MOZOM vergelijkt
MOZOM compares: Ukraine, buffer state, self-defense or proxy war?
- Source
- MOZOM vergelijkt
- MOZOM headline
- MOZOM compares: Ukraine, buffer state, self-defense or proxy war?
- Original headline
- NATO, EU, Ukrainian state documents and international legal texts each place a different emphasis: partner country, neutrality pledge, right of support or proxy frame
- Author
- MOZOM-redactie
- Date
- 25 juni 2026 om 12:57
- Subject
- Comparison of the discussion about Ukraine as a non-NATO country, the former neutrality formula, European support and the question of whether the war is framed as a proxy war.
Summary of the original report
NATO itself writes that Ukraine is not a NATO member, but a partner country. This means close cooperation, but no automatic protection under Article 5. At the same time, NATO countries and the EU support Ukraine with training, weapons, money and political guarantees. In June 2026, the European Council referred to the first disbursement of a loan of 90 billion euros for 2026 and 2027, while elsewhere the Council put total EU support including military, financial and refugee support at more than 200 billion euros. On the other hand, there is an older point that often disappears from view: the Ukrainian declaration of sovereignty of 1990 stated the intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, outside military blocs and without nuclear weapons. That was not a simple Switzerland clause in the current constitution, but a basic political document. Since 2014 and especially since the constitutional amendment of 2019, the direction has changed: EU and NATO membership were then established as a strategic course.
Striking in this message
It is striking that the word 'partner country' eases the tension. Ukraine is not formally a NATO member, but in practice its military, financial and political link with the West has become enormous. As a result, 'not a NATO country' sounds legally correct, while strategically it feels less and less complete. That is precisely the space in which the proxy frame arises: not because Ukrainians have no interest or will of their own, but because larger powers also use the war to defend their own security order.
Less visible context
It is less visible that neutrality in the Ukrainian dossier is not a straight line. The 1990 declaration spoke of permanent neutrality, but Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union, not literally from Russia, and the current constitutional course since 2019 points towards the EU and NATO. The comparison with Switzerland is understandable as an image of neutrality; the comparison with Israel is much less pure, because Israel is not a classic neutral buffer country. 'NATO has no right to interfere' also requires precision: NATO has no Article 5 obligation to defend Ukraine, but under international law states may provide support to an attacked state when it requests it.
Possible message behind the news
One possible message is that Europe presents the war as defense of Ukraine, while critics read the same support as prolonging a war against Russia through Ukrainian territory. The truth does not lie in a single label, but in the question of how much political freedom of choice, military dependence and escalation risk are present at the same time.
Neutral conclusion
The neutral conclusion is that Ukraine is not a NATO member and that the former neutrality formula historically exists. At the same time, that formula is not the same as the current constitution, and international support for an attacked state does not automatically constitute illegal interference. What remains is the core of the debate: Europe calls it self-defense and security; critici noemen het provocatie en proxyoorlog. MOZOM sees above all that both frames only become honest when they recognize their own blind spot.