While Kyiv has received support from its partner nations through the steady delivery of military equipment and weaponry, such as anti-tank weapons, man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) and support equipment, Ukraine has also seen several countries turning to focus on their immediate interests, which are not compatible with alienating Russia.

For instance, Tel Aviv is banning other countries from sending Israeli-made weapon systems to Ukraine in order to maintain good ties with Moscow. Meanwhile, it took Germany weeks to start delivering weapons to Ukraine as it weighed the pros and the cons of the policy amid its dependence on Russia’s energy supply.

Such cases show that military aid and the arms trade cannot be separated from a country’s foreign policy and national interests, and that countries should anticipate such risks.

Moreover, despite the steady delivery of military equipment to Ukraine, the high intensity of the conflict has shown that states should also anticipate such kinds of crises. It has also led several nations to rethink their ideas on strategic autonomy, a concept that originally focused on the defense industry.

The European Union defines strategic autonomy as a way to “chart its own course in line with its interests and values” in order to “manage interdependence in the best possible way”. The concept was mainly developed by France in the 1960s.

In other words, strategic autonomy grants a country the ability to face and handle major geopolitical disturbances and should be understood to be not limited to the defense and security sectors.