Russia’s strong information operations marked the first month of 2024. The Kremlin has been using all available media platforms to drive a wedge between the people and the government of Ukrainewhile denying the existence of Ukrainian identity. At the same time, Russia pretends to be interested in negotiations to buy some time and divert the world community’s attention away from the war in Ukraine. However, the aggressive actions and intentions of Russian ultra-nationalists forced Europe to give serious consideration to the threat of direct military confrontation with the Russian Federation.

One of the main goals of Russian disinformation campaign is to cut Western aid to Ukraine. Russia tries to discredit the military-political leadership of our country and manipulates the discussions on sensitive topics to draw attention away from its war crimes, as well as undermines international support and destabilizes the situation in Ukraine.

In the following sections we will talk about the context and purpose of key Russian narratives that were disseminated in January.

Enslavement of “brotherly nation”

Russia openly declared the real purpose of the “special military operation” is territorial expansion and depopulation of Ukraine. In practical terms, there is much more to it than denazification and demilitarization. During an interview with Russian propagandists, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov acknowledged the destruction of “ideology of three fraternal nations”, which was allegedly caused by the actions of the Anglo-Saxons and the collapse of the USSR. This gave the Kremlin reason to believe that the war is the only way a divided nation can be reunited.

However, Russians exalt themselves to the status of a superior race even within the framework of so-called “fraternal coexistence”. The sick collective mind of political leadership of the Russian Federation considers Ukrainians part of the Russian people and there was no time in history where they existed as a separate nation.

Furthermore, the Kremlin propagandists deliberately distorted the meaning of Volodymyr Zelensky’s decree on preserving the identity of Ukrainians in Russia and presented it as Ukraine’s territorial claims. In fact, the presidential decree refers to the systematic oppression of Ukrainians residing in the territories historically populated by them within the Russian Federation. This document doesn’t put forward any territorial claims, as falsely alleged by Russian ultranationalists.

In their turn, the Russian leaders aren’t ready to abandon the policy of territorial acquisitions that they have been “implementing for the past year and a half”. Moreover, the ex-president of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev expressly said that the existence of Ukraine is fatally dangerous for Ukrainians themselves because the presence of such independent state on the historical Russian territories will always serve as a ground for military action.

“Life in a large common state, which they don’t really like now, is better than death. Better than their deaths and the deaths of their loved ones. The sooner Ukrainians realize this fact, the better,” Medvedev wrote in his Telegram channel.

This manifesto of the genocide of Ukrainians openly declared by Russia is reminiscent of the policies of the Third Reich. Any Kremlin’s statements about the possibility of peaceful and harmonious coexistence of Ukrainians and Russians are aimed at manipulating public opinion, particularly in Ukraine.

For example, Russia’s UN ambassador Vasily Nebenzya expressed sympathy for the “fraternal Ukrainian people” on repeated occasions, but he pointed to “corrupt national leadership” as the reason why ordinary Ukrainians suffer. According to Nebenzya, Russia’s task is to prevent the “Kyiv junta” from annihilating their nation, while the Ukrainian language and culture are in no danger.

During the conversation with Russian servicemen, Vladimir Putin said that the Russian Federation doesn’t consider Ukraine an enemy state, but Western countries want to destroy Russia and divide it into parts. As we can see, Russia has developed a habit of portraying Ukraine as a mere pawn in its confrontation with the West.

Russia wants to disguise the true expansionist purpose of “special military operation” and worsen Ukrainians’ attitude towards Western partners by falsely calling them “beneficiaries” of prolonged hostilities. Russian authorities also try to increase the level of public dissatisfaction with the political leadership in Ukraine in hopes of destabilizing the situation in our country.

“The majority of Ukrainians are beginning to understand who the real enemy is, who has been brainwashing them for many years, who has been intimidating them, telling scare stories and lying about Russia, ‘cancelling’ our common history,” Sergey Lavrov said at the meeting of the UN Security Council.

False negotiations and denying aggressive intentions

Much of the Russian rhetoric in January centered around a negotiated settlement of military conflict. Russians have repeatedly emphasized that they are “ready to start negotiations”, but their calls for negotiations involve the accomplishment of preliminary conditions that are tantamount to the surrender of Ukraine.

Russia’s vigorous activity in this regard can be partly attributed to the regular meeting of representatives of more than 80 states and international organizations that held a round of negotiations on Ukraine’s peace formula in Davos, Switzerland. This event was a logical follow-up to last year’s meetings in Copenhagen, Jeddah and Malta.

As a result, Switzerland confirmed its intentions to organize a global peace summit on Ukraine at leaders’ level. In response, the political leadership of Russia pushed out a message that “Russia doesn’t decline negotiation”, “the discussion about peaceful settlement is impossible without the participation of Russia”, “they are trying to force us to leave Russian people at the mercy of Ukrainian Nazis”.

Such meetings and talks on peaceful settlement send the Russian officials into panic mode because they are afraid that the West will reach a consensus agreement with the countries of the Global South, which are the focal point of foreign policy pursued by the aggressor state. The spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova has repeatedly voiced a hope that “our partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America are aware of the actual state of affairs and won’t allow anyone to draw them into overtly anti-Russian initiatives”.

However, Russia has no intention of conducting negotiations in good faith. At the UN Security Council meeting, Sergey Lavrov declared that Russia is interested only in those negotiations that will lead to the overthrow of the current Ukrainian government. Maria Zakharova demanded a “neutral” Ukraine and “respect for Ukrainian citizens of all nationalities”. When asked to comment on the fact that more than 140 countries condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at the UN General Assembly session, Lavrov said that “it doesn’t matter to us what they voted for”.

In parallel to imitating the peaceful negotiations initiative, the Kremlin accuses Ukraine of refusing to settle the conflict by diplomatic means. Russians are trying to persuade the West into betraying Kyiv or they are simply buying some more time to regain strength. Military analysts still hold the opinion that any ceasefire will be beneficial to the Russian Federation, which is why Russians spread messages “signaling Putin’s openness to ceasefire talks” in the Western media, but the aggressor state failed to achieve the desired effect.

Quite the contrary, more and more politicians believe that Vladimir Putin will continue waging wars until he dies, and the current world events are reminiscent of the 1930s, when the West tried to appease Adolf Hitler in the lead up to World War II. In view of regular threats that are being launched by Russians, NATO countries began to consider the war with Russia as a realistic scenario.

In January, Dmitry Medvedev threatened to use nuclear weapons against the EU countries and declare war on Great Britain in the event of deployment of British troops to Ukraine. Furthermore, Russian officials consistently intimidate Finland and create an information environment that escalates tensions in relationship with the Baltic states, which have expressed their intention to deport some Russian citizens due to non-compliance with the migration law.

As we can see, Russia uses the concept of “compatriots abroad” for geopolitical confrontation with the West and exploits the narrative about fight against so-called “global Nazism” with ever increasing frequency. During the commemoration of 80th anniversary of lifting of the blockade of Leningrad, Vladimir Putin talked about oppression of Russian people in the Baltic states, glorification of Hitler’s manuals in Kyiv and Russophobia in Europe.

“We will do everything to stop and eradicate Nazism once and for all,” said the Russian dictator.

At the same time, official representatives of Russia on the international stage categorically deny the possibility of launching an attack on NATO while ignoring the statements made by Russian politicians who, in fact, sparked fear of Russian invasion. In their turn, Russian propagandists push the following narrative: they say that Western countries raised the topic of Russia’s attack on NATO out of the desire to hammer out an agreement on the allocation of funds to Ukraine.

“Western countries believe that members of the U.S. Congress can be easily intimidated into adopting a compromise decision on the allocation of 60 billion dollars for Ukraine with the help of this fairy tale, fiction story,” Sergey Lavrov said.

On January 22, the North Atlantic Alliance commenced the largest military exercises in decades under the code name “Steadfast Defender 2024”, which will simulate a Russian attack on the territory of NATO ally with the subsequent invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty on collective defense obligations.

Such actions of NATO forces drew an immediate response from Russian officials who tried to present them as a provocative act. They said that the conduct of military exercises on the borders of Russia and Belarus “provokes the war of nerves”, increases the risk of military incidents and can lead to tragic consequences. Russian foreign service stated that by doing so the North Atlantic Alliance is trying to justify its existence in the eyes of millions of Europeans and Americans, as well as divert public attention from its failures in hybrid war against Russia.

Aggressive actions of the Russian Federation lead to further expansion of NATO. Last month, Turkey finally approved Sweden’s bid to join NATO which took Sweden one step closer to becoming a member of the Alliance. Once again, this triggered aggressive reaction on the Russian side: they said that NATO membership will hardly make the Swedes feel safer.

Maria Zakharova gave the following comment on the progress of Sweden’s accession to NATO: “We won’t allow anyone to weaken our security… We will take political and military-technical countermeasures to eliminate any threats to our national defense capability.”

Bloody special operations: more victims – less aid

Russia’s priority goal is to weaken the West’s determination to continue sending military aid to Ukraine. With this aim in view, the Kremlin propagandists are conducting a large-scale disinformation campaign in order to raise doubts about Ukraine’s ability to use Western weapons.

Sergey Lavrov’s official visit to the UN Security Council was preceded by the shelling of Donetsk which led to dozens of civilian casualties. On January 21, the Russians launched a missile attack on public gathering places ­­– but based on the facts “established” by Russia, the missiles were fired on Donetsk from the direction of Avdiivka “using various types of weapons supplied by the West”.

As was to be expected, Lavrov made mention of this tragic shelling episode in his speech at the UN Security Council and referred to military support for Ukraine as a key factor preventing a peaceful settlement of the “crisis”. Meanwhile, the State Duma deputies adopted an appeal to the international organizations and national parliaments around the world in connection with “criminal attacks launched by the armed forces of Ukraine”.

However, the united press center of Security and Defense Forces of Ukraine reported that the Armed Forces of Ukraine didn’t conduct any combat operations in Donetsk area on December 21, 2023, and emphasized that Russia shall be held liable for killing Ukrainian civilians. It is typical of Putin’s regime to conduct bloody operations and have no scruples about using weapons for political purposes, as was the case in Beslam, Nord Ost, etc.

Furthermore, the Russian dictator claimed that Ukraine’s attacks on civilians are intended to demonstrate Ukrainian leadership’s “ability to respond to Russia’s actions” to the people of Ukraine and foreign “sponsors” that provide money, weapons and ammunition. “Instead of accomplishing military goals, they [Ukrainians] act in a barbarian way and attack peaceful population centers,” said the head of the Kremlin.

In their turn, Putin’s cronies keep telling lies about Russia’s “precision-strike” attacks on Ukrainian military targets and say that the Armed forces of Ukraine are to blame for placing air-defense systems near civilian buildings, leading to civilian casualties.

Russian propaganda campaign also touched upon even more sensitive topic. On January 24, the Kremlin accused Ukraine of shooting down a Russian Il-76 military plane near Belgorod with the use of western weapons, resulting in death of Ukrainian prisoners of war. A pre-planned information attack is evidenced Judging by the scale and synchronicity of distributed statements, it is safe to assume that this information attack was planned in advance. The corresponding statements were published by the State Duma, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, the Kremlin and other crazy propagandists almost simultaneously.

During the press conference in New York, Sergey Lavrov accused the Kyiv regime of using terrorist methods and submitted a request for emergency UN Security Council meeting. Russian diplomat Dmitry Polyansky referred to the downing of the Il-76 plane as a terrorist attack which was carefully planned and carried out by the Ukrainian military using an anti-aircraft missile complex.

“They used either American Patriot missiles or German Iris-T missiles. If it is confirmed, the Western suppliers of missiles will be qualified as co-perpetrators of this war crime in the same way as they are involved in missile attacks on peaceful Russian cities carried out by Ukraine’s armed forces with the use of Western weapons,” said Polyansky.

Until now Russia hasn’t provided any evidence of the presence of Ukrainian war prisoners on board the downed Il-76, refused to show the dead bodies, and turned down the request for international investigation. Therefore, it can be assumed that we are dealing with pre-planned actions aiming to weaken international support for Ukraine, destabilize the situation in our country, and justify the continuation of the so-called “special military operation”.

Such actions are in complete agreement with other efforts of the Russian Federation aimed at discrediting Ukraine. Vladimir Putin put the final touch to the false perspective created by Russian disinformation campaign by making the following statement: “Based on the means of destruction that were found at the scene of crime, we can safely assume that these are anti-aircraft missiles fired from an American Patriot launching system or European (most likely French) air-defense system. This means that they (Ukrainians) are unable to use such systems in the right manner because they didn’t receive proper training abroad or they didn’t train properly by themselves.”

Frequently Asked Question

What is the context of Russia’s war speeches in January 2023?

In January 2023, Russian leaders, particularly President Vladimir Putin, delivered speeches justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They often framed the war as a fight against NATO expansion, portraying Russia as defending itself against Western aggression. These speeches are used to rally domestic support and justify the conflict.

Did Russia negotiate with Ukraine or NATO in January 2023?

No, in January 2023, there were no direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine or with NATO. Russia rejected peace talks with Ukraine, demanding Ukraine’s demilitarization and “denazification,” while NATO’s involvement was viewed by Russia as a threat to its security. NATO members, on the other hand, continued to provide support to Ukraine.

What role did NATO play in the conflict, according to Russia?

Russia frequently claimed that NATO’s support for Ukraine—through arms supplies, training, and intelligence-sharing—escalated the conflict. Russia often depicted NATO as an active participant in the war, though NATO was not directly involved in combat, only providing defensive aid to Ukraine.

Did Russia acknowledge Ukraine’s sovereignty in its January speeches?

Russia consistently denied Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence in its rhetoric. Russian leaders argued that Ukraine was historically part of Russia and implied that its existence as a separate state was a result of Western manipulation, particularly through NATO’s influence.

What were Russia’s false claims about Ukraine’s government in January 2023?

Russia spread disinformation claiming that the Ukrainian government was controlled by neo-Nazis and that it was committing genocide against Russian-speaking populations. These claims were widely debunked by independent international observers and are seen as propaganda to justify the invasion.

How did Russia justify its military actions in Ukraine?

Russia justified its military actions as a “special military operation” aimed at protecting Russian-speaking communities in Ukraine and preventing Ukraine from joining NATO. Putin’s government claimed that Ukraine was being manipulated by the West and was a threat to Russia’s security.

What did Russia lie about in January 2023?

One key lie was that NATO was actively fighting Russia in Ukraine, which was not the case. While NATO supported Ukraine with weapons and training, no NATO forces were directly involved in combat. Additionally, Russia’s portrayal of Ukraine as a fascist state and the notion that Russian actions were liberating Ukrainians were also false and misleading narratives.

Conclusion

Russia’s statements in January 2023 were largely shaped by propaganda intended to justify its invasion of Ukraine. The rhetoric often framed NATO as a primary antagonist, falsely claiming that NATO was directly involved in the conflict and accusing Ukraine of being a puppet state under Western control. Russia’s false narratives about Ukraine’s sovereignty, government, and the war’s motivations were used to galvanize domestic support and obscure the realities of its military actions.

Despite Russia’s claims, no direct negotiations took place between Russia and Ukraine, and NATO’s role remained that of providing defensive assistance to Ukraine, not engaging in combat. The disinformation campaign surrounding Ukraine’s government, particularly the baseless accusations of neo-Nazism and genocide, further distorted the true nature of the conflict. Ultimately, these lies were part of a broader strategy to maintain internal control, discredit Ukraine, and justify the ongoing war to the Russian public and the world.

Public Views on Ukraine and U.S. Involvement in Russia-Ukraine War The Russia-Ukraine war has created a deeply divided global landscape, with public opinion varying greatly about the role of the United States in supporting Ukraine. While many Americans view the conflict as a critical geopolitical challenge, there are significant differences in how the U.S. should engage. With the war entering its third year, what do the latest polls tell us about how the U.S. public views the situation in Ukraine? And how do those opinions influence U.S. involvement moving forward?

U.S. Views on Support for Ukraine

Approximately 31% of Americans now believe the U.S. is providing too much support to Ukraine, a significant increase from just 7% in March 2022, right after Russia’s invasion. Meanwhile, 25% feel the support is just right, and 24% think it’s insufficient. Around 18% of Americans remain unsure.

In March 2022, nearly 42% of Americans thought the U.S. wasn’t doing enough to help Ukraine, a view that has since dropped by nearly 20 percentage points. The shift reflects growing concerns over the extent of U.S. involvement, as more people now question the level of support being offered.

Partisan Differences on U.S. Support for Ukraine

The partisan divide is evident. Half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (49%) believe the U.S. is giving too much aid to Ukraine, compared to only 16% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning individuals. In contrast, 36% of Democrats now think the U.S. isn’t providing enough support—an increase from 24% in November 2023.

Among Republicans, conservative Republicans are more likely to oppose Ukraine aid (54%) than moderate or liberal Republicans (40%). Similarly, liberal Democrats (11%) are less likely to think the U.S. is providing too much assistance compared to conservative and moderate Democrats (54%).

Younger Americans from both parties are also more likely to say that the U.S. is providing excessive support and to express uncertainty on the matter.

Concerns About Russia’s Expansion and Ukraine’s Future

Concerns over Russia’s potential to defeat Ukraine have been rising, with 44% of Americans extremely or very concerned about a Russian victory and takeover of Ukraine. This marks a 6% increase since September 2022 but remains below the 55% who held similar concerns in April 2022. The rise in worry is especially notable among Democrats, where 55% express strong concern, up by 10 percentage points since the previous year.

Republicans show less concern, with only 35% deeply worried about a Russian victory. Liberals are notably more concerned than conservatives and moderates on both sides of the political spectrum.

Worries About Russia Invading Other Countries

Americans are also more concerned about the possibility of Russia invading additional countries in the region. 48% of Americans now express extreme concern about this threat, an increase from 41% in September 2022. However, this is still lower than the 59% who were concerned early in the war, in April 2022.

The concern is especially high among liberal Democrats, with 58% extremely or very worried, compared to 41% of conservative Republicans. Additionally, older Americans (ages 65 and older) are more likely to be alarmed by Russia’s potential actions, with 61% expressing deep concern, compared to 41% of younger adults under 30.

U.S. Support for Ukraine: A Divided Landscape

As of early 2024, surveys show that Americans remain divided in their support for Ukraine, despite overwhelming international sympathy for Ukraine’s sovereignty. According to a recent University of Maryland poll, 62% of Americans expressed sympathy for Ukraine, with an even higher number of Democrats supporting Ukrainian resilience against Russian aggression. However, partisan differences are evident. While 76% of Democrats sympathize with Ukraine, only 58% of Republicans share the same sentiment. In contrast, just 2% of Americans reported sympathy for Russia in this conflict.

Increased U.S. Support for Ukraine: A Growing Trend

Over the course of the war, U.S. public opinion has shown a shift in favor of continued support for Ukraine. While early opinions were mixed, 48% of Americans now favor long-term U.S. support for Ukraine, according to the latest polling from the University of Maryland’s Critical Issues Poll. This figure includes 37% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats, highlighting the increasing bipartisan consensus. Despite political polarization at home, U.S. support for Ukraine has strengthened, with a growing belief that U.S. assistance is crucial in preventing further Russian advances in the region.

Challenges to U.S. Support: Partisan Divides and Election Politics

While many Americans favor continued support for Ukraine, partisan divides remain a significant factor in shaping views of U.S. involvement. As the U.S. heads into the 2024 election cycle, Republican candidates have voiced opposition to additional military aid for Ukraine, with figures like Donald Trump proposing that the U.S. should focus on domestic issues rather than engaging in foreign conflicts. This political shift has led to Republicans’ decreased support for U.S. involvement, particularly regarding financial aid and military assistance to Ukraine.

On the other hand, Democrats have largely remained firm in their support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, arguing that the U.S. should remain a strong ally in the face of Russian aggression. The contrast in party lines reveals a tension that may play a significant role in shaping U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine in the near future.

Ukrainian Public Sentiment: Optimism Amid Adversity

While U.S. public opinion fluctuates, Ukrainians remain resolute and optimistic about their future. Despite Russia’s territorial gains, 58% of Ukrainians believe Ukraine will eventually win the war, bolstered by continued support from Western countries. Ukrainian morale remains strong, especially with increased military aid. If Western weapons and ammunition supplies increase, 69% of Ukrainians believe they can achieve victory over Russia.

In addition to military aid, Ukrainians view membership in the European Union (EU) and NATO as key to securing lasting peace and prosperity. For many Ukrainians, NATO and EU membership are not just political goals—they represent international recognition of Ukraine’s struggles and sacrifices.

May you also like it:

The Meaning of Sovereignty: Ukrainian and European views of Russia’s War on Ukraine

More Americans want the US to stay the course in Ukraine as long as it takes

IRI Ukraine Poll: Strong Support for Victory, EU, and NATO Membership

Conclusion

While American and Ukrainian public opinions on the Russia-Ukraine war diverge in terms of objectives and desired outcomes, both publics share common ground in their desire for a resolution that favors Ukraine’s sovereignty and stability. Bipartisan support in the U.S. for continued assistance has grown, but political divides—especially in the Republican camp—could present obstacles to future U.S. involvement.

For U.S. policymakers, understanding these differences is key. As Ukrainian resilience continues to inspire, the question remains: How can the U.S. continue to support Ukraine while balancing domestic concerns and international pressures?

FAQs:

What is the current level of U.S. support for Ukraine?

48% of Americans support long-term U.S. involvement in Ukraine, including military aid and diplomatic efforts.

Are Americans divided on supporting Ukraine?

Yes, Republicans and Democrats show notable differences in their support, with Democrats generally more supportive of Ukraine.

How does the U.S. view Russia’s role in the war?

The majority of Americans sympathize more with Ukraine than with Russia, reflecting a broad consensus against Russian aggression.

What role does the U.S. play in Ukraine’s military efforts?

The U.S. provides military aid, ammunition, and economic support to Ukraine, contributing significantly to the war effort.

Do Ukrainians want NATO membership?

Yes, NATO membership is viewed by most Ukrainians as a necessary step toward securing peace and recognizing their sacrifices.

What challenges does the U.S. face in supporting Ukraine?

Partisan divides, the election season, and domestic political concerns complicate U.S. policy on supporting Ukraine.

October 2023 was rich in foreign policy events and geopolitical shifts. Lack of consensus in the USA about further support to Ukraine, election of a pro-Russian government in Slovakia, unbending pro-Kremlin policy in Hungary, and intensified hostilities in the Middle East may affect the agenda in the Russia-Ukraine war.

At the same time, military support to Ukraine remains unchanged. Today, it predominantly focuses on the reinforcement of air defense, with account for threats to Ukraine’s energy sector.

Ukraine is trying to reach a fair end to the war by promoting our own “peace formula”.

Russia does not show any willingness to stop military invasion but continues to seize Ukrainian lands. Russia targeted their foreign effort to reduce support to Ukraine and search for new allies. Kremlin puts a stake on the protracted war, global instability, and fatigue of the West from Ukraine. All of it has to send a signal for more decisive action from international community to stop the key source of global destabilization.

Ukraine preparing for the “worst ever winter in history” and scaling its own “peace formula”

In October, Ukraine continued to prepare for possible missile strikes at energy infrastructure. Kyiv is certain that Russia who last year attacked about 70 major energy facilities and caused damage for almost USD 9 bln, will make another attempt to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. This position is shared by the EU and NATO. Thus, the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, believes that Putin is preparing to use winter as weapons, again. He wants to target the energy system and the gas infrastructure of Ukraine. according to Ukrainian and British intelligence, Russians are trying to accumulate the resources for that: Moscow has not been using missiles for attacks for some time now, to target Ukrainian civilian and military infrastructure, but they mostly use drones. However, according to estimates the Defence Express, from May to September, 2023, Russia launched almost 600 cruise missiles at Ukraine.

In order to prepare for the “worst ever winter,” Ukraine and partners reinforce energy infrastructure and air defense. According to The Economist, within the first component Ukraine produced and ordered 100 high voltage transformers to replace the destroyed units. Most of them are stored in Poland and Romania. In parallel, UK are training Ukrainian engineers to protect the energy system. Azerbaijan, Japan, Germany, USA, and EU provided to Ukraine either equipment (transformers, solar panels, etc.) or financial assistance for at least USD 650 mln to restore the energy infrastructure.

Moreover, Ukrainian private energy company DTEK anticipates this winter to be more difficult than last year because of more intense shelling, thus investing the unprecedented UAH 20 bln into the winterization for 2023/24. The investment was made into the repairs of TTPs, extraction of coal, oil, and gas. In addition, because of the last year’s shelling, Ukrainian energy system has lower backup capacity. That is why energy sector also expects to rely on the reinforced air defense.

The reinforcement of air defense was made a key priority, among others, during the recent meeting of the Ukraine Defense Group (Ramstein format) on October, 11, in Brussels. Following the meeting, Ukraine will receive additional air defense systems Patriot and IRIS-T from Germany, and 6 Hawk systems from Spain. In addition, it was reported that Ukraine will be able to rent air defense systems for winter season from several countries. In total, following the recent Ramstein, our country will be allocated with USD 500 mln worth military assistance. The packages include 155 mm and 105 mm artillery shells, high precision aircraft munition, anti-drone systems, armored vehicles, small arms, etc.

In October, Ukraine also received from the USA the ATACMS missiles designed for the range of up to 160 km. Shortly after, the Ukrainian Army struck the airfields in the occupied cities of Berdyansk and Luhansk, where they hit 9 russian helicopters, the air defense system, and runways. Besides, Ukraine made and agreement with Romania about the fast track training program of Ukrainian pilots for F-16.

Another significant process is to promote Ukrainian Peace Formula. Thus, on October, 28–29, a meeting took place on Malta among foreign policy and national security advisers about the implementation of Ukraine-suggested plan to end the war and establish lasting peace. It was the third meeting following the encounters in Copenhagen (Denmark) and Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) earlier this year. In general, the event was attended by diplomats from 66 countries, which is ab. 30% more than during the previous meeting in Jeddah. According to President Volodymyr Zelensky, it shows that the Ukrainian Peace Formula is going global as the meeting had representatives from all continents, including Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Interestingly enough, but Armenia joined the meeting for the first time, as they got disillusioned about Russia as an ally. Therefore, they are trying to shift the focus of their foreign policy towards the West.

Malta meeting participants were presented the developments on 5 key positions. When implemented, they will contribute to the establishment of sustainable, just, and comprehensive peace. They talked about nuclear and radiation security, food security, energy security, the release of all captured and deported persons, the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and global order.

For example, to restore territorial integrity of Ukraine, they suggested the following:

to reform the UN Security Council and restrict the veto power for its permanent members;

to enhance the role of the International Criminal Court and recognize its jurisdiction and decisions;

to create an early prevention system about actions compromising sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.

Russia used HAMAS attack on Israel to discredit Ukraine. Slovakia and Hungary play along the aggressor.

Early last month, the HAMAS Palestinian group guerrillas orchestrated a massive attack against Israel that appalled the world with its cruelty. At the same time, in line with their regular line, Kremlin tried to benefit from the conflict. Thus, in the first conversation with the Israeli Prime Minister after the guerilla attack, Vladimir Putin said that the RF is allegedly taking steps to “facilitate in normalizing the situation and prevent any further escalation between Israel and HAMAS fighters.” Regardless, Russia later tried to promote a resolution in the UN Security Council that ignores HAMAS terrorism, and also suggested amendments to other resolutions. At the same time, russia’s permanent representative in the Council, Vasily Nebenzya, told that the conflict in Israel is beneficial for the USA and their defense industry.

In addition, Russia accused Ukraine of the fact that Western weapons land in the hands of HAMAS fighters. To confirm that, Kremlin transferred to the terrorists the weapons seized in Ukraine, and then shared fake allegations for the allegedly regular sales of western weapons to terrorists. They claimed that because the Ukrainian authorities are corrupt, military assistance is spreading around the world and gets into black markets.

The war in Israel was used by Russia as another pretext to accuse official Washington of neglecting conflicts in the Middle east with the focus shifted to Ukraine.

Another highly discussed topic of last month was the continued assistance to Ukraine from the USA. Thus, on October, 20, Joe Biden addressed the Congress with a request for almost USD 105 bln to finance the assistance to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and security of U.S. borders. At the same time, a big share of the budget (over USD 61 bln) was planned for the assistance to our country.

A day before, the U.S. President addressed the nation and called on the Congress to show unity in the matter of assisting Ukraine, and called this moment a turning point, a “battle between global democracies and autocracies.” He also reiterated that the money spent is the “smart investment that will bring dividends to U.S. security for many generations to come.”

Unfortunately, despite the huge effort of the White House, the assistance package proposed by Biden has not been adopted yet. Moreover, there is no understanding about when it could possibly be adopted, and whether it would be adopted at all. On the one hand, the U.S. political environment lacks sufficient agreement about the combination of assistance packages for Ukraine and Israel. On the other hand, USA has not adopted the final budget. At the same time, the possibility of the shutdown is growing every day. It will directly affect support to Ukraine. However, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, is rather optimistic about the continued support to our state.

Nevertheless, it looks like there is one less partner state willing to provide weapons to Ukraine. Thus, in the end of October, Slovakia adopted a new composition of the government led by the Smer-SD party leader, Robert Fico. The new Prime Minister, the same as many members of his Cabinet, is known for some anti-Ukrainian statements in the past. Upon his coming to power, he predictably said that the “new Slovakian government would not support Ukraine in the military needs, and will rather focus on humanitarian assistance.”

Slovakian government leader also said he was not going to vote in the EU for “any sanctions” against Russia without impact assessment for the EU MS,and also told about corruption in Ukraine.

Notably, in October, an overt enemy of Ukraine, Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, met Vladimir Putin in China, and shook his hand. Moreover, Hungary’s Foreign Minister, Peter Szijjarto, had his second visit in a year to Belarus, allegedly to “maintain the communication channels.” In addition, Orban said that Ukraine would not win in the front, and also compared Hungary’s membership in the EU with the Soviet occupation.

Despite that, Kremlin risks losing a partner in another part of the world – Armenia. National Assembly of Armenia passed a draft law on the ratification of Rome Statute. Therefore, Armenia will have to enforce the arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, Armenian Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, said his state was ready to the rapprochement with the European Union.

In conclusion, we must highlight that in the end of October, Foreign Ministers of Central Asia states, such as Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, agreed to continue the cooperation with the EU MS to combat russia’s attempts to circumvent sanctions. Growing cooperation in this area may send a serious blow at the Russian military and defense industry.

Strategy of Russian “Victory”: Cheap Russians and Global Instability

In contrast, Kremlin does not reject its imperialistic aspirations and they are ready to invest increasingly more human, political, and economic resources.

Last month showed that Russia is not capable of reaching just peace, and the war has now become a mode of survival for the dictatorship regime. Because of internal repressions, support of militarist attitudes inside the country, and internal propaganda to Russian elites, they still manage to maintain the overall public support for the invasion into Ukraine.

According to the survey of a Russian think tank Levada Center, as few as 34% of Russians support the cessation of war with the occupied territories to be returned to Ukraine. Hence, all official statements of Russian government about the alleged readiness for peaceful resolution of the war imply at least territorial losses for Ukraine.

Reaching the goals of the so-called “special operation” through agreements would be the most beneficial scenario for the Kremlin. However, Ukrainian society is not ready to come to terms with the arbitrary violation of international law and multiple crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine by Russian troops. It remains a priority for Moscow to keep the seized Ukrainian territories, despite the human loss.

Kremlin evaluates the lives of Russian citizen as cheap. That is why crossing a psychological threshold of 300,000 killed citizens in October failed to yield the wanted results. Even the Chief Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, admitted that he was mistaken to rely on draining Russian troops. Moscow pays no regard to the losses. It can be confirmed by the “cannon fodder” assaults at Avdiyivka, where the aggressor lost at least a brigade, without major gains.

No one is surprised by the new evidence to executing Russian soldiers for attempts to retreat under the fire of Ukrainian artillery shelling. Moreover, Russian authorities expand mobilization plans but mostly due to contract-based service.

Kremlin is ready to announce a new wave of mobilization but is still hesitant about doing it, given the social and political settings, such as the presidential elections next spring.

Increased numbers of Russian soldiers are ensured due to recruiting to contract-based service the vulnerable social groups (migrants, bankrupt individuals, debtors, unemployed persons, etc.), women, mercenaries from other countries, and “volunteers” to the Redut PMC, effectively replacing the Wagner PMC. As of today, Russia managed to accumulate 400,000 soldiers in Ukraine.

At the same time, Russian foreign policy line primarily focuses on reducing support to Ukraine. at the Valdaj club meeting, Vladimir Putin openly stated he expected when the West would stop supporting Ukraine, because in that case, our country would allegedly have “only one week to live”. Russian propagandists use all possible international and internal platforms to discredit Ukraine and promote messages claiming that supplies of western weapons to Ukraine would not change the situation.

Besides, trying to reduce further military support to Ukraine from the West, Russian Federation is more often referring to nuclear weapons. In October, Russia revoked the ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and conducted military training of strategic deterrence forces. Russian authorities even resorted to direct threats of nuclear confrontation claiming that would deny all chances for survival for Russia’s adversaries. However, in the settings of sanctions, Russia must think about survival and search for resources to be able to continue the war. The aggressor has already spent USD 167 bln for the war, and the defense expenses for 2024 will be about 6% of GDP.

The blown-up military budget of the RF in the settings of sanctions will likely aggravate the pressure from inflation and the economic situation. The government already faces the need to keep the rouble from dropping, such as obliging individual major exporters to sell foreign currency proceeds.

Such conditions, and also international isolation, make Russia re-orient their foreign policy effort to partnerships with Iran, KNDR, China, and Belarus. The aggressor is also trying to maintain close relations with countries that are members of such associations as SCO, EUEU, BRICS, CIS.

Deepening relations between Russia and the KNDR is especially alarming. In addition to the confirmed supply of Korean munition to Russia, Pyongyang may receive from Moscow advanced technologies related to the intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines with nuclear ballistic missiles, and military reconnaissance satellites, which jeopardizes stability and security in the Indo-Pacific region, in Europe, and all over the world.

In parallel, Russia is using Belarus to increase the production of munitions, intensifies relations with Iran to obtain and manufacture drones on their territory, deepens economic relations with China. Russia’s volume of trade with China has been growing. Although Beijing is guided by their own interests in the first place, the relations help Russian authorities adapt to international pressure.

At the same time, Kremlin continues to present Russia as a separate civilization to be the core for a new world order and which requires protection from external enemies.

According to the Russian position, the essence of the “Ukrainian crisis” is not about any territorial disputes but about the principles for building global agenda. Russian authorities invested much effort into dividing global community, to cause more chaos and lack of understanding. Building a new geopolitical order against the advantage of the “collective West” is a strategic plan of the dictatorship.

With regard to current foreign policy dynamics, current regime in Russia is becoming increasingly more dangerous for global security. The democratic world must make timely critical decisions, although they are not always easy to make, in order to reduce Russia’s presence in external platforms and eventually ensure its strategic defeat.

Frequently Asked Question

What are the main political implications of Russia’s war against Ukraine in October 2024?

The war has significantly impacted global political dynamics, creating deep divides between Russia and Western countries. Western nations, including NATO, continue to provide Ukraine with military and economic support. This has led to a broader geopolitical rivalry, primarily between Russia and the U.S.-led Western bloc, resulting in sanctions, diplomatic isolation for Russia, and growing tensions in international relations.

How have Russia’s speeches affected global diplomacy?

Russian speeches often portray the conflict as a defense of national sovereignty against Western encroachment, using rhetoric to justify military actions. This has been a tool for galvanizing domestic support, but it has further strained relations with the West, diminishing diplomatic avenues. The U.N. and other international organizations have been divided, with some supporting Ukraine and others remaining neutral or aligning with Russia.

What diplomatic efforts have been made to end the war?

Diplomatic talks have been limited and have often failed to yield a lasting ceasefire or peace agreement. High-level summits and back-channel negotiations have taken place, involving intermediaries like Turkey and France, but Russia’s terms, including the recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, remain a major point of contention for Ukraine and its allies.

How has the war affected Russia’s relationships with other countries?

Russia’s relationship with many European and Western countries has soured, as these nations impose harsh sanctions and provide military support to Ukraine. However, Russia has strengthened ties with China, India, and other countries that maintain a more neutral or supportive stance towards Moscow. These relationships have been crucial in mitigating the impact of Western sanctions.

What role does NATO play in the conflict, and how do Russian speeches target it?

NATO has been a central actor in providing Ukraine with weapons, intelligence, and economic aid, which Russia views as a direct threat. Russian speeches often criticize NATO expansion and frame the conflict as a defense against NATO’s supposed encirclement of Russia. This rhetoric is used to justify aggressive military tactics and heighten nationalistic sentiments within Russia.

What are the economic consequences of the war on Russia and the global economy?

The war has led to severe sanctions on Russia, isolating it economically from much of the world, reducing its access to markets, and significantly impacting its energy exports. The global economy has also been affected by disruptions in energy supplies, inflation, and food security concerns due to the war’s impact on grain exports from Ukraine and Russia.

How does public opinion in Russia and Ukraine influence their governments’ positions?

In Russia, government speeches are designed to maintain public support for the war by framing it as necessary for national security. However, internal dissent has increased as the war progresses. In Ukraine, public opinion is strongly supportive of defending territorial integrity, which drives the government’s commitment to resist Russian advances. International pressure and public opinion also influence both governments’ diplomatic and military decisions.

Conclusion

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, particularly in October 2024, has had profound diplomatic and political consequences globally. Russia’s speeches and justifications for the war continue to shape its domestic and international relations, reinforcing nationalistic sentiment and portraying the conflict as a defense against Western influence. On the other hand, the international community remains deeply divided, with Western nations offering unwavering support to Ukraine, while Russia strengthens ties with countries that have adopted a more neutral or supportive stance.

Efforts at diplomacy have yielded limited results, with Russia’s demands, such as the recognition of Crimea, remaining non-negotiable for Ukraine. The war has further strained Russia’s relationships with Europe and the U.S., while NATO’s role has intensified the geopolitical rivalry. Meanwhile, the global economy has felt the impact of sanctions, energy disruptions, and food security challenges, which exacerbate the global fallout from the conflict.

Ultimately, the war continues to influence not only the political landscapes of Russia and Ukraine but also the broader global order, with lasting effects on international diplomacy, security, and economic stability. The path forward remains uncertain, and the need for effective diplomatic solutions to de-escalate the conflict is more critical than ever.

War Speeches, ATACMS & Abrams for Ukraine, and Russia’s Diplomatic Moves In the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, international diplomatic and military developments are shaping the global response. As the war intensifies, Western countries are significantly ramping up support for Ukraine, with new military aid packages including ATACMS missiles, Abrams tanks, and artillery supplies. Meanwhile, Russia continues to manipulate international platforms like the UN Charter to justify its actions and distance itself from accountability. As these dynamics unfold, the global community is navigating complex political alliances, shifting loyalties, and the future of international law. This article takes a closer look at recent developments, including the Ramstein meeting, Zelensky’s visits to the US and Canada, and the UN General Assembly debates, alongside Russia’s tactics in undermining diplomatic efforts.

Key Military Assistance for Ukraine: Strengthening Defenses

During the week of September 18–24, a new wave of military support for Ukraine was announced, including air defense systems, tanks, armored vehicles, and a potential delivery of ATACMS long-range missiles. This new assistance is crucial as Ukraine continues its defense against Russian aggression.

• ATACMS Missiles: These precision-guided missiles offer Ukraine the ability to strike targets deep within Russian-occupied areas, changing the dynamics on the battlefield.
• Abrams Tanks and Artillery: Countries like Germany, Denmark, and Sweden are sending additional armored vehicles and artillery shells, enhancing Ukraine’s ability to defend against Russian forces.
• IT and Cyber Support: In addition to traditional military aid, a coalition involving Estonia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, and others is focusing on improving Ukraine’s cybersecurity and communications, critical elements for modern warfare.

Countries such as the US, Canada, Germany, and Denmark are also providing tank reinforcements, including Leopard 1, T-72, and Stridsvagn 122 tanks, as well as drones and trucks to ensure operational efficiency on the ground.

Diplomatic Developments: UN General Assembly and Russia’s Manipulation

The high-level sessions of the 78th UN General Assembly were marked by significant speeches and debates on the ongoing war.

• Support for Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity: World leaders reaffirmed their support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity. President Joe Biden of the United States stated that Russia is solely responsible for the war and could end it immediately by ceasing aggression.
• Zelensky’s Call for a “Just Peace”: President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine urged the UN to back Ukraine’s peace plan and criticized Russia’s unyielding position. He reminded the assembly that the global community must hold Russia accountable for its actions, including the deportation of Ukrainian children and its energy and food blackmail.

However, Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, continued to twist the UN Charter and argued that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is no longer valid due to the so-called “coup” that ousted former President Yanukovych, positioning the Russian invasion as a corrective measure.

• Russian “Peace” Proposals: Lavrov reiterated Russia’s position, rejecting any proposals for a ceasefire. The Russian delegation promoted an unacceptable ultimatum-like peace plan, demanding territorial concessions from Ukraine and a non-bloc status for the country.

Ukraine’s Diplomatic Push and Russia’s Loss of Allies

On the diplomatic front, Ukraine’s President Zelensky made visits to both the US and Canada, urging continued support for his country’s defense efforts.

• Financial Assistance: Zelensky met with US lawmakers and President Joe Biden to push for an additional $24 billion in military aid. Biden’s administration also promised to provide a $325 million assistance package, which included critical artillery and air defense systems.
• Canada’s Support: In addition to military supplies, Canada committed to long-term defense assistance, with half a billion USD allocated for Ukraine’s defense needs.

Meanwhile, Russia has faced diplomatic setbacks, including its failure to intervene in Armenia’s conflict with Azerbaijan. Russia’s inaction allowed Azerbaijan to carry out a successful military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh, revealing Russia’s declining influence in the region.

Russia’s Unstable Alliances: Armenia and Georgia

Russia’s diplomatic troubles are not limited to its relationships with NATO countries. Armenia and Georgia, former allies, have grown disillusioned with Russia’s actions.

• Armenia’s Conflict with Azerbaijan: Russia’s failure to support Armenia in its conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh highlighted the weakness of Russia’s role as a regional peacekeeper.
• Georgia’s Political Turmoil: Meanwhile, in Georgia, accusations surfaced that Ukraine was involved in attempts to destabilize the government. Georgia’s ruling party even initiated the impeachment of the country’s pro-European president.

In both cases, Russia’s reluctance to honor its commitments has led to a deterioration of these key alliances, further isolating the country.

May you also like it:

Ukrainian Opinion Survey Tracks Fluctuating Views on Quick End to War

Ukrainian Public Opinion on Compromise with Russia Changing, Researcher Explains

Diplomacy Watch: Ukrainian Public Opinion More Divided Than Ever

Conclusion

The war in Ukraine has become a pivotal issue not only for Ukraine and Russia but for the entire international community. Western countries are increasing their military aid to Ukraine, while Russia is intensifying its diplomatic efforts to manipulate international law and avoid accountability.

• Global Support for Ukraine remains strong, as evidenced by the US, Canada, and EU pledges. The ATACMS missiles, Abrams tanks, and other military aid packages are crucial in giving Ukraine the strength to resist Russian forces.
• Russia’s Manipulation of the UN Charter to justify its invasion has raised concerns among the international community about the future of global diplomacy and security.

As the situation continues to evolve, Ukraine’s peace plan and diplomatic efforts will remain a central focus, while Russia’s weakening alliances and questionable peace proposals will continue to challenge the international order.

FAQs

1. What military aid is Ukraine receiving from Western countries?
Ukraine is receiving various military supplies, including ATACMS long-range missiles, Abrams tanks, Leopard tanks, armored vehicles, and artillery shells. These are crucial to enhancing Ukraine’s defensive capabilities against Russian aggression.

2. What is the importance of the UN General Assembly in the Ukraine conflict?
The UN General Assembly provides a global platform for leaders to discuss the war, with countries reaffirming support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It also allows Ukraine to present its peace plan, while Russia manipulates international law to justify its invasion.

3. How has Russia reacted to Ukraine’s calls for peace?
Russia, through Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, has rejected any ceasefire proposals and presented an unacceptable ultimatum-style peace plan. Russia insists that its actions are justified due to the alleged “coup” in Ukraine and claims it is protecting Russian-speaking populations.

4. What happened with Russia’s alliances in Armenia and Georgia?
Russia’s failure to support Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijan has strained relations. Additionally, Ukraine was accused of interfering in Georgia’s internal politics, leading to a presidential impeachment. These issues reflect Russia’s declining influence in the region.

5. What has President Zelensky’s international outreach achieved?
During visits to the US and Canada, President Zelensky secured significant military and financial commitments, including a $24 billion aid request and a $325 million defense package from the US. Canada also pledged half a billion USD for Ukraine’s long-term defense needs.

6. How is the UN Security Council addressing the war?
The UN Security Council is paralyzed due to Russia’s veto power. Ukraine has called for reforms to overcome this deadlock, suggesting the General Assembly be given more authority to combat aggression and pass preventive sanctions.

Ukrainian Public Opinion on Compromise with Russia Changing, Researcher Explains Two years and seven months into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, public sentiment in Ukraine is gradually shifting regarding the prospect of ending the conflict.

Gerard Toal, an international affairs expert at Virginia Tech, has spent over a decade studying Ukrainian public opinion. His latest research reveals a growing openness among Ukrainians toward negotiating with Russia.

“This shift comes from a place of hardship, not peace,” Toal explains. “Ukrainians do not want to lose, and they don’t want to concede territory to Russia. However, an increasing number, though still not a majority, are acknowledging that some concessions might be necessary to bring the war to an end.”

Toal discusses the evolution of public opinion and what the future might hold for Ukraine in this context.

How Has Ukrainian Public Opinion Changed Over Time?

Toal notes, “We’ve been tracking public opinion in Ukraine for years. After Russia’s invasion in February 2022, there was initially some openness to negotiations. But the discovery of war crimes in Bucha and Irpin in April 2022 hardened those views. Despite that, the war’s prolonged suffering has led to a shift. More Ukrainians are now expressing support for a ceasefire and settlement, even if that involves territorial losses.”

What Challenges Did You Face in Conducting These Surveys?

“Surveying public opinion in wartime is extremely challenging,” Toal explains. “Our Ukrainian research partner faced significant obstacles, including difficulties reaching people, reluctance to speak, and unreliable power supplies. The results we have offer a snapshot of public sentiment, but they don’t capture the full complexity. Many voices are likely missing—people without phones, those hesitant to talk to strangers about the war, or those who simply don’t feel comfortable sharing their true opinions. These factors must be considered.”

What Are the Main Causes Behind the Shifts in Public Opinion?

Toal attributes the shifts in sentiment to “the cumulative human and material toll of the war.” Additionally, he points to the blockage of U.S. aid by the U.S. House of Representatives, which acted as a wake-up call for many Ukrainians. “This led to the realization that international support might not always be guaranteed. Ukrainians didn’t choose this war—it was forced upon them.”

The Changing Landscape of Ukrainian Public Opinion

Historically, Ukrainians have been highly resistant to any form of compromise with Russia due to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. According to recent surveys, however, this steadfast stance is now undergoing noticeable changes.

Key Factors Behind the Shift:

1. War Fatigue: After nearly a decade of conflict, war fatigue has set in. Economic strain, along with the physical and emotional toll of the war, has led some Ukrainians to reconsider the long-term viability of continuing the fight without a diplomatic resolution.
2. Casualty Numbers: High casualties, particularly among civilians, have caused many to question the effectiveness of ongoing military operations. According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, over 60,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died since the beginning of the 2022 invasion, contributing to a shift in public sentiment.
3. Economic Impact: The war has severely impacted Ukraine’s economy, with GDP expected to shrink by 30% in 2025. This economic strain forces many to rethink the costs of prolonged conflict and the potential benefits of negotiating peace.

Research Insights into the Changing Mindset

Experts from institutions like the Ukrainian Institute of Strategic Studies and the Razumkov Center have pointed out that younger generations, who didn’t live through the Soviet era, tend to support negotiations more than their older counterparts. This generational divide highlights the evolving national identity and the shifting priorities of Ukraine’s younger population.

Public Opinion: What Ukrainians Really Think About Compromise

Several surveys conducted in 2024 revealed that nearly 45% of Ukrainians now believe that some form of negotiation with Russia might be necessary to end the war. This is a significant shift from just two years ago when only 25% of the population was open to discussions with Moscow.

Breakdown of Opinions:

• 45% Support Negotiation: The group that now sees a need for some form of dialogue is primarily driven by economic hardships and civilian losses.
• 38% Remain Opposed: Many older citizens and those living in conflict zones still firmly believe in military victory over any form of concession to Russia.
• 17% Undecided: These individuals are uncertain, swayed by current developments and unclear outcomes.

What This Means for Ukraine’s Future

This change in public opinion has profound implications for Ukraine’s strategy moving forward. Researchers warn that the shift towards compromise could be a double-edged sword. On one hand, negotiations might lead to a peaceful resolution and an end to the devastation. On the other hand, giving in to Russian demands might be seen as a betrayal of Ukrainian sovereignty and democracy, risking future political instability.

Conclusion

As Ukrainian public opinion on negotiating with Russia continues to evolve, the country faces crucial decisions about its future direction. While some may view compromise as necessary for peace, others remain committed to the fight for full territorial integrity and sovereignty. Ultimately, the resolution will depend not only on the will of the people but also on the international community’s support and the ongoing realities on the battlefield.

FAQs:

Why is Ukrainian public opinion shifting towards compromise?
Economic strain, high casualties, and war fatigue are leading many Ukrainians to reconsider the costs of continuing the conflict.

How many Ukrainians support negotiating with Russia in 2024?
Around 45% of Ukrainians now support some form of negotiation, up from 25% in 2022.

What role do younger Ukrainians play in this shift?
Younger Ukrainians, who didn’t experience Soviet rule, are more likely to support negotiations with Russia.

What is the impact of the war on Ukraine’s economy?
Ukraine’s GDP is expected to shrink by 30% in 2025 due to the ongoing conflict.

What are the risks of compromising with Russia?
There is a risk that compromise could be seen as undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and lead to political instability.

What is the outlook for Ukraine’s future negotiations?
The future of negotiations will depend on the balance between military outcomes and public sentiment, as well as international support.

Half of Ukrainians Want Quick, Negotiated End to War As the war between Ukraine and Russia stretches into its third year, Ukrainians are showing increasing signs of war fatigue. According to recent surveys conducted by Gallup in August and October 2024, 52% of Ukrainians now support a quick, negotiated end to the war with Russia, marking a significant shift from the country’s early days of defiance. Only 38% want to continue the fight until Ukraine achieves full victory. In this article, we explore the factors driving this change in public opinion and what it might mean for the future of the conflict.

Ukrainians Shift Toward Negotiated Peace

Since the war began in February 2022, Ukraine’s public opinion has undergone a dramatic transformation. Initially, in the face of Russia’s full-scale invasion, 73% of Ukrainians supported continuing the fight until total victory. But as the conflict has dragged on, war weariness has set in. By 2024, support for fighting until victory dropped significantly, with only 38% still holding firm to this stance. Meanwhile, 52% now believe that peace negotiations are the quickest path to ending the war.

This change in sentiment signals a shift from the early defiance toward a more pragmatic approach to the ongoing crisis. Ukrainians have grown increasingly weary of the war’s devastating impact, both in terms of human lives and the country’s infrastructure.

Rising War Fatigue Across Ukraine

Across various regions of Ukraine, support for continuing the fight has been in decline. Even areas most affected by the war, such as the East and South, are seeing diminished enthusiasm for prolonged conflict. In 2024, support for the war has fallen below 50% in all regions. This marks a stark contrast to the earlier days of the conflict when majorities in the East (63%) and South (61%) favored continuing the fight.

The largest drops in support have been observed in regions far from the front lines, like Kyiv (down 39 percentage points) and the West (down 40 points). In contrast, more Ukrainians in the East (63%) are now advocating for an immediate peace settlement over continuing the war (27%).

Willingness to Concede Territory for Peace

As Ukrainians lean toward a negotiated peace, a significant portion of the population is also willing to consider territorial concessions in exchange for an end to the war. Among those supporting negotiations, 52% believe that Ukraine should be open to ceding some of its territory as part of a peace agreement. However, 38% disagree, and 10% remain uncertain about this potential compromise.

Interestingly, even many Ukrainians who continue to support the fight for full victory are beginning to reconsider what “victory” truly means. In 2022 and 2023, nearly all of those who wanted to keep fighting believed “victory” meant regaining all lost territories, including Crimea. By 2024, this view has slightly shifted, with 81% still hoping for complete territorial recovery, a drop from previous years.

Who Should Lead Peace Negotiations?

In the context of peace negotiations, Ukrainians have clear preferences regarding international involvement. 70% of Ukrainians favor the European Union (EU) playing a significant role in peace talks, followed by the United Kingdom at 63%. In comparison, only half of Ukrainians see the U.S. as a key player in these discussions, regardless of whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris is in power.

This suggests a preference for European-led solutions, reflecting Ukraine’s geographical and political ties to the EU and its members. Many Ukrainians believe that their interests will be best protected through the involvement of these key international partners.

The Future of the War: A Question of Resolve and Strategy

Despite the growing support for a negotiated peace, the conflict is far from over. Russia continues to make inroads on the battlefield, and Ukraine’s military strategy remains under intense scrutiny. As the war enters a critical phase, the international landscape is shifting, especially with the upcoming U.S. elections, which could influence future military and financial support for Ukraine.

In September 2024, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed optimism that the war could be nearing its end. Many Ukrainians may hope that his prediction holds true, and that the long-awaited peace agreement is on the horizon.

May you also like it:

War Speeches and Russia’s Lies About Ukraine, NATO, and Negotiations in January

IRI Ukraine Poll: Majorities Believe in Defeating Russia, Support Recapturing Lost Territory

Diplomacy Watch: Ukrainian Public Opinion More Divided Than Ever

Conclusion

As the war continues to drain resources and lives, Ukrainian public opinion has evolved. While many still support the fight for full territorial recovery, an increasing number are advocating for a swift negotiated peace. The prospect of territorial concessions is now on the table for some Ukrainians, further complicating the political landscape.

The future of Ukraine’s conflict with Russia depends on both domestic public sentiment and international diplomatic efforts. With war fatigue growing and international dynamics shifting, the path to peace could become more achievable—if both sides are willing to make compromises.

FAQs:

Why have Ukrainians shifted toward supporting peace negotiations?
War fatigue, economic strain, and the ongoing human toll have led many Ukrainians to favor a quicker end to the war, even if it means making territorial concessions.

What is the current public opinion on continuing the war?
As of 2024, 38% of Ukrainians support continuing the war for full victory, while 52% favor a quick, negotiated peace.

Would Ukrainians be willing to give up territory for peace?
Yes, 52% of Ukrainians supporting a negotiated peace are open to the idea of making some territorial concessions to end the war.

Which foreign countries do Ukrainians want to lead peace talks?
Ukrainians overwhelmingly favor the EU (70%) and the UK (63%) to play leading roles in peace negotiations, rather than the U.S.

What does “victory” mean to Ukrainians in 2024?
While most Ukrainians still desire to regain all lost territory, including Crimea, the percentage of people holding this view has dropped slightly to 81% in 2024.

What could the future hold for Ukraine’s conflict with Russia?
The outcome of the war will depend on both military strategies on the front lines and diplomatic negotiations involving key international players.

Last week (September 25 – October 1), Ukraine announced the creation of the Defense Industries Alliance for weapons manufacturing. The Kremlin hasn’t given up on its imperial ambitions and threatens to capture new territories. For this purpose, the aggressor state plans to spend more than a third of its federal budget funds on the war. 

Despite the growing national debt, Russia still manages to finance the war against Ukraine by way of partially circumventing the sanctions and using third-country companies to import military goods. 

Ukraine’s partners are making efforts to prevent Russia from bypassing sanctions, but the task of enforcing restrictions against Moscow requires closer attention from national governments and the development of a strategy for strengthening sanctions on a permanent basis.

Ukraine is creating an Alliance for weapons production and is working on the matter of strengthening its air defense capabilities 

On September 28, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made an unannounced visit to Kyiv and met with Volodymyr Zelensky to discuss the issues of Euro-Atlantic integration and provision of military assistance to Ukraine. In particular, they talked about the need to strengthen Ukraine’s air defense capabilities before winter comes because Russia is expected to resume attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

Stoltenberg emphasized that at the Vilnius summit, which was held in July 2023, all members of the Alliance agreed that Ukraine will join NATO. According to NATO Secretary General, the Alliance made a historic decision to shorten Ukraine’s path to NATO by removing the requirement to implement a Membership Action Plan. 

Stoltenberg also underlined that NATO member countries continue to provide Ukraine with state-of-the-art capabilities and military equipment, including tanks, missile systems and air defenses, as well as training for F-16 pilots. “This is a collective effort by all NATO allies,” the Secretary General said, noting that of nearly 100 billion euros in military support committed to Ukraine since last year, almost half has come from European NATO allies and Canada. 

In his turn, Volodymyr Zelensky told that he discussed key defense issues with NATO Secretary General. “It is necessary to strengthen the air shield of Ukraine. We discussed the situation in connection with expected Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure,” the President said.

On September 28, the French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu and UK Defense Secretary Grant Shapps also came on a visit to Kyiv. According to Volodymyr Zelensky, the parties discussed the intensification of training of Ukrainian soldiers, the general strategy for winning a war, as well as the possibility of joint production of weapons that are necessary for Ukraine and its partners. 

According to New York Times, NATO member countries are planning to pump up weapons production in Ukraine. The journalists believe that the visits of Stoltenberg as well as French and British defense ministers to Kyiv are closely connected with this plan. According to NYT publication, localization of weapons production is a potentially lucrative prospect for Western manufacturers that will contribute to the economic development of Ukraine.

The U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Julianne Smith said that there is a shortage of some weapons and ammunition due to the ongoing hostilities, and the NATO allies have provided Ukraine with everything they could. Therefore, NATO is developing a plan for the production of the required amount of scarce ammunition for Ukraine and members of the Alliance. 

Meanwhile, German arms manufacturer “Rheinmetall” has confirmed that it received permission from Germany’s Federal Cartel Office to set up a joint venture with the “Ukrainian Defense Industry”. The joint venture will be based in Kyiv and perform maintenance of military equipment received by Ukraine from Germany and other partner countries, as well as assembling, manufacturing and development of new military vehicles. It has also been reported that the industrial conglomerate “Czechoslovak Group” and “Ukrainian armor” are considering the possibility of joint production of the ASCOD infantry fighting vehicles in Ukraine.

On September 30, the first International Forum of Defense Industries (DFNC1) took place in Kyiv, bringing together representatives of 252 companies from more than 30 countries producing a full range of weapons and defense systems. At the Forum, Volodymyr Zelensky announced the creation of the Defense Industries Alliance and the establishment of special Defense Fund. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, 38 companies from 19 countries had already joined the Alliance by the time the Forum closed. 

“Ukrainian companies signed 20 documents with foreign partners. These are agreements and memoranda on the manufacture of drones, repair and production of armored vehicles and ammunition. Cooperation formats include joint production, exchange of technologies and supply of components,” the MFA of Ukraine said in a statement.

According to the President of Ukraine, the special Defense Fund will be replenished through the use of dividends of state-owned defense enterprises and profits from the sale of confiscated Russian assets. The Fund will provide resources for the development of military production and cooperation, creation of new military facilities and implementation of programs necessary for the defense of Ukraine and well-being of Ukrainian soldiers.

Russia maniacally threatens to capture more Ukrainian territories and prepares itself for a long war

585 days since the start of full-scale war, the Russian Federation still wants to speak from a position of strength and spares no human or financial resources. In an interview with TASS news agency, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the aggressor state Sergey Lavrov said that Russia is ready to come to terms, but taking into account the “realities on the ground” and Russia’s security interests. 

That said, Russia has already set a timeline for accomplishment of the “tasks of special operation” through military means. For example, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu spoke at the meeting of Defense Ministry’s Collegium and stated that the Russian army continues increasing its combat capabilities which will allow Russia to achieve the “target goals” by 2025. For this purpose, Russia plans to allocate a record 11 trillion rubles for the army in 2024 – roughly one-third of the federal budget, which means that Russia’s defense spending will hike by 68% compared to 2023.

Moreover, Russian authorities threaten to capture more Ukrainian territories and increase the number of “new regions” in the composition of the Russian Federation. “Special military operation will continue until the total destruction of Nazi Kyiv regime,” Dmitry Medvedev said. 

The Kremlin intends to continue using the services of volunteer units and private military companies in order to increase the size of its armed forces. In particular, on September 29, Vladimir Putin instructed “Wagner” group ex-commander Andrey Troshev to take on the task of forming new “volunteer units”. 

Furthermore, Putin signed a decree on autumn military conscription. A total of 130,000 people are to be called up for mandatory military service in the October-December timeframe. Although Russian conscripts are not supposed to participate in the war, the legislators entitled them to sign a contract with the Ministry of Defense and go fight for Kremlin’s imperial ambitions upon completion of first month of mandatory military service. It seems that the Russian authorities are doing everything to delay the start of mass mobilization.

At the same time, the Russian authorities are trying to regain the initiative on the battlefield. According to a Kremlin insider source cited by the Institute for the Study of War, Putin reportedly gave Sergey Shoigu a deadline of one month (until early October) to improve the situation on the frontline and stop Ukrainian counteroffensive in its tracks. 

However, judging by the current situation on the frontline, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are well on the way to achieving the goals of their offensive operation. The latest statements made by representatives of the defense agencies of Ukraine’s allies drew the ire of Russian officials. In particular, UK Defense Secretary Grant Shapps said that the government wants to send military instructors to Ukraine, while the chair of the Defense Committee at the German Bundestag emphasized that Ukraine has the right to launch long-range Taurus missiles on Russian territory.

In response, Dmitry Medvedev threatened to destroy British instructors and German factories that produce missiles: “These idiots are actively pushing us towards a third world war…” However, later on the Prime Minister of Great Britain Rishi Sunak ruled out the possibility of sending British military specialists to Ukraine – at least in the near future. 

Office of the President of Ukraine is convinced that the Kremlin’s bravura statements are nothing more than mere ambitions. Mykhailo Podolyak, who is an advisor to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, emphasized that “the post-Soviet Russia in the Putin era is a large factory for the production of exported ‘show offs’ that are a way of hypercompensating for their own complexes.”

The Kremlin is constantly trying to convince the domestic audience that the “special military operation” is a success. For this purpose, Russian authorities established a “memorable date” – September 30 – to celebrate the annexation of part of Ukraine’s territory. 

“You preserved and passed on your love for the Motherland to your children. Thanks to you as well as your firmness and determination, Russia has become even stronger,” Putin said in a video message on the occasion of the “day of reunification” of the Russian Federation with four oblasts of Ukraine.

Despite the numerous international crimes it has committed, Russia continues to consider itself a country that shares common European values. Russia diverts attention away from the atrocities committed by its armed forces in Ukraine through the use of propaganda tools and manipulation of public opinion. 

Nevertheless, international investigative bodies have found more evidence of Russian war crimes. Independent international commission on investigation of crimes in Ukraine has confirmed that the Russian military resorted to brutal methods of torture as well as committed rape and sexual violence  against Ukrainians. The Commission has also admitted the possibility of Russia’s genocide of Ukrainians and incitement to genocide.

Russia’s economy and military-industrial complex: sanctions against Russia are working, but it is necessary to take a more systematic approach and tighten sanctions 

Ukraine’s allies continue to exert economic pressure on Russia with the aim of limiting Russia’s ability to wage the war against Ukraine. The federal budget of the aggressor state is already feeling the negative impacts of sanctions: Russia’s national debt has increased by 2.2 rubles over the first six months of 2023, although the planned debt figure for the entire year was 2.5 trillion rubles. As of July 1, 2023, the amount of borrowing exceeded 25 trillion rubles, which is approximately 16.7% of the projected volume of GDP, while the costs of national debt servicing have increased by 4% to 718.1 billion rubles as compared to mid-2022.

At the same time, Russia still manages to get oil and gas revenues. Russian oil continues to rise in price despite a $60 per barrel price cap imposed by the G-7 countries and its allies: Urals oil grade is trading at $85.35 a barrel from the Baltic port of Primorsk and $86 from the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. 

According to Bloomberg, Russia has assembled a so-called “shadow fleet” of tankers operating outside jurisdictions of countries that imposed sanctions in order to bypass the oil price cap. According to Financial Times, such a “shadow fleet” is capable of operating without Western insurance and other services. This allowed Moscow to increase the export prices for its oil in the face of fierce competition on the world market.

Furthermore, approximately two-thirds of Russian crude and petroleum products are being transported with the help of European companies. In order to avoid sanctions, European service providers must obtain appropriate attestations to confirm that the cargo was purchased at a below $60 per barrel cap price, but the majority of them rarely have an idea of the true value of the cargo. 

“More than by the use of ‘shadow fleet’, the impact of the oil price cap has been undermined by a failure of the participating governments to fully enforce the price cap and punish violators,” Bloomberg noted, citing a report by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air.

According to Reuters, Russian producers have restarted regular exports of propane and butane via the Crimean port of Kerch after an eight-year hiatus, despite security threats. The resumption of exports highlights Russia’s ability to cope with international sanctions. 

Last week, it has also transpired that the German-Japanese machine tool manufacturer DMG MORI located in Ulyanovsk continues selling its goods to the Russian military-industrial complex and other companies that were slapped with Western sanctions. Since the start of the full-scale war, this industrial plant has been playing an important role in the Russian Federation because Russia’s weapon production industry is absolutely dependent on Western machinery. In March 2022, DMG MORI announced its withdrawal from Russia, but this actually didn’t happen. According to “Agentstvo” project,  the German-Japanese manufacturer is no longer selling its machine tools directly but through a network of associated companies.

The military industry of the Russian Federation is spurred on by the use of companies located in third countries, which has become common practice. Western partners of Ukraine are working to prevent the export of sanctioned goods to the aggressor state. 

On September 25, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the imposition of trade restrictions against 11 Chinese and 5 Russian companies that were involved in the delivery of components necessary for the production of Russian drones. On September 27, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on 5 legal entities and 2 private individuals registered in Iran, China, Hong Kong and Turkey. All of them participated in the purchase of components for the production of Iranian UAVs.

In its turn, Brussels has warned European companies and governments that it could ban the sale of certain goods to Turkey, India, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Costa Rica and other countries from where Iran and Russia are sourcing parts for drones and other weapons. Customs information has shown that all the imports to Iran and Russian originated from these countries. 

According to the European Commission, the revealed facts go to show that EU sanctions are creating “significant pressure”, but at the same time it is necessary to step up efforts.

Currently, the European Commission is cooperating with third-country jurisdictions to prevent the circumvention of sanctions, but if diplomatic efforts prove insufficient, the EU will stop the export of specific goods and prohibit the provision of related services to these third countries. 

As has been stated by the President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev in Germany, the leaders of third countries can support the sanctions imposed against the aggressor state. However, it is necessary for the national governments to perform systematic work in order to identify and curb the companies that ignore sanctions and help Russia to wage the war of aggression against Ukraine.

Frequently Asked Question

Why has Russia increased its war budget?

Russia has increased its war budget to sustain and enhance its military efforts, particularly in light of ongoing conflicts, including the war in Ukraine. The increase is aimed at bolstering defense spending, upgrading military equipment, and supporting the ongoing operations.

How is Ukraine planning to ramp up arms production?

Ukraine is focusing on increasing its domestic production of weapons and military equipment. This is part of an effort to become less dependent on foreign arms supplies and to enhance its self-defense capabilities in the face of Russian aggression.

What does a war speech typically aim to achieve?

War speeches are usually delivered by political leaders or military officials to rally support, inspire patriotism, justify military actions, and ensure continued funding for defense efforts. They often serve to maintain morale among citizens and troops.

What are the main themes in Russia’s war speeches?

Russian war speeches typically emphasize national security, the defense of Russian sovereignty, and the protection of Russian-speaking populations. Leaders also use such speeches to frame their actions as responses to perceived threats from the West or NATO.

How do Ukraine’s war speeches reflect their strategy?

Ukraine’s war speeches often focus on the defense of their sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the need for international support. Ukrainian leaders emphasize the importance of resisting aggression and protecting their democratic values.

What role do war speeches play in international diplomacy?

War speeches can play a significant role in shaping international public opinion, influencing diplomatic negotiations, and signaling a country’s commitment to its military goals. They can be used to justify actions to the global community or rally international allies.

How do war speeches impact domestic support for the war effort?

War speeches are designed to bolster domestic support by framing the conflict in a way that unites the population behind the cause. In both Russia and Ukraine, these speeches aim to maintain public morale, secure funding, and encourage citizens to back their governments’ military efforts.

Conclusion

The increase in Russia’s war budget and Ukraine’s plans to ramp up arms production reflect the intensifying nature of the conflict and the need for both countries to strengthen their military capabilities. War speeches from both sides serve as vital tools to rally domestic support, justify military actions, and influence international perceptions. These speeches are not just about the immediate war effort; they also shape the political narrative, boost morale, and demonstrate commitment to their respective causes. As the war continues, the role of military spending, arms production, and public rhetoric will remain crucial in determining the course of the conflict.

IRI Ukraine Poll: Strong Support for Victory, EU, and NATO Membership The latest public opinion survey in Ukraine, conducted by the International Republican Institute’s (IRI) Center for Insights in Survey Research (CISR), reveals overwhelming optimism among Ukrainians about their future, along with strong support for aligning with the West. The survey shows that a significant majority believe Ukraine will defeat Russia in the ongoing war and are hopeful about the country’s future.

Key Findings:

• 88% of Ukrainians are confident that Ukraine will emerge victorious in the war with Russia.
• 80% of Ukrainians believe the future of their country looks “rather promising.”

Despite more than two years of relentless attacks from Russia, Ukrainians maintain their belief in ultimate victory. Stephen Nix, Senior Director for Eurasia at IRI, commented, “Ukrainians continue to believe they will prevail in the war, showing that Putin has not been able to shake their strong morale.”

Strong Support for EU and NATO Membership

The survey also underscores Ukraine’s desire to align more closely with the West. 77% of Ukrainians would favor joining the European Union over a customs union with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Additionally, if a referendum were held today, 77% would vote in favor of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.

Stephen Nix added, “Our data clearly shows that Ukrainians believe stronger ties with the West offer their best opportunity for achieving lasting peace and prosperity.”

Key Findings from the IRI Ukraine Poll

The International Republican Institute (IRI) conducted a comprehensive survey in late 2024, providing a detailed look at the public sentiment in Ukraine. Here are the most significant findings:

• Victory Over Russia: An impressive 84% of Ukrainians believe their country will ultimately defeat Russia and regain its occupied territories. This shows strong national resolve and a deep sense of optimism despite the ongoing war.
• Support for EU Membership: Nearly 70% of Ukrainians express support for joining the European Union, reflecting a desire for greater political and economic integration with the West. This is viewed not only as a means of securing a prosperous future but also as a symbol of democratic values.
• NATO Membership: A similar level of support exists for joining NATO, with 71% of Ukrainians backing the alliance. Many see NATO membership as a way to strengthen national security and deter future aggression.

Insights into the Public Mood

• Patriotism and National Unity: The poll highlights an overwhelming sense of patriotism, with many Ukrainians willing to endure further sacrifices for the nation’s sovereignty.
• Trust in Leadership: There is also a notable trust in the Ukrainian leadership and military, with President Zelenskyy maintaining high approval ratings.

The Desire for EU and NATO Membership

As the war continues, Ukraine’s aspirations to join the European Union and NATO have become central to its national identity and future. These aspirations are reflected in the strong polling results, which signal the public’s desire for:

• Economic Growth: EU membership is seen as a pathway to economic stability and growth, offering access to European markets, funding, and a better standard of living.
• Security: NATO membership, meanwhile, is viewed as a guarantee of national security against external threats, particularly from Russia.

The Broader Implications for Ukraine’s Future

The strong support for NATO and EU membership also highlights a broader shift in Ukrainian identity, moving closer to Europe and away from Russian influence. This realignment has the potential to reshape Ukraine’s foreign policy for decades to come.

• Western Support: The poll results reinforce the importance of continued Western support. The United States, EU, and NATO allies will likely need to respond to this public sentiment with sustained military, economic, and diplomatic backing.
• Geopolitical Repercussions: Ukraine’s growing ties to Europe could lead to new geopolitical alliances and a redefined balance of power in Eastern Europe.

May you also like it:

Latest Polling Reveals Mood in Ukraine and Desire for Optimism

Wide Partisan Divisions in Americans’ Views of the War in Ukraine: What You Need to Know

War Speeches, ATACMS & Abrams for Ukraine, and Russia’s Diplomatic Moves

Conclusion

The IRI Ukraine Poll underscores a deep-seated belief among Ukrainians that their country will prevail in the war against Russia and a strong desire for integration with the West. With overwhelming support for EU and NATO membership, the poll signals not only the resilience of the Ukrainian people but also their clear vision for the future. Ukraine’s future is undeniably tied to its aspirations for greater political and economic alignment with Europe, which will continue to shape its path forward.

FAQ

1. How confident are Ukrainians about victory over Russia?
Around 84% of Ukrainians believe their country will win the war and regain its territories, showing strong national resolve.

2. What percentage of Ukrainians support joining the European Union?
70% of Ukrainians support EU membership, reflecting a desire for political and economic integration with Europe.

3. How do Ukrainians feel about NATO membership?
71% of Ukrainians are in favor of joining NATO, viewing it as vital for national security and deterrence against future aggression.

4. How does the war affect Ukraine’s aspirations for EU and NATO membership?
The war has reinforced Ukrainians’ desire for closer ties to Europe and NATO, seeing these alliances as crucial for security and prosperity.

5. What does the polling reveal about Ukrainians’ trust in their leadership?
Ukrainians continue to show high levels of trust in President Zelenskyy and the military, supporting the country’s leadership during the conflict.

6. What are the broader geopolitical implications of Ukraine’s EU and NATO aspirations?
Ukraine’s shift towards European integration could reshape Eastern European geopolitics, strengthening ties with the West and altering regional power dynamics.

Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine has dominated international attention since its full-scale invasion two years ago and at points since it illegally seized Crimea in 2014. But there is only partial understanding that Vladimir Putin’s revisionist foreign policy poses the greatest short-term challenge to the international order today—and to critical US interests in Europe and beyond. While its economy is unevenly developed, Russia has the world’s largest nuclear stockpile, is a serial aggressor, and its policy is in the hands of an increasingly repressive authoritarian regime.

Russia’s war on Ukraine has reverberated around the world, changing the lives of tens of millions of people in Europe, affecting policies and politics across the transatlantic community, and echoing in China, India, and across the Global South. Kremlin aggression threatens to unsettle security, prosperity, and peace all around the world through its outright rejection of international norms. A better understanding of Russia is crucial to mitigating these risks to the global order.

Policymakers and the public need a new paradigm for understanding Russia. To more effectively address the Russian challenge, we need to reshape the way we think about and understand Russia.

The Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center’s pathbreaking new series, Russia Tomorrow, aims to accomplish that very task. Through a series of succinct, accessible policy papers, Russia Tomorrow’s expert authors address potential scenarios for Russia’s future, Putin’s web of confidants, the effects of Western sanctions, and much more. Led by Eurasia Center Senior Director John Herbst and nonresident senior fellow Brian Whitmore, Russia Tomorrow delivers insights and policy recommendations from leading experts to enhance our understanding of Russia.

Join the Eurasia Center in reevaluating the conceptions and realities of Russia today so we can better understand and contend with the Russia of tomorrow. For the latest updates on Russia Tomorrow, follow us on Twitter at @ACEurasia, subscribe to our flagship newsletter, and listen to the Power Vertical podcast.

Frequently Asked Question

What is “The Reluctant Consensus” about Russia’s war?

“The Reluctant Consensus” refers to the complex and somewhat contradictory nature of Russian public opinion regarding the war, especially in the context of the invasion of Ukraine. While there is an apparent majority of support for the war due to government propaganda and nationalistic sentiment, there is also significant reluctance, frustration, and uncertainty among ordinary Russians. Many feel conflicted between patriotic duty and the personal cost of the war.

Why do many Russians seem to support the war despite its costs?

Public support for the war in Russia is often linked to state-controlled media that portrays the conflict as a defensive and just struggle. There is also a deep sense of nationalism and historical narratives of Russia as a protector of its people and interests. However, this support can be shallow and contingent on the narrative that the war will protect Russia’s sovereignty and security.

How does Russian public opinion about the war evolve?

Initially, there was strong support for the war due to government narratives, but as the conflict drags on and casualties increase, public opinion begins to show signs of erosion. Reports of economic hardship, the mobilization of soldiers, and sanctions lead many to feel disillusioned. However, open dissent is limited due to the government’s repression of opposition and the stifling of critical discourse.

What factors influence public opinion in Russia regarding the war?

Key factors include government-controlled media, state propaganda, personal experiences of those affected by the war, and the suppression of alternative viewpoints. Additionally, the presence of economic hardships, such as inflation and unemployment, also plays a significant role in shaping how the public feels about the war.

How is dissent suppressed in Russia regarding the war?

The Russian government uses a variety of tactics to suppress dissent, including censorship, arresting activists, intimidating journalists, and banning anti-war protests. Public opposition to the war is often framed as “unpatriotic” or as support for the enemy, and those who speak out face harsh penalties, including imprisonment or exile.

Do Russians feel the war is justified?

While a significant portion of the population may justify the war due to nationalistic rhetoric and fears of foreign threats, others question its legitimacy, especially as the human and economic toll increases. However, fear of government retribution and the overwhelming presence of pro-war messaging from the state make it difficult for many to openly express these doubts.

Is there any indication of potential change in public opinion?

There are signs that, over time, public opinion in Russia could shift as the war continues to have negative effects on daily life. Economic sanctions, casualties, and mounting international pressure may cause some citizens to become more disillusioned. However, any substantial shift in public sentiment may be slow due to the government’s tight control over information and the suppression of dissenting views.

Conclusion

The situation surrounding Russia’s public opinion on the war is characterized by a complex mix of reluctant support, nationalistic sentiment, and underlying frustration. While a majority may outwardly support the government’s stance due to state-controlled media and nationalistic propaganda, many Russians harbor doubts and are increasingly disillusioned by the war’s prolonged economic and human toll. The suppression of dissent and the stifling of open dialogue complicate any meaningful shift in public opinion, but over time, growing hardships may cause cracks in this reluctant consensus. However, the ability of the Russian government to control information and repress opposition means that any shift in public sentiment will likely be slow and difficult to gauge. Ultimately, the war’s ongoing impact on Russia’s population may lead to a growing sense of unease, but the full extent of this shift remains uncertain under current conditions.

Introduction: A Divided Nation – Why Are Ukrainians Split on Diplomacy?

Diplomacy Watch: Ukrainian Public Opinion More Divided Than Ever This week, The New York Times reported from Kyiv, shedding light on the evolving public opinion in Ukraine regarding the war’s resolution. The article highlighted a growing shift in sentiment, revealing that Ukrainians are more divided than ever on how to end the war. This division, it suggests, is far more complex than traditional media portrayals have often implied.

The Times described the trend as “a palpable shift in the conversation around peace talks—from a firm stance of no-deal-not-ever to a more open, maybe-compromise-at-some-point approach.”

As noted in recent editions of Diplomacy Watch, multiple surveys have shown that Ukrainian public opinion is moving toward the idea that the war may require a negotiated settlement to end. This shift has been captured in a series of polls, which demonstrate growing openness toward peace talks with Russia.

For example, ZN.ua, a leading Ukrainian online publication, recently conducted a survey showing that nearly 44% of Ukrainians now believe it’s time to begin official negotiations with Russia. This marks a significant increase from just 23% who held this view in a similar poll conducted a year ago.

In a separate poll published by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), the number of Ukrainians willing to consider territorial concessions in exchange for peace tripled in the last year, rising from 10% to 32%.

However, as The Times points out, there remains considerable uncertainty about what a potential peace deal might look like. For instance, in the ZN.ua poll, 83% of respondents opposed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s publicly stated conditions for a ceasefire. Additionally, over 60% of Ukrainians stated they were unwilling to make concessions to Russia to secure a peace agreement.

The KIIS poll found that more than half of the respondents still believe Ukraine should not cede any territory to Russia, emphasizing the deep complexities surrounding a potential peace settlement.

Despite these disagreements on the details, the trend toward considering some form of compromise is undeniable. Mark Episkopos of the Quincy Institute (QI) highlighted this in The Nation in late June, arguing that understanding the complex nature of Ukrainian public opinion is crucial to ending the war. Episkopos warned against oversimplifying the situation, particularly by conflating the interests of the Ukrainian government with the broader views of the people. He stressed that continuing to ignore these growing divisions could hinder the development of a more realistic and humane strategy for resolving the conflict.

Among Ukrainian elites, while there have been no overt signs of dramatic change, there is growing evidence of a shift toward direct engagement with Russia. For example, Ukraine’s foreign minister recently visited China—the first such visit since the invasion—and invited Beijing’s top diplomat to visit Kyiv. Furthermore, President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed interest in having Russia attend Ukraine’s next peace summit, though Moscow has yet to commit to participating.

In related diplomatic news, a recent Pew Research poll released in July revealed stark partisan divides in the U.S. regarding support for Ukraine. Among Democrats, 63% believe the U.S. has a responsibility to defend Ukraine, while only 36% of Republicans share this view. When asked about the level of U.S. support for Ukraine, a plurality of Democrats (36%) said it was “just right,” while 47% of Republicans felt that the support was “too much.” Both parties also showed significant uncertainty about the issue, with a quarter of respondents in each group unsure.

This complex web of opinion shifts within Ukraine, among elites, and internationally points to the increasingly nuanced landscape of the conflict, where paths to peace and diplomacy are still being explored but are far from clear.

The Growing Divide in Ukrainian Public Opinion

Public sentiment in Ukraine has always been strongly shaped by the ongoing conflict. Early in the war, there was a unified stance against negotiations, driven by a sense of nationalism and the trauma of Russia’s aggression. However, as the war has dragged on, new factors have emerged, making Ukrainians more divided than before.

Key Shifts in Public Opinion:

• Increased support for negotiations: Recent surveys show that up to 45% of Ukrainians are now in favor of exploring diplomatic avenues, compared to only 25% in 2022.
• Staunch opposition remains: Around 38% of Ukrainians still oppose any negotiations, reflecting deep-rooted fears of territorial losses and the potential for national humiliation.
• A growing undecided group: About 17% of Ukrainians are unsure, caught between the desire for peace and the need to defend their sovereignty.

Factors Driving the Shift in Public Opinion

Several factors are contributing to the shift in Ukrainian public opinion:

1. War Fatigue: After nearly three years of continuous fighting, many Ukrainians are experiencing war fatigue. The mounting death toll and economic hardships have made the prospect of peace talks more appealing.
2. Economic Strain: Ukraine’s economy has taken a significant hit, with its GDP projected to shrink by 30% in 2025. The prolonged conflict has devastated industries, and many Ukrainians are now reconsidering the long-term costs of continued warfare.
3. International Influence: The uncertainty of international support has added pressure on Ukrainians to consider negotiations. A recent deadlock in U.S. military aid highlighted the possibility that international backing may not be as reliable as once thought, causing Ukrainians to reconsider their options.
4. Generational Divide: Younger Ukrainians, who didn’t live through the Soviet era, are more inclined toward negotiation than older generations who view Russian expansionism as an existential threat. This generational divide is one of the most striking elements of the shift.

How This Divide Impacts Ukraine’s Diplomatic Strategy

The deepening division within Ukraine presents significant challenges for its leadership. As the nation grapples with differing opinions on peace talks, the government faces a delicate balancing act. The rise in support for negotiations could influence Ukraine’s stance on the world stage, especially as international pressure for a resolution mounts.

Key Implications for Ukraine’s Strategy:

• Internal political instability: The divided public could lead to instability within Ukraine’s political system, as leaders align with one faction over another.
• Foreign policy challenges: Ukraine’s international partners may struggle to navigate these divides, with some countries pushing for a resolution while others insist on continued resistance.

May you also like it:

Ukrainian Public Opinion on Compromise with Russia Changing, Researcher Explains

Ukrainian Opinion Survey Tracks Fluctuating Views on Quick End to War

Conclusion

Ukraine’s future remains uncertain as public opinion grows increasingly split. While some Ukrainians push for diplomacy, others remain committed to military victory. The government must tread carefully to navigate this divide while balancing internal desires with external pressures. Understanding these changing attitudes is essential for shaping Ukraine’s future direction, both on the battlefield and in diplomatic negotiations.

FAQs:

Why is Ukrainian public opinion more divided than ever?
The ongoing war, economic hardship, and international uncertainty have led to a divided opinion on negotiating with Russia.

What percentage of Ukrainians support negotiations with Russia?
Around 45% of Ukrainians now favor exploring diplomatic options, up from 25% in 2022.

How does war fatigue influence public opinion?
War fatigue, along with rising casualties and economic tolls, has made peace talks more appealing to many Ukrainians.

What role does the generational divide play?
Younger Ukrainians are more likely to support negotiations than older citizens, who have experienced Russian aggression firsthand.

What are the economic consequences of the war?
Ukraine’s economy is expected to shrink by 30% in 2025, adding to the public’s willingness to consider a peaceful resolution.

How does international support influence public opinion?
The uncertainty of consistent international backing has led to a shift in sentiment, with more Ukrainians open to peace talks.