, ranging from fuel to coffee, as well as a vast network of bomb shelters that doubled as community venues or youth centres in peacetime. Underground facilities were built to ensure that vital public services could continue operating during a war, from central and local government to newspaper printing and industrial production. The Swedish government also had special agreements with around 15,000 companies to keep them operating in wartime. In addition, it maintained a comprehensive register of people whose professional skills would be needed in a conflict, including doctors, teachers and electricians.

During the Cold War, Sweden's total defence system was the most comprehensive in the Western world. It was built on the principle that everyone had a role to play. Denmark and Norway developed similar systems on a smaller scale.

In the 1990s, however, Sweden dismantled much of its total defence infrastructure. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was no longer seen as a major threat. Today, as Europe's attention returns to ensuring security, that model has  again become a source of inspiration. Integrating civil society into defence planning is intended not to spread fear but to give people practical ways to contribute to protecting their country. For many, that sense of agency is precisely what helps counter feelings of helplessness. In Finland, for example, 78 per cent of the population say they would take part in defending the country if it came under military attack.

Sweden is now rebuilding its total defence system, strengthening both its armed forces and the civilian capabilities that would be essential in wartime. As part of that effort, it is even creating a new civilian reserve.

Meanwhile, Denmark and Norway are also working to strengthen societal resilience through initiatives such as the “emergency buddy” concept. There, as in Sweden, civil defence authorities and local governments are supported by Home Guard organisations. Finland maintains extensive networks of bomb shelters and strategic stockpiles, while continuing to expand the system. Its three-and-a-half-week National Defence Courses, aimed at people with specialist professional expertise, are considered highly prestigious and are more sought after than ever.

The Nordic countries are also ahead of much of Europe when it comes to conscription. While Germany is still debating whether to reintroduce compulsory military service — with many staunchly opposed to the idea — military service carries a degree of prestige in the Nordic countries. In Norway and Sweden, selection for military service is highly competitive, making it an attractive opportunity for many young people. That is one of the key differences from systems based solely on voluntary recruitment, such as the model Germany is considering.

All of these countries share one defining characteristic: they lie close to Russia. Much as people living in earthquake-prone regions, from San Francisco to Japan, have long understood the importance of preparedness, the Nordic countries recognised early on that citizens, businesses and public institutions all need to be able to act in a crisis. That urge to protect itself is by no means unique to the region. Other countries would do well to follow its example — and some already are.