As cyber threats become faster, smarter, and increasingly shaped by AI, Europe faces a defining strategic question: is it truly cyber ready? New technologies are transforming both attack and defence, while growing geopolitical tensions and reliance on major technology providers are forcing Europe to confront difficult questions about security, trust, and digital sovereignty. At the same time, national cybersecurity authorities remain on the frontlines of preparedness, yet uneven capabilities and coordination challenges risk weakening Europe’s collective response. As the cyber domain becomes central to economic security and geopolitical stability, strengthening operational cooperation between governments, industry, and institutions will be critical. This panel will explore whether Europe’s cyber preparedness matches the scale of today’s risks and what it will take to move from resilience to true readiness.
- How is the cyber threat landscape evolving, particularly with the growing role of AI in both cyberattacks and cyber defence?
- How should Europe think about technological dependencies in cybersecurity and the broader geopolitics of these dependencies?
- How are national cybersecurity agencies adapting to these technological and geopolitical shifts, and where do capability gaps remain?
- What practical improvements are needed to strengthen cooperation between national authorities, EU institutions, and the private sector?
Executive Summary European and American cyber leaders on this panel assessed whether Europe's ambitious regulatory framework translates into genuine security capability. Europe has built more cybersecurity law than anywhere else, but the gap between rules on paper and operational resilience remains dangerously wide. Admiral Rogers sharply commented that ENISA has a broad mandate without the resources to match it, compliance is being confused with outcomes, and Europe is not ready for the pace of change AI will impose. Despina Spanou acknowledged the fragmentation reality: NIS2, despite common standards, still forces companies through 27 separate national compliance systems. Steffan Truvé warned that defenders currently hold a narrow advantage in access to the most capable models, but that window closes within months as open-source equivalents proliferate — and European entities' restricted access to frontier tools is already a concrete strategic liability. Juhan Lepassaar and Lukáš Kintr agreed that ENISA's value lies in systemic and cross-border threats, while national authorities retain primacy in incident response, and that the skills shortage cannot be solved by AI automation alone but requires sustained investment in attracting young people into technical careers from an early age.
Livestream Link: https://youtube.com/live/8TIKcNWZem4?feature=share
