By Eman Jokhio
Europe never gets tired of talking about “strategic autonomy.” It is a staple of speeches given in Brussels, written in EU policy documents, and mentioned in defence summit press releases. However, most of these remarks tend to lack substance and depth. Europe certainly does not lack money, technology, or even the bureaucratic infrastructure in place to work toward autonomy. What Europe does lack, however, is the most fundamental of all, and that is political will. If there is one country that proves this point, it is Finland. By treating defence as an existential necessity instead of optional, Finland illustrates that strategic autonomy is a domestic issue. The rest of Europe, in comparison, still clings to the American security umbrella, assuming that empty slogans equal self-sufficiency. The hard pill to swallow is that Europe has the muscles to defend itself, but most of Europe is not willing to do so.
Finland: Autonomy as Practice
To Western European countries, Finland’s approach to defence might seem a bit antiquated, but that is precisely why it is effective. The whole nation is trained and prepared for defence thanks to conscription. Finland consistently spends more than NATO’s 2% benchmark, often without domestic political quarrels. Everyday governance, from cyber protections to critical infrastructure safeguards, incorporates resilience against hybrid threats. Despite being a small country, Finland appears to take issues seriously and has recently updated its Security Strategy for Society (2025). Strategic autonomy is not an abstract EU slogan in Finland; it is a day-to-day reality. The reality is that political will exists to shoulder costs and responsibilities that are often outsourced by other countries.
Europe’s Comfortable Assumptions
Unlike Western and Southern Europe, where political conversations prioritise welfare, retirement benefits, or climate policy, defence is an afterthought. It is essential to note these issues matter, yet the underlying belief is that the United States will always protect Europe. In Germany, spending on the military is seen as an exceptional measure due to Russia’s war on Ukraine instead of viewing it as the new normal. In Italy and Spain, determining the defence budget is influenced by internal politics, which show little inclination for military readiness spending, given that governments, in most cases, focus on popular internal matters, including social spending, pensions, and economic growth, over defence. The picture is quite evident: Europe has wealth, but does not strive. Political leaders are well aware they can rely on the defence spending of the United States, and they do.
The Illusion of Permanence
The flaw in the reasoning above is that it assumes an illusion of permanence. American politics are dividing, and the belief that Washington will always provide financial assistance to support Europe’s defence is outlandish. Europe can no longer rely on America backing them up, whether it is with Trump’s business-oriented team of allies or the broader U.S. pivot toward Asia. This is the driving force of why strategic autonomy buzzwords even exist. Strategic autonomy will always be buzzwords without the backing of will. The acknowledgment of new drones and the European Union (EU) defense plans still does not alter the fact that the majority of inhabitants in Europe do not want to make the sacrifices that Finland has been accustomed to.
In Finland, changing public sentiment provides an important background for this shifting calculus. Support for Finland’s NATO membership peaked in early 2022 at approximately 80%, but as of early 2023, support has decreased to approximately 50% due to concerns over the MAGA-style US foreign policy. Finland is not leaving the US alliance, but there are indications that it is preparing a “Plan B” for a deeper defence integration with its Nordic neighbours, France, and the UK, in the event that American support lessens. Nevertheless, Finland is still highly reliant on American military assets: the entire air force is American-made, and 64 F-35 will be introduced to service next year. The important point is not that Finland is charting a course away from the US. Rather, Finland is not willing to place all its bets on a single pillar of security, a position that most of Europe still holds, and that Finland has clearly moved beyond.
History, Geography, and Mentality
The difference still comes down to geography and history. Finland has always lived under the shadow of Russia, never enjoying the luxury of strategic distance. Its Cold War experience of “Finlandization” taught it the costs of vulnerability, and its border with Russia means the danger will never be abstract. For most of Western Europe, however, the experience has been the opposite. Peace, prosperity, and integration into the EU has bred the belief that war is obsolete and that defence can be deprioritized. This difference in mentality is more telling than any budget chart ever could. Europe is divided not by capabilities, but by seriousness.
Mentality Before Machinery
What Finland teaches the rest of Europe is that strategic autonomy is less about weapons systems and more about mentality. Autonomy begins with the will to embrace uncomfortable domestic political trade-offs. It means telling citizens that taxes will fund both defense and welfare. It means accepting that readiness is just as critical as prosperity. It means changing the European conception of peace, not as the absence of military preparedness, but the outcome of it. Finland does not wait for Brussels to deliver autonomy; it builds it every day. The more uncomfortable question is, are others willing to follow?
Conclusion: The Choice Ahead
Some may criticize by saying that Finland’s model cannot be transplanted. Other consistently undermined nations as larger countries with more intricate politics cannot copy-paste a Finnish approach. For instance, conscription would be politically toxic in a multitude of societies. But this misses the larger lesson. What Finland proves is not that every country should look the same, but the spirit of political will must exist if autonomy is ever to be real. Without that will, all discussions about European security are little more than theatre.
Europe ultimately faces a straightforward decision. It can choose to rely on American protection pretending that joint declarations are adequate or treat autonomy as a serious project that will require sacrifice. Finland’s example shows the way forward: autonomy begins when nations accept that defence is a responsibility, not an option. The rest of Europe can catch up; but only if it finds the political courage to do so.
About the author
Eman Zahid Jokhio is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Political Science at Universitas Islam International Indonesia (UIII). She holds a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations from the University of Sindh, Pakistan. Her writing has previously appeared in prominent Pakistani magazines as well as in Modern Diplomacy, and Stratsea.
European Studies Review 