Although support for NATO remains on average remarkably high, it has declined significantly compared to spring 2024 levels among groups that were already initially more reserved about membership. This shift is most evident among Green League (decrease of 13 percentage points) and Left Alliance (decrease of 12 percentage points) voters.
The results are revealed in the recent report entitled "Citizens in the turmoil of world politics: Finns' expectations for foreign and security policy two years after joining NATO". The report is part of the Dynamic Support for Security and Defense Policy (NATOpoll) research project, in which the same respondents are interviewed at regular intervals.
Intensifying domestic political polarisation in the United States and the growing prominence of voices supporting foreign policy isolationism, and in some cases alignment with Russia, have weakened Finns' trust in the credibility of security guarantees and other commitments made by the United States. This tension, when contrasted with the broad support for NATO, reflects a deepened strategic awareness among Finns: NATO membership is valued as a security provider, but it is not seen as a comprehensive solution.
Citizens are willing to invest in a multi-level defense
Finns strongly support strengthening defense capabilities both nationally and at the European level. A majority of people favor joint EU borrowing to fund defense development (65%) and support exempting defense investments from current budgetary constraints (51%). These figures signal a willingness to assume financial responsibility for collective defense. There is also visible support for a more autonomous European security architecture, not as a replacement for NATO but as a complement to it. In the view of many Finns, European countries that are investing in their defense capabilities could take on a greater role within the Alliance, which has thus far been largely predicated on the United States' capacity and willingness to militarily defend Europe.
The Finnish government's proposals from March to enhance national defense capabilities enjoy solid support among voters: nearly two-thirds (64%) would be prepared to raise the defense budget to 3–3.5 percent of GDP, and a majority (57%) supports withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. The perceived necessity of landmines for Finland’s national defense has consequently significantly strengthened since November 2023, when the issue was first posed to the same respondents (43%).
Although only slightly more than one-quarter (28%) of respondents would approve the deployment of nuclear weapons on Finnish soil, this share has doubled since the summer of 2023, when NATO membership came into force (14%). Similarly, support for allowing nuclear weapons to be transported through Finnish territory has grown significantly in less than two years (27% to 46%).
Expectations for foreign policy priorities reflect the militarisation of security perceptions
In terms of foreign policy priorities, the public wants Finland to invest more decisively in hard security. The role of peace mediation, once central to Finland’s national self-image, has clearly declined in public esteem, as has the importance of addressing climate change and biodiversity loss as part of a sustainable foreign and security policy. This marks a strong shift towards the militarisation of security thinking, even though younger generations favor a broader foreign policy agenda, including deeper engagement with the Global South, BRICS countries, and economic and innovation cooperation as instruments of security-building.
Within an environment of heightened concern for security, support remains for peace and international responsibility, as evidenced by the continued backing of Ukraine and upholding international law. This tension suggests that public understanding of foreign and security policy is not strictly framed as a binary between realism and liberalism, or between "hard" and "soft" security, but instead reflects a re-interpretation of their boundaries.
Citizens are unfamiliar with value-based realism as a concept yet understand its logic in practice
Finland’s current foreign policy balancing act is crystallised in the concept of value-based realism. Our findings show that while a clear majority of citizens (71%) recognise value-based realism as the current foreign and security policy line, only a minority (37%) understand what the concept entails. When weighing practical political choices, Finns remain firmly rooted in the principles of democracy and international law.
At the same time, there is widespread agreement that pragmatic engagement with actors who do not share Finland’s values is necessary to safeguard national interests in an increasingly unstable world. In matters such as the arms trade or restricting asylum rights in response to threats from Russia, many lean more toward realist considerations over value-based ones. Voters appear to have internalised the logic and trade-offs of value-based realism as it pertains to the foreign policy of a small state.
– Public confidence in current political leaders' ability to produce solutions in today's polycrisis security environment (27%) and to implement long-term policy (21%) is alarmingly low. This finding reflects a call for more consistent, transparent, and strategically grounded decision-making in foreign and security policy, remarks the director of the project, Associate Professor Hanna Wass from the University of Helsinki.
The report is based on a survey designed by the NATOpoll project and conducted by Taloustutkimus from March 12 to 24, 2025. As in the second and third rounds, the survey was targeted in Taloustutkimus’s permanent internet panel only at those who had responded in the first round. A total of 1,124 Finnish citizens aged 18–79 responded to the survey, which represents 39 percent of the first-round, 55 percent of the second-round, and 68 percent of the third-round respondents. Respondents were weighted to match the first-round respondents by age, gender, and place of residence. The margin of error is approximately ±2.9 percentage points.
The project funded by the Kone Foundation involves researchers from the University of Helsinki, Tampere University, the University of Turku, Åbo Akademi, and the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
For more information:
Associate Professor of Political Science Hanna Wass, University of Helsinki, tel. +358 50 448 4399
Professor Juhana Aunesluoma, University of Helsinki, tel. + 358 50 415 6592
Professor Tuomas Forsberg, Tampere University, tel. +358 50 569 1752
Researcher Jyri Lavikainen, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, tel. +358 50 541 5137
University Researcher Johanna Vuorelma, University of Helsinki, tel. +358 45 357 8335
Doctoral Researcher Albert Weckman, Åbo Akademi, tel. +358 50 345 5599