I recently participated in a conference on regional security – with excellent international participation, – writes Radu Krachun on my personal blog. Of course, the main topic of all reports and discussions was the war in Ukraine: what could prevent it, how it is going, what gains/losses it will bring to Ukraine and Russia.

And given the military estimates below, it is not surprising that predictions for the outcome were optimistic. NATO forces quickly and flexibly deployed on the alliance’s eastern borders.

The motivation of the Ukrainian army is amazing and unpredictable. Moreover, the American general, who had an important command function, added that of all the armed forces he encountered, including the American ones, the Ukrainian military proved to be the most resourceful.

Ukrainians drafted 700,000 people into the army, another 100,000 want to enlist. A striking contrast with the personnel crisis of the Russian army. NATO countries continue to provide military equipment in significant quantities and are ready to continue this process.

The vast majority of Ukrainians strongly support the restoration of all lost territories, advocating strong support for any political decision not to surrender and continue the war. The news is good and I can only hope it will be confirmed. But in addition to the discussion about Ukraine’s strengths and the support given to it, I believe that at least an equally thorough discussion should be conducted about the vulnerabilities of Ukraine’s defensive war.

Because such an analysis would likely lead to the conclusion that the underlying vulnerability is not a military one, but a civilian one. While the resilience of Ukrainians is steadfast and unquestionable, the resilience of the populations of countries affected by Russia’s energy embargo is less certain.

Of course, it is very easy and “cool” to hang Ukrainian flags, light the building with yellow and blue colors, wear cockades, badges, etc. None of this really requires sacrifice, and the costs I’m assuming are light years from the financial and human costs borne by Ukrainians. But to be forced to reduce gas or electricity consumption due to prices or supply restrictions, to accept a lower temperature in the house is a completely different story.

This is a situation that, in case of great social tension, can simply lead to a significant change in the attitude of NATO politicians towards the war in Ukraine, forcing them to promote a quick end to the war instead of a just one. This means that the weakest link of Ukraine’s defense is not a military one, but one originating from the civilian territory of European countries, especially Western Europe, large consumers of imported energy resources and located at a comfortable distance from the conflict zone.

This risk is all the greater because of the questionable quality of communication by political leaders, which is an expression of leadership that is suffering greatly in Europe and to some extent even in the US. Let’s not forget that a few months ago, European politicians, and especially German ones, “encouraged” their own citizens, explaining the impossibility of giving up Russian gas, because it makes the streets dark and homes cold.

Now the message has changed and oscillates between exaggerated optimism like “keep calm, you won’t get hurt” and trying to predict “what” energy/gas events could happen in winter and “how” we would be affected by those things. Do they have a chance to persuade the world to come to terms with such a situation, to “buy” their request for the implacability of blackmailing Gazprom? Extremely small.

Because the majority of European politicians are very bad at explaining “why” it is necessary to make such a sacrifice and what would be different. Practically, they completely ignore how important it is that any process of selling certain products, as well as political ideas, begins with the answer to the question “why”, not at all “what” or “how”.

Perhaps if political leaders had taken 18 minutes to watch this video of Simon Sinek’s presentation entitled “How Great Leaders Inspire Action” (How Great Leaders Inspire Action) their approach would be different, their communication would be much more inspiring and motivating , and we, the civilian population of the EU, would be a much less weak link in the defense project of Ukraine. As Sinek explains, communication should be conceived from the center of the “golden circle,” where the “why” is, and continue to the outer part of the circle, passing through the “how” and the “what.”

The explanation is that the part of the brain that responds to explanations of “why” and not at all to “how” and “what” is responsible for the decision. The more we are told “keep calm, nothing will affect you”, the harder it will be to explain “why” we will eventually have to put up with lower temperatures in our homes. People will not do “what” they are told unless the first step is a clear and motivational explanation showing “why” they should accept and what might happen geopolitically if they don’t. Unfortunately, this is not happening, so we remain the weak link in countering aggression.

Comment on Radu Krachun’s blog