COMMENTARY: Ukraine, NATO’s De Facto Second Army — Zelenskyy’s Shocking Gambit

Introduction: The Phrase That Changes Everything

A speech, a formula, a strategic earthquake

On June 19, 2026, following the Brussels summit and the meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in the Ramstein format, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy released a voice message to journalists containing a phrase that will echo through the halls of the Atlantic Alliance for a long time. “Today, Ukraine is de facto the second army of NATO—an army that is not inferior to the second army in the world. And that is why NATO needs us—specifically us—de jure.” These are not trivial words. These are words that overturn the logic of supplication.

Since February 24, 2022, Ukraine has fought, bled, wept for its dead, counted its destroyed tanks, and demanded weapons from an Alliance that hesitated, procrastinated, and measured its response. Today, Zelenskyy is no longer begging. He is observing. He is assessing. He is naming what everyone sees but few dare to say: Ukraine is no longer a country at war seeking NATO’s protection—it is a top-tier military power holding the front line of Western democracy.

The context that makes the formula credible

This statement didn’t come out of thin air. It arrives after more than four years of large-scale war, after tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers trained to Alliance standards, after shared weapons systems, integrated doctrines, and interoperable communications. The Independent, which covered the events in Brussels live this June 20, 2026, reported Zelenskyy’s full words: “This is already a fact recognized by all leaders.” When the heads of state and government of 32 member countries validate this reality, it is no longer an opinion—it is a geopolitical fact.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte himself acknowledged during the June 18 press conference following the Ramstein format that the Ukrainian armed forces are “increasingly interoperable with NATO” and that military standards are converging. This is no small thing. This is not a polite speech. This is a cold military assessment.

Four Years of Fire: How Ukraine Became a World-Class Army

The fastest military transformation in recent history

In 2022, the Ukrainian army had approximately 200,000 professional soldiers. Today, according to Zelenskyy’s own statements, the Ukrainian armed forces mobilize nearly 880,000 men and women, organized into 110 combat brigades trained to NATO standards. This is a transformation in scale that exceeds anything the Alliance has known since the end of the Cold War. No other country in Europe has produced such a fighting force in so little time.

This surge in power did not happen in quiet garrisons. It was forged in steel and fire, on the Donbas front, in the ruins of Mariupol, in the counter-offensives of Kharkiv and Kherson. Every Ukrainian brigade carries within it combat experience that the armies of Western Europe—Germany, France, Spain—simply do not have. Zelenskyy said it bluntly in Munich in February 2025: “Without the Ukrainian army, European armies will not be sufficient to stop Russia.”

Real interoperability, not theoretical

Interoperability with NATO is no longer a long-term goal in a multi-year action plan. It is the reality on the ground today. Ukrainian forces use HIMARS, Patriot, NASAMS, and F-16 weapons systems. They operate according to Alliance doctrines. They share real-time intelligence with member state services. Mark Rutte explicitly recognized this during the joint press conference in Kyiv on June 3, 2026: “Ukraine is increasingly integrated, in terms of interoperability and standards with NATO.”

Belgium, moreover, announced the delivery of seven F-16 fighters to Ukraine by the end of 2026. Germany and Ukraine signed agreements for the co-development of anti-ballistic systems during the Brussels summit. These are no longer humanitarian aids—this is a de facto military alliance, functional, operational, and in a state of war.

The “De Facto / De Jure” Formula: A Precise Rhetorical Strategy

Legal language in the service of a political argument

The distinction between de facto (in fact) and de jure (by right) is deliberately chosen. Zelenskyy is not committing a diplomatic slip of the tongue—he is using precise vocabulary to point out an untenable contradiction. Ukraine already fulfills the military conditions of the Alliance. It fights side-by-side with NATO members, shares their standards, absorbs their equipment, and formats its soldiers according to their doctrines. It assumes the costs of collective security without having its guarantees. This is a glaring strategic injustice, and Zelenskyy names it without ambiguity.

The precedent is historical. In 2022, during Ukraine’s application for accelerated NATO membership, Zelenskyy had already used this same distinction: “De facto, we have already completed our path to NATO. Today, Ukraine is submitting an application to do it de jure.” Since then, nothing has changed legally—but everything has changed militarily. And it is precisely this paradox that the June 19, 2026 formula exposes with remarkable intellectual brutality.

An argument that embarrasses reluctant capitals

Four countries were still blocking Ukraine’s formal invitation to NATO as of April 2026: Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, and the United States. Zelenskyy’s formula aims precisely at these capitals. It says, in substance: you are already benefiting from Ukrainian protection—without paying the political price. Ukraine absorbs the losses, holds back the Russian army, prevents Putin from advancing toward Poland and the Baltic states—and in return, it does not receive the formal guarantee of Article 5.

It is an argument difficult to dispute. Mark Rutte implicitly recognized this: “It is crucial to continue this support to help Ukraine maintain its advantage.” If Ukraine has an “advantage” to maintain against the second army in the world, then its forces are at least comparable. Zelenskyy isn’t inventing anything—he is formulating what everyone sees.

Putin Wants to Restore the USSR: Zelenskyy Names the Real Goal

A vanished empire that the Kremlin wants to bring back to life

In the same message from June 19, 2026, Zelenskyy also named Vladimir Putin’s strategic goal with brutal clarity: “Putin will remain in the Kremlin until his death, and he has only one goal: the restoration of the Soviet Union. Without Ukraine, this is impossible, and that is why things are so difficult for us.” This statement is not an abstract geopolitical analysis—it is a reading of the Kremlin’s intentions that Western intelligence services have shared for years.

Putin has said it himself, several times: the dissolution of the USSR is “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.” His imperial project does not stop at the recovery of the Donbas or Crimea. It aims for the total submission of Ukraine, the dismantling of its sovereignty, and ultimately, the reconstitution of a dominant Russian space from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad. Ukraine, with its 44 million inhabitants (pre-war), its agriculture, its industry, its army—is the central pillar of this project. Without Ukraine, the USSR cannot live again.

Ukrainian resistance as a civilizational barrage

This is precisely why Ukrainian resistance is existential—first for Ukraine, but also for the West as a whole. If Kyiv fell, if Ukraine were absorbed into a new Soviet sphere of influence, it would be the demonstration that liberal democracies no longer know how to defend their values with arms. Zelenskyy says it bluntly: “That is why he is so afraid to see the war end without victory. And there will be no victory.”

By hanging the specter of an endless war over Ukraine, Putin hopes to exhaust Western will. He is betting on the fatigue of democracies, on their electoral cycles, on the rise of Eurosceptic populism. Ukraine represents the resistance to this cynical bet. Every day of Ukrainian combat is a living refutation of the theory of Russian invincibility—and a demonstration that democracy can fight, and win.

Ramstein and Brussels: A Convergence That Reveals Reality

A summit, billions, a military architecture in the making

On June 18, 2026, the meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels confirmed the depth of Western commitment. Mark Rutte detailed the commitments: hundreds of millions via the PURL program—from Germany, the Netherlands, Latvia, Denmark, Lithuania, Norway, Luxembourg, Croatia, Sweden, and Iceland. The United Kingdom announced the delivery of 150,000 drones and 350 missiles. Spain strengthened air defense, the Netherlands and Germany provided additional drones, and Canada provided armored vehicles.

But beyond the figures, what struck observers was the change in language and logic. It is no longer about humanitarian aid or emergency assistance. We are now talking about co-development, co-production, and common anti-ballistic capabilities between Ukraine and its European partners. Germany and Ukraine signed agreements on the development of anti-ballistic systems and the joint production of Termit ground robots in Germany. This is a shared defense industry—a structural integration.

Rutte and the “window of opportunity”: The logic of pressure

Mark Rutte hammered home a key concept during the June 18 press conference: “the window of opportunity.” The more intense and focused the support for Ukraine is on its priorities, the stronger the pressure on Russia will be, and the more Moscow will be forced to sit at the negotiating table and accept a serious peace. This is not warmongering rhetoric—it is a strategy of calculated coercion. Peace comes through strength, not through capitulation.

This framing confirms Zelenskyy’s reading: Ukraine is not a burden that NATO carries reluctantly—it is a strategic force multiplier. Its resistance creates the pressure that will, one day, bring Putin to negotiate. Without Ukraine and its exceptional military capacity, this pressure would not exist. It is in this sense that Ukraine is indispensable to the Alliance—and that Zelenskyy’s formula finds its full justification.

Indispensable Ukraine: The Reversal of the Balance of Power

From candidate to contributor: A positional revolution

The reversal brought about by Zelenskyy’s formula is of considerable political depth. For years, Ukraine was presented—and sometimes presented itself—as a candidate for membership, a country waiting for validation, subject to the criteria and vetoes of existing members. This paradigm has just collapsed. By asserting that NATO needs Ukraine de jure, Zelenskyy is performing a complete turnaround of the relationship.

It is no longer Ukraine that needs NATO to survive. It is NATO that needs Ukraine to remain relevant, credible, and effective. In April 2026, Zelenskyy had already formulated this idea during a press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz: “I sincerely believe that NATO countries need Ukraine as a fully capable and strong partner. They need our army—a strong army.” The June 19 formula is merely the logical culmination of a coherent strategic thought built over four years of war.

What Ukraine brings that NATO cannot buy

Ukraine’s strength is not only quantitative—it is qualitative. What the Ukrainian armed forces have developed in four years of high-intensity warfare, no Alliance army possesses. The doctrine of mass drones, electronic warfare strategies, real-time counter-battery, ultra-fast tactical adaptation against a powerful adversary—all of this is a unique experience in the world, impossible to simulate in a NATO exercise.

Zelenskyy said it in Davos in January 2026: Ukraine is “the largest and most experienced army in Europe,” with real combat experience that even the best European armies cannot reproduce in a garrison. 110 brigades trained in fire against 220 Russian brigades—and holding them in check. That is the military reality that Zelenskyy’s formula condenses into one sentence.

Putin Physically Afraid: The Tyrant’s Psychology Exposed

A dictator who fears his own army

In the same message from June 19, Zelenskyy delivered a psychological analysis of Putin that deserves to be taken seriously: “Putin fears the return of his army home. That is why he is so afraid that the war will end without victory. And there will be no victory. He is physically afraid of his own army.” This formulation says several things at once, and all are important.

First, it says that Putin knows his war is lost in its initial objectives. He can no longer “denazify” Ukraine, nor demilitarize it, nor prevent it from eventually joining NATO. What he seeks now is not to lose face—for himself, for his regime, for the nomenklatura that supports him. To return with a defeated army is to expose the myth of Russian invincibility—and with it, the foundations of Putin’s power. It is existential for him, not for Russia.

Regime continuity as a factor in prolonging the war

It is precisely because Putin is playing for his political survival—and perhaps physical survival—that the war continues. This is not in Russia’s interest. It is not in the interest of the Russian people. It is the interest of one man. And Zelenskyy points to this reality with surgical precision: “That is why, if there is no ceasefire backed by specific security guarantees, he will return to war. And this time, it may be others who are attacked.”

This threat to neighboring countries—Poland, the Baltic states—is not alarmist rhetoric. In February 2025, Zelenskyy had warned that Russia was forming 15 reserve divisions in Belarus, and that their objectives could target Poland or the Baltic states rather than Ukraine alone. The Alliance has taken this warning seriously: Rutte stated in June 2026 that “Russia remains the main threat to the Alliance.”

Allied Reaction: Tacit Recognition, Official Hesitation

Heads of state who acquiesce without saying it publicly

Zelenskyy asserted that his status as the “second army of NATO” is “a fact recognized by all leaders.” This is a strong statement—and it has not been denied by any capital. Neither Washington, nor Paris, nor Berlin, nor London has publicly challenged this qualification. This says a lot about the reality of the informal consensus that exists behind the scenes, beyond the formal roadblocks to official membership.

Mark Rutte, during the June 3 press conference in Kyiv, carefully maintained the distinction between the political and the practical: formal membership is blocked by the absence of unanimity, but practically, integration is advancing. The convergence of standards, increasing interoperability, common weapons systems—all of this outlines an alliance without the name. This is exactly what Zelenskyy calls “de facto.”

The Hague Summit as the next tipping point

The NATO summit in The Hague, expected in June 2026, represents the next moment of truth. Ukraine has been invited. The allies reaffirmed “the irreversible path to membership” for Ukraine—a formulation recurring since the Alliance’s 75th anniversary summit. But the absence of a concrete timetable remains the friction point. Zelenskyy is aware of this—and that is precisely why he is pushing now, multiplying shock phrases, forcing allies to publicly acknowledge what they recognize in private.

Zelenskyy had also rejected any watered-down version of membership—what he calls “NATO light”—during a press conference with Merz in April 2026: “Nobody needs a light version of the Ukrainian army. What kind of defense would that be?” The logic is implacable: either the Alliance recognizes Ukraine fully, or it admits it is profiting from its sacrifice without assuming the responsibilities.

The West in the Mirror: What the Phrase Reveals of Our Own Failures

Thirty years of disarmament in the name of peace

Zelenskyy’s formula acts as a brutal mirror held up to the West. For thirty years, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the 2022 invasion, Western democracies massively reduced their military spending, closed armaments factories, and reduced their personnel. The idea that war was a thing of the past—that diplomacy, trade, and economic interdependence would have made conflict obsolete—had become a dogma. Ukraine has paid the price of this dogma.

In 2014, during the annexation of Crimea, the West shrugged and multiplied symbolic sanctions. In 2022, it was caught off guard. Today, Alliance nations are rearming at a forced march—Germany aims for the most powerful conventional army in Europe, Poland devotes more than 4% of its GDP to defense, and the Baltic countries are pushing for 5%. But this late response would not be possible without the Ukrainian wall that absorbed the shock while the West was waking up.

Europe’s strategic debt to Kyiv

Zelenskyy doesn’t say it in these terms, but the subtext of his formula is clear: Europe is in debt to Ukraine. Militarily, economically, morally. It is the Ukrainian army that proved, in real time, that Russian firepower is not invincible. It is the Ukrainian army that developed the drone warfare doctrines that will reshape 21st-century military strategies. It is the Ukrainian army that allowed the Alliance to rearm without having to fight itself.

Mark Rutte recognized this during his pre-meeting intervention on June 17, 2026: “Ukraine demonstrates that the Russian war machine is not unstoppable, and it is changing the dynamics on the battlefield.” This is not a protocol compliment. It is an admission that Ukraine provides NATO with a demonstration of value—in blood and steel—that no military exercise can reproduce.

Trump and the Alliance: The Uncertainty Factor Zelenskyy Navigates

An unpredictable ally that Ukraine must manage

Zelenskyy’s formula takes on an extra dimension in light of American uncertainties. Donald Trump, back in the White House since January 2025, has maintained ambiguous relations with the Alliance and with Ukraine. Zelenskyy has had to deal with an ally who sets conditions, talks of rapid peace without sufficient guarantees, and hesitates on weapon deliveries. And yet, at the Brussels summit in June 2026, Zelenskyy reported that Trump had reacted positively to the request for US licenses for the production of anti-ballistic systems in Ukraine—an encouraging signal in a context of uncertainty.

The “de facto / de jure” formula is also addressed to Washington. It says: you need us, even if you don’t yet dare to recognize it officially. Ukraine fills the void left by partial American disengagement—it is the front line that the US Army doesn’t have to hold. For a Trump administration concerned with reducing American presence abroad, Ukraine is a strategic opportunity, not a burden. Zelenskyy, by naming this reality, is trying to make official recognition inevitable.

NATO without America: The scenario Zelenskyy anticipated

In January 2026, in Davos, Zelenskyy had anticipated the darkest scenario: an Atlantic Alliance where American commitment would diminish. His response? Building a European security that does not rely solely on Washington’s goodwill. And in this framework, Ukraine is irreplaceable. In April 2026, he said explicitly: with the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Turkey, Europe can constitute a force that exceeds Russia. Without Ukraine, Europe cannot align against Russia. With it, it can. It’s mathematical.

This framing places Ukraine not as a problem to be managed, but as a solution to a structural European vulnerability. And it is precisely this message that the shocking gambit of June 19, 2026 wants to anchor in the minds of Western decision-makers: without us, you are less strong. With us, you are invincible.

Europe’s Security is Decided in Ukraine: An Uncomfortable Truth

The front as a civilizational border

The Ukrainian front line is, at this moment, the real border between the West and a resurgence of Russian imperialism. This is not a metaphor—it is a geographical and strategic reality. If this line broke, if Ukraine were overwhelmed or forced into capitulation, the next line would be Poland, the Baltic states, Romania—all NATO members. Article 5 would then be tested under far more unfavorable conditions than today.

Ukraine, by holding this line, is doing what NATO should normally do: deter Russian aggression. And it is doing so at a devastating human and economic cost. Ukrainian Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov stated in June 2026 that Ukraine would maintain its advantage on the battlefield for at least the next six months. This confidence is not bravado—it is based on the superiority in long and medium-range strikes that Ukraine reaffirmed during the Ramstein format.

Drones, the new doctrine of modern warfare

One of Ukraine’s most remarkable contributions to Western military doctrine is the development and large-scale use of combat drones. At the Brussels summit, the UK announced the delivery of 150,000 drones to Ukraine. The Netherlands and Germany provided additional drones. Ukraine itself has developed a domestic drone industry that produces thousands of machines per month, capable of striking targets as far as Saint Petersburg—as shown by the June 20, 2026 attack on Moscow, the largest ever carried out by Ukraine on the Russian capital.

These strikes on Russian territory—drones hitting fuel depots, military infrastructure, and logistical facilities in 13 Russian regions—are not just tactical blows. They demonstrate an offensive projection capability that few NATO armies possess today. And they create psychological and economic pressure on the Kremlin that complements the military pressure on the front.

The Historic Moment: Recognize Ukraine or Lose the Alliance’s Credibility

A consistency test for NATO

The Atlantic Alliance proclaimed at the 75th anniversary summit, and has repeated since, that Ukraine’s path to NATO is “irreversible.” This word—irreversible—is strong. It commits. It says that membership is not a question of if, but when. And yet, the absence of a timetable, the maintenance of roadblocks, the permanence of vetoes from certain members—all of this says the opposite of irreversibility. There is a contradiction here that Zelenskyy points out with surgical precision.

If Ukraine is de facto the second army of NATO, if all leaders recognize it, if practical integration is moving at a forced march—then refusing de jure membership is no longer just a political hesitation. It is a moral and strategic contradiction. The Alliance asks Ukraine to fight for values that it does not yet allow it to defend with the guarantees those same values imply. This tension is explosive—and Zelenskyy has decided to expose it in broad daylight.

History will judge by what was done, not by what was promised

The West has a window. Mark Rutte says so in those very terms. The allies must decide now whether Ukraine will be recognized for what it is—a top-tier defense partner, a world-class army, an indispensable pillar of European security—or if it will remain in this bizarre purgatory of the de facto ally whose name they dare not speak. The cost of a refusal is not just moral. It is strategic: if Putin returns to war, if other countries are attacked, the question will be simple: why didn't you act when you had the chance?

Ukraine has earned its place in the Alliance through blood. Through steel. Through a resistance that has stunned the world. Zelenskyy is not asking for a favor—he is presenting a candidacy on merit. And the merit, in this case, is indisputable. The de facto second army of NATO deserves to become so de jure. Now.

Peace Through Strength: The Equation Zelenskyy Imposes on the World

No peace without real guarantees—the lesson of Budapest

Zelenskyy has a precise historical memory, and he has cited it several times: the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, by which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal inherited from the USSR in exchange for security guarantees—which were never respected. Russia violated those guarantees in 2014, then again in 2022. For Zelenskyy, any new security architecture must be irreversible and binding—not promises on paper that Moscow can tear up at its convenience.

This is why he insisted, during the June 2026 Brussels summit, on the need for guarantees backed by concrete military commitments. The bilateral security agreements Ukraine signed with thirty partners—including the UK, France, and Germany—represent a first layer of protection. But Zelenskyy wants more: de jure integration into the Alliance, coupled with Article 5. Because he knows Putin respects only strength.

The trap of the rushed peace—and why Ukraine refuses to fall for it

The temptation for a quick ceasefire, without solid guarantees, is real in certain Western capitals. Trump has mentioned accelerated negotiations. But Zelenskyy answered with clarity: “If there is no ceasefire backed by specific security guarantees, he will return to war.” A ceasefire without guarantees would only be a pause—an opportunity for Russia to reconstitute its forces, reposition its troops, and strike again in two or three years. Ukraine refuses to be the lamb sacrificed on the altar of Western diplomatic fatigue.

Zelenskyy’s logic is that of durable deterrence. A strong Ukraine, integrated into NATO, backed by Article 5 guarantees—is a Ukraine Putin cannot attack without triggering a response from 32 nations. This is the only guarantee that matters. And that is exactly what the “de facto / de jure” formula of June 19, 2026 sets in motion: giving Ukraine de jure what it already is de facto is building the most robust deterrence possible against a Russian imperial resurgence.

Conclusion: The Phrase That Forces the West to Choose

A reversal that cannot be ignored

Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s formula of June 19, 2026—“Ukraine is de facto the second army of NATO, and that is why NATO needs us de jure”—is not a propaganda slogan. It is a factual statement, corroborated by military figures, command assessments, and the tacit recognition of the Alliance’s 32 leaders. It is an argument built on four years of high-intensity war, on the richest combat experience in Europe since 1945, and on a military transformation unprecedented in contemporary history.

What has fundamentally changed is the direction of the flow of dependency. For years, Ukraine needed NATO to survive. Today, NATO needs Ukraine to stay credible, to maintain pressure on Russia, to develop the military doctrines of the future, and to defend the eastern border of freedom. This reversal is historical. It deserves to be named, celebrated, and above all—acted upon.

Zelenskyy, the man who refused to bend

Beyond the formula, there is a man. A man who, on February 25, 2022, while Kyiv was surrounded and Western chancelleries were offering him an evacuation, replied: “I need ammunition, not a ride.” That man held on. He resisted, pleaded, convinced, wrenched support from hesitant allies, and won diplomatic battles as important as the military ones. And today, he is no longer pleading—he is stating. The de facto second army of NATO is his work as much as that of every Ukrainian soldier fallen on the front. The West must now decide: is it worthy of those who fight in its name?

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary sources

The Independent — Ukraine war live: Kremlin won't accept ultimatum, Zelensky “de facto second army of NATO” — June 20, 2026

Euronews — Ukraine deserves fast EU membership, Zelensky voice message after Brussels — June 19, 2026

NATO — Rutte Press Conference / Ukraine Defense Contact Group (Ramstein format), Brussels — June 18, 2026

Secondary sources

Kyiv Independent — Zelensky at Ramstein meeting, anti-ballistic cooperation, F-16 Belgium pledge — June 18, 2026

RBC-Ukraine — Zelenskyy: Russians need Ukraine to be in NATO, press conference with Rutte Kyiv — June 3, 2026

UNN — Without Ukraine, Putin will not restore the USSR: Zelensky explains NATO army statement — June 19, 2026

Ukrainska Pravda — Zelensky says Alliance needs Ukraine, Rutte confirms irreversible path — June 3, 2026

NATO — Rutte / Zelenskyy press conference, first NATO-Ukraine Council meeting in Kyiv — June 3, 2026