Given the diversity of threats facing European countries combined with Russia’s growing belligerence, total defence strategies have gained significant traction in recent years. At the same time, the Women, Peace and Security agenda has highlighted the importance of understanding gender’s role in conflicts. This article explores the connection between these two frameworks, emphasizing the importance of applying the gender lens in total defence and resilience efforts. In doing so, it offers an unconventional yet crucial perspective that has the potential to strengthen the deterrence and defence postures of both NATO and individual countries.

The renewed focus on territorial defence in reaction to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine has generated increased attention to the  Cold War concept of total defence. [1] This approach is now often referenced as an example for countries seeking to strengthen their deterrence and defence postures. [2] [3] A rather unorthodox, yet increasingly recognised way of looking at the concept is through a gender perspective, which offers a potential for a more comprehensive—and thus more effective—approach to one of total defence’s key components: resilience.  But how can these seemingly unrelated areas be connected? The article seeks to answer this question by first introducing the concepts of total defence and resilience, and then exploring how applying a gender lens might enhance both.

The Return of Total Defence

Total defence refers to a whole-of-society approach to national defence, aimed at deterring a potential enemy by “raising the cost of aggression and lowering the chances of its success”. [4] It is commonly regarded as a deterrence-by-denial strategy, in which the defending country denies the challenger their intended objectives. For this reason, the total defence approach has been particularly relevant for smaller, often non-aligned states facing perceived threats from comparatively more powerful adversaries. A case in point is the Finnish or Swedish defence postures, which have maintained this approach not only throughout the Cold War but, with some modifications, up to the present day. The term comprehensive defence is sometimes used as an alternative to total defence to distinguish it from Cold War approaches [5]; however, this article uses the latter term, as it is currently more widely established.

Since total defence originally emerged as a response to the all-encompassing nature of the Second World War, it aligns well with today’s broad conceptualisations of security, including societal or environmental security. [6] The rise of “hybrid warfare“ discourse, however, makes approaches like total defence very appealing. By highlighting the multiple means through which contemporary “war” can be waged, the concept of hybrid warfare implies a certain degree of totality, requiring comprehensive responses. As a result, total defence is nowadays often seen as a strategy to address not only threats to the very existence of the state but also more complex security challenges, such as disinformation and pandemics.

But what exactly does total defence entail? At its core stands a close coordination between the military and civilian spheres, grounded in the belief that security is a responsibility shared by all of society. [7] The approach is provided by the institutionalised “collaboration between the armed forces and government ministries, public and private organisations, the private sector, and the public”. [7] The military component, in turn, is represented primarily by territorial defence, [4] which is ensured by armed forces typically based on conscription and territorial defence units.

The term associated with the civilian component of total defence is resilience. This notion has, with the contemporary broad conceptualisation of threats, become increasingly popular among both individual countries and NATO, which refers to resilience as “the first line of deterrence and defence”. [8] In one widely used definition, resilience refers to the ability of individuals and societies to “prepare for, resist, respond to and quickly recover from shocks and disruptions”. [9] For NATO, resilience primarily emphasizes maintaining essential societal functions during crises. However, beyond this narrower conceptualisation, resilience can also be seen as a mindset that enables individuals and groups to cope successfully with adverse conditions. [10] At the community level, resilience is inextricably connected with societal cohesion, which is increasingly targeted by malicious actors employing methods such as disinformation.

Gender Perspectives and NATO Countries

Gender mainstreaming in security has its roots in the United Nations Security Council’s landmark resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS). By recognising the disproportionate impact of armed conflicts on women and girls, the resolution calls on relevant actors to assess the implication of any planned action for both women and men. NATO and many of its member states have come quite a long way in implementing the WPS agenda into their work, largely driven by their decades-long engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq and the resulting operational imperatives. [11] [12] While NATO’s recent Strategic Concept declares the commitment to integrate WPS principles across all three core tasks, including deterrence and defence, [13] the Alliance has encountered challenges in effectively operationalising these principles, [14] as their utility for NATO’s traditional tasks was perceived as relatively limited.

In reaction to NATO’s challenges in fully integrating the WPS agenda into its primary mission, there have been calls to connect the WPS agenda with the topic of societal resilience, [14] [15] making it relevant even amid the renewed focus on territorial defence. The following section attempts to shed light on how a gender perspective can be incorporated into resilience-related measures within both NATO and individual countries‘ activities.

Gendering Total Defence and Resilience

Starting with the military component of total defence, engaging women as a relatively untapped segment of the population can significantly expand the pool of potential recruits into the armed or reserve forces. This outreach could potentially attract more suitable candidates and help address recruitment shortages. It is essential to identify and address the barriers preventing women from entering and remaining in these institutions, such as gender stereotypes or toxic work environments. Similarly, incentives should be established to make careers in the security sector more appealing to women. By fostering an inclusive environment, militaries can better harness the benefits that women bring, from increased numbers to new perspectives, further strengthening national defence capabilities.

Moving on to resilience-building, it is important to recognize that efforts that aim at the whole of society simply should not overlook the more than 50% of the population that women represent. As men and women face distinct challenges and tend to respond differently to shocks and stressors, crises usually impact them in different ways, which are clearly gendered. [16] These differences—such as varying exposure to violence, distinct economic roles, and caregiving responsibilities—are further compounded by intersecting factors such as socio-economic status or race. The gendered effects of crises highlight the significance of integrating gender into the discussions of resilience, a consideration that decision-makers still tend to overlook.

This problem was particularly highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, where measures in response to the virus, which were often taken by male politicians, frequently ignored the specific needs of women, leaving them to bear the disproportionately negative impact of these policies. [17] Gendering resilience-building efforts in line with the WPS principles would thus, at its core, mean examining how emergencies, be it pandemics, military conflicts or environmental disasters, can impact the entire society with all its segments. This knowledge should then be incorporated into disaster contingency planning to devise more comprehensive measures.

Applying a gender perspective to “cognitive warfare” is essential, considering the importance of this domain. For instance, the systematic online targeting of female politicians by Russian-sponsored entities and the Islamic State’s effective use of stereotypical masculinities for recruitment highlights the gendered nature of the information environment and its implications. [18] NATO acknowledges that its strategic rivals exploit gendered narratives and disinformation to destabilise societies. [19] Western countries would, therefore, benefit from approaching the information environment through a gender lens. Tools such as gender analysis of online spaces or addressing gender-based disinformation could play an important role in this effort.

Connected to that are Russia’s broader efforts at challenging some fundamental values usually associated with the West, including respect for human rights and gender equality. Not least due to the West’s relative acceptance of diverse gender and sexual identities, Russia systematically promotes narratives that depict the West as degenerating and declining, positioning itself in opposition by constructing an image of a country rooted in traditional values. [20] This anti-gender backlash, which is not only rhetorical but also material, given, for instance, Russia’s sponsorship of anti-gender movements in Europe, [21] can be seen as a part of its wider efforts at weakening the societal cohesion of Western countries.

As not only a military but also a political alliance, NATO positions itself as a representative of values such as human rights and democracy which are, however, being increasingly contested by its opponents. [22] It thus makes sense for the Alliance to stand up for its foundational values by following the WPS principles to distance itself from the Russian and Chinese autocracies infringing on human rights. Greater inclusivity is arguably also important for the cultivation of societal cohesion, as is evidenced by the case of Ukraine which has, against the backdrop of successful resistance to the Russian invasion, passed pro-LGBTQ+ legislation or opened up its military to women.

Going Forward

In the context of the increasing diversity of threats facing European countries, ranging from Russia’s belligerence to climate change and pandemics, states that have in one way or another adopted total defence concepts have attracted significant attention, often being hailed as examples worth following. While this article does not argue that transplanting entire total defence systems to other contexts is always desirable, it contends that it is a useful prism through which to approach the security challenges facing contemporary Europe.

Although gender mainstreaming in missions has somewhat fallen out of fashion for NATO countries with the significant downscaling of out-of-area operations, [12] the organisation is beginning to recognise the importance of the WPS agenda even for the tasks of deterrence and territorial defence. [18] The question remains whether individual countries are following suit. Given that it is primarily the member states responsible for ensuring civil defence and resilience, despite the Alliance’s gradually expanding mandate in this area, it is now time for countries to also embrace a gender perspective.

Finding concrete examples of integrating gender into total defence and resilience is somewhat challenging, not only because these policies are not publicly available but also because gender might not yet be a very commonly used concept in this context. However, one of the promising ways of involving women in this area could be the so-called gender-neutral conscription, a practice implemented by Norway, Sweden and recently Denmark, whereby men and women are conscripted on the same terms. This practice has resulted in women’s increased participation in regular and reserve forces. Outside of the Nordic countries, where there is a need to raise comparatively lower societal awareness of defence matters, there is an opportunity to explore strategies that actively involve both men and women in various defence-related activities such as emergency preparedness training or cybersecurity courses.

Integrating a gender perspective can, in sum, arguably contribute to devising more comprehensive and thus effective approaches to resilience and total defence as a whole. Given the significance of these concepts for deterrence, [23] applying a gender lens in the ways suggested above could help bolster deterrence and defence postures of NATO countries, which is imperative amid the deteriorating security environment.

Article reviewed by Veronika Zwiefelhofer Čáslavová and Dávid Dinič

References

[1] Wrange, J., Bengtsson, R., & Brommesson, D. (2024). Resilience through total defence: Towards a shared security culture in the Nordic–Baltic region? European Journal of International Security, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2024.15

[2] Adamson, E., & Moyer, J. (2024, April 9). In from the Cold: Rebuilding Sweden’s Civil Defense for the NATO Era – War on the Rocks. Retrieved from War on the Rocks website: https://warontherocks.com/2024/04/in-from-the-cold-rebuilding-swedens-civil-defense-for-the-nato-era/

[3] Szymański, P. (2020). New Ideas for Total Defence: Comprehensive Security in Finland and Estonia. Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich. Retrieved from Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich website: https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/OSW-Report_New-ideas-for-total-defence_net_0.pdf

[4] Wither, J. K. (2020). Back to the future? Nordic total defence concepts. Defence Studies, 20(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2020.1718498

[5] Berzina, I. (2020). From “total” to “comprehensive” national defence: the development of the concept in Europe. Journal on Baltic Security, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.2478/jobs-2020-0006

[6] Wrange, J. (2022). Entangled security logics: from the decision-makers’ discourses to the decision-takers’ interpretations of civil defence. European Security, 31(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.2021889

[7] Angstrom, J., & Ljungkvist, K. (2023). Unpacking the varying strategic logics of total defence. Journal of Strategic Studies, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2023.2260958

[8] NATO. (2024a). Deterrence and Defence. Retrieved from https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm#:~:text=Resilience%3A%20the%20first%20line%20of%20deterrence%20and%20defence,-Enhancing%20resilience%20is&text=This%20means%20strengthening%20the%20capacity,range%20of%20threats%20and%20hazards.

[9] NATO. (2024c). Resilience, Civil Preparedness and Article 3. Retrieved from NATO website: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_132722.htm?#:~:text=Resilience%20is%20the%20individual%20and,continuity%20of%20the%20Alliance’s%20activities.

[10] Hall, J., & Sandeman, H. (2022). NATO’s Resilience: The First and Last Line of Defence. LSE Ideas. Retrieved from LSE Ideas website: https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/2022-SU-NATO-HallSandeman.pdf

[11] Hardt, H., & von Hlatky, S. (2019). NATO’s About-Face: Adaptation to Gender Mainstreaming in an Alliance Setting. Journal of Global Security Studies, 5(1), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz048

[12] von Hlatky, S. (2023a). Deploying Feminism: The Role of Gender in NATO Military Operations. Oxford University Press.

[13] NATO. (2022). NATO 2022 Strategic Concept. Retrieved from https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/290622-strategic-concept.pdf

[14] O’Sullivan, M. (2024). Women, Peace and Security as deterrence? NATO and Russia’s war against Ukraine. International Affairs, 100(2), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae003

[15] von Hlatky, S. (2023b, September 4). The Women Peace and Security Agenda at NATO in Light of the War in Ukraine. Retrieved from Network for Strategic Analysis (NSA) website: https://ras-nsa.ca/women-peace-security-agenda-nato/

[16] Bryan, E. (2022). State of Knowledge on Gender and Resilience. International Food Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from International Food Policy Research Institute website: https://www.resiliencelinks.org/system/files/documents/2022-02/Evidence_Brief_Gender_and_Resilience_final.pdf

[17] UN Women, & UNDP. (2022). Government Responses to Covid-19: Lessons on Gender Equality for a World in Turmoil. Retrieved from https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/Government-responses-to-COVID-19-Lessons-on-gender-equality-for-a-world-in-turmoil-en_0.pdf

[18] Obradovic, L., & Neathery-Castro, J. (2023). Integrating Gender Perspective in Cognitive Warfare. OPEN Publications: NATO ACT. Retrieved from OPEN Publications: NATO ACT website: https://issuu.com/spp_plp/docs/open_publication_integrating_gender_perspective_in

[19] NATO. (2024b). NATO Policy on Women, Peace and Security. Retrieved from https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_227578.htm

[20] Kratochvíl, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (2023). A war like no other: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a war on gender order. European Security, 32(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2023.2236951

[21] Datta, N. (2021). Tip of the Iceberg: Religious Extremist Funders against Human Rights for Sexuality and Reproductive Health in Europe 2009 – 2018. European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights. Retrieved from European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights website: https://www.epfweb.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Tip%20of%20the%20Iceberg%20June%202021%20Final.pdf

[22] Tomé, L. (2022). NATO as a Community of Values and its New Political Role. Atlantisch Perspectief, 46(4). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/48732620

[23] Prior, T. (2019). Resilience: The ´Fifth Wave´ in the Evolution of Deterrence. ETH Center for Security Studies. Retrieved from ETH Center for Security Studies website: https://css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/articles/article.html/41604a30-ae23-44c6-94d4-8cf05e316a6c