The vulnerability of cultural heritage in times of war is no longer a distant threat. The conflict in Ukraine has starkly illustrated the deliberate targeting of cultural sites, and a growing sense of unease is spreading across Europe as geopolitical tensions rise. On October 10, 2022, a Russian missile struck near the Khanenko Museum in central Kyiv, shattering windows and damaging the roof and facade. This museum, Ukraine’s most significant repository of European, Asian, and Ancient art, is just one of 37 museums in the country that have been damaged, devastated, or systematically looted. This isn’t simply a war against a nation and its people; it’s a strategic assault on its culture, intended to demoralize the population and strip it of its national identity and history. According to a UNESCO report from November 2025, 512 cultural sites in Ukraine – including religious buildings, theaters, opera houses, libraries, archives, and museums – have been demonstrably damaged by Russian attacks.
The threat extends beyond Ukraine’s borders. In June 2024, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned the Bundestag of a potential expansion of the war into NATO territory. Amidst escalating security concerns, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated in September 2025, “We are not at war, but we are no longer at peace.” A month later, Martin Jäger, President of the Federal Intelligence Service, suggested that Russia could potentially attack NATO before 2029. This heightened state of alert is prompting a reevaluation of preparedness for protecting cultural assets in the event of armed conflict.
The seriousness with which the German government views the situation was underscored on November 17, 2025, at the Sprengel Museum Hannover. A closed-door meeting of the German Museum Association for art and cultural history museums took place, notably including the participation of a Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) lieutenant colonel in uniform. The officer reportedly outlined the potential consequences of armed conflict for museums, urging cultural institutions to independently develop emergency plans. Details of the briefing remain classified, but attendees reported a clear call to action for proactive preparation.
The Inability to Imagine Our Own Destruction
A fundamental psychological barrier complicates these preventative measures. As US historian and psychoanalyst Jonathan Lear noted in 2006, “The inability to imagine one’s own destruction is a tendency toward a blind spot in every culture.” In Germany, many struggle to envision a military confrontation on their own soil. Although Russia’s war against Ukraine is unfolding in Europe, it often feels distant. However, with museums now being asked by the military to consider a potential crisis and safeguard collections, the question arises: are these institutions adequately prepared?
Determining responsibility for cultural heritage protection is a complex and often unclear process. While the protection of the population, infrastructure, and national territory takes precedence, the Bundeswehr asserts a responsibility to protect cultural property both during military operations and through civil-military cooperation. However, even after a direct inquiry, the specifics of this commitment remain vague.
The Federal Ministry of the Interior and its subordinate Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) bear primary responsibility for cultural heritage protection. The BBK, according to its own statements, handles the general planning of transports when objects need to be moved from museums to safety. However, the agency emphasizes that the specific organization and implementation of concrete measures are the responsibility of the federal states and the museums themselves.
Evacuation Plans Still Lacking
The reality on the ground is uneven. Some German states, such as Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg, and Saxony, have yet to designate evacuation sites for museums to secure their most valuable objects. The Saxon State Ministry of Culture admitted on request that it currently has “no overarching emergency concepts and evacuation plans for a case of war.” This leaves these states woefully unprepared for a potential armed conflict. While most museums have prioritized lists of particularly valuable works for localized threats like fire, flood, and extreme weather, risk and crisis management for broader scenarios is often lacking. A spot check by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (F.A.Z.) of a dozen German museums revealed that only institutions in Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, and Schwerin have preventative emergency plans for wartime scenarios, and access to shelters or bunkers. Other museums, lacking such facilities, are unsure how to protect their collections, even as responsible ministries, like Saxony’s, work on the problem. Switzerland, by contrast, boasts around 320 underground cultural heritage protection facilities – a level of preparedness Germany can only dream of.
Various organizations – the German Museum Association, the German Society for Cultural Heritage Protection, the BBK, the Emergency Alliance of the Cultural Foundation of the Länder, the Security Guide for Cultural Heritage, and the German National Committee Blue Shield – have each issued recommendations on how museums can safeguard cultural property during wartime. These plans include building floor plans for firefighters, containers with equipment for initial damage control, crates for transporting objects, alternative power supplies, training exercises for museum staff, and identifying secure shelters. However, the primary responsibility rests with the cultural institutions themselves, which are often overwhelmed by unclear responsibilities, a lack of evacuation sites, and limited personnel and financial resources.
Recently, the German Archaeological Institute, the Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW), and the Leibniz Center for Archaeology announced the establishment of a “Cultural Heritage Response Unit” to provide emergency assistance to threatened or damaged cultural property. While a positive step, this unit focuses on aid requested from abroad. However, museums and states are slowly realizing that a systematic risk and crisis management approach is also necessary within Germany. It’s crucial to recognize that advocating for effective and responsible emergency preparedness in the face of potential armed conflict is not alarmist; protecting cultural heritage through proactive preservation is more urgent than ever.
The Khanenko Museum, a symbol of Ukrainian cultural resilience, continues to operate despite the ongoing war. While its main collection is secured and temporarily unavailable to the public, the museum remains open, hosting temporary exhibitions, educational programs, and events. As of March 8, 2026, the exhibition “With Artists, Curators, Golden Sunsets” is on display. The museum is open Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from 10:30 a.m. To 5:30 p.m., and Thursday from 12:00 p.m. To 7:30 p.m. The museum’s continued operation, even under duress, serves as a powerful testament to the enduring importance of culture in the face of adversity.
As the global security landscape shifts, the protection of cultural heritage demands increased attention and proactive planning. The lessons learned from Ukraine underscore the need for comprehensive strategies, clear lines of responsibility, and adequate resources to safeguard our shared cultural legacy. The question isn’t *if* we should prepare, but *how* – and the time to act is now.
