At midnight last Wednesday, nineteen Russian drones crossed into Polish airspace. Within minutes Dutch F-35s scrambled, Polish F-16s vectored to intercept, Italian surveillance planes coordinated the response, and German Patriot missile systems stood ready.¹ That night, Europe demonstrated that it can secure European skies with American-designed aircraft under European command, all within NATO command structures. 

This is what mature European sovereignty looks like: not the fantasy of self-sufficiency that haunts Brussels policy papers, but the reality of autonomous action within alliance frameworks that multiply rather than constrain European power. 

Functional Sovereignty in Action

Call it “functional sovereignty” — the ability to make and execute critical decisions about your own security, using whatever capabilities deliver the best results. It’s not about where weapons are built, but about who controls them when it counts. 

This differs fundamentally from the “strategic autonomy” rhetoric that dominates European defense debates, which often conflates sovereignty with supply chain independence and technological self-sufficiency.² Functional sovereignty does not mean going it alone — it means being capable enough to lead when leadership is needed. Last week proved Europe has graduated from junior partner to co-equal guardian of the transatlantic space. 

Beyond the Silicon Ceiling

Critics of European strategic autonomy often lament the continent’s lack of a defense industrial base and demand full supply-chain independence. Wednesday night revealed a different path: operational excellence with the best available tools, regardless of origin.

The F-35s were American-designed, yes — but Dutch-owned, Dutch-operated, and Dutch-commanded. This is the dividend of transatlantic partnership: shared American technology can enable sovereign European decision-making. Europe does not need to reinvent NATO’s capabilities; it merely needs to master them and deploy them confidently when European security is at stake. 

Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans noted that smart integration of allied capabilities allows Europe to “keep the escalating Russian threat at a distance.”³ The Airborne Warning and Control System providing eyes in the sky, for example, was Italian-flagged but NATO-standardized.⁴ The tankers enabling extended operations belonged to the Multinational MRTT Fleet, funded by six European nations as a prime example of European operational defense collaboration.⁵

This is functional sovereignty in practice: Europeans making life-and-death decisions about European security, deploying the most effective available capabilities regardless of their origin. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that the Russian incursion last week brought his country “the closest we have been to open conflict since World War II” — and Europe responded with competence, not consultation.⁶ 

The Factory Floor of Sovereignty

As the security environment evolves — with threats from Russia, challenges in the Indo-Pacific, and multiple crises demanding attention — NATO needs Europe to be a self-sufficient security provider in its own neighborhood. Last week showed Europe is ready for that responsibility, enhanced rather than diminished by transatlantic technological partnerships.

The expansion of the Multinational MRTT Fleet, with two additional aircraft and the addition of Sweden and Denmark to the program, underscores Europe’s commitment to collective defense through deeper alliance integration.⁷ When Dutch F-35s engaged Russian drones over Poland, they wielded the most advanced fighter technology on Earth — American innovation serving European sovereignty. The aircraft operated under NATO command structures, protecting European territory and executing alliance decisions made at European initiative. 

This model scales precisely because it leverages the best available capabilities rather than constraining itself to continental production. EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius called for the EU to develop a “drone wall” along its eastern flank following Wednesday’s incursion.⁸ Success will require combining European operational excellence with proven allied systems — American stealth fighters, Israeli missile defenses, Nordic sensors — all under unified European command and control that can act at the speed of conflict. 

Critics will point out that those were American F-35s, American-designed Patriots, and American-developed NATO protocols. They are right — but they are missing the point. True sovereignty means having access to the world’s best military technology when your security depends on it. When European pilots engaged those drones, they were not constrained by their planes’ American origins; they were empowered by their planes’ capabilities. Sovereignty is not about reinventing the wheel but about driving the car. 

The Sovereignty Paradox

Historical precedent shows that nations achieve the greatest autonomous capability not through isolation but through selective integration. Britain’s naval dominance during the Napoleonic Wars was built on multinational crews — at Trafalgar, Nelson’s flagship HMS Victory alone included twenty-two different nationalities, including Americans, Germans, and even French volunteers fighting against Napoleon’s fleet.⁹ This diversity of talent, combined with superior British naval doctrine, created a force that could decisively defeat more “purely national” fleets.

When Israeli pilots flying French Mirage jets destroyed over 400 Arab aircraft in the Six-Day War’s opening hours, they demonstrated that sovereignty flows from operational excellence, not manufacturing origin.¹⁰ But a cautionary tale lies in what happened after France imposed its 1967 arms embargo. Forced into technological independence, Israel reverse-engineered the Mirage to create the domestically-built Nesher and later the Kfir. While these aircraft proved capable — the Kfir served as Israel’s main fighter through the 1970s — Israel ultimately returned to alliance partnerships, adopting American F-15s and F-16s as superior options became available through strengthened U.S.-Israel relations.¹¹

The lesson is clear: sovereignty does not require building everything yourself. It does require having the capability to act decisively when action is required, using whatever tools deliver the best results.

The Path Forward

Nineteen Russian drones showed that Europe can become what NATO always envisioned: a constellation of allies capable of collective defense without collective paralysis. Europe proved that it can act as decisively as America when threats materialize. 

The question is now whether European leaders can build on this success to create the defensive architecture for a continent that embraces functional sovereignty rather than the false dream of technological self-sufficiency. 

1. Stefano D’Urso, “F16s and F-35s Shoot Down Russian Drones over Poland,” The Aviationist, September 10, 2025. ↩︎
2. For an introduction, see Seray Kilic, “Half-Hearted or Pragmatic? Explaining EU Strategic Autonomy and the European Defence Fund through Institutional Dynamics,” Central European Journal of International and Security Studies 18, no. 1 (2024): 43-72. ↩︎
3. D’Urso, “F16s and F-35s,” 2025. ↩︎
4. Ibid. ↩︎
5. Ibid; “Multi Role Tanker Transport Capability (MRTT-C),” NATO Factsheet, 2022. ↩︎
6. Tara Suter, “Poland closest to open conflict since World War II, prime minister says,” The Hill, September 10, 2025. ↩︎
7. Airbus, “NATO orders two additional Airbus A330 MRTT aircraft and welcomes Sweden and Denmark to the Multinational Fleet,” Press Release, June 24, 2025. ↩︎
8. Ellie Cook, “Europe ‘Must Urgently Develop’ Drone Wall After Russian Drones Enter Poland,” Newsweek, September 10, 2025. ↩︎
9. Alan Patient, “Foreign nationals at the Battle of Trafalgar,” London Remembers. ↩︎
10. Michael Peck, “How Israel’s Air Force Won the Six-Day War in Six Hours,” The National Interest, June 3, 2017. ↩︎
11. Maya Carlin, “Israel’s Kfir Fighter Is One Truly Terrifying Weapon of War,” The National Interest, October 25, 2024. ↩︎