Study: Western populations endorse support for Ukraine

Enlarge

Most people in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy clearly endorse military support for Ukraine. They overwhelmingly reject Russia's positions on territorial claims and restrictions on Ukraine's political sovereignty. However, their approval has its limits: In particular, high casualty numbers for Ukraine and the danger of nuclear escalation reduce public backing, while economic burdens are scarcely a factor for the publics. These were the findings of a joint project located at LMU, in which researchers from LMU and the University of Konstanz compared data from a survey of the largest NATO arms exporting countries. This was the first study of its kind and its results have appeared in the journal Nature Communications.

The survey was conducted between June and August 2023.

Over 10,000 people were surveyed for the study, which was carried out by Junior Professor Lukas Rudolph from the University of Konstanz and Fabian Haggerty and Professor Paul W. Thurner from the Geschwister Scholl Institute of Political Science at LMU Munich. “We investigated whether Western governments can count on stable support from their populations for the support of Ukraine,” explains Paul W. Thurner, Chair of Empirical Political Research and Policy Analysis at LMU. A key part of this was ascertaining how citizens weighed up the moral, strategic, and economic costs of support for Ukraine.

New study design allows causal inferences

The basis of the study, which was financially supported by the German Foundation for Peace Research (DSF), were two survey experiments. In the first, participants were asked to evaluate war scenarios and their possible consequences – such as military losses, territorial concessions, and the risk of nuclear escalation. The second experiment concerned the specific consequences of political measures, as participants were asked to evaluate things like the delivery of tanks, fighter jets, and air defense systems and specify what consequences they would expect from the respective form of support – such as more human suffering and material destruction in Ukraine or a faster end to the war.

“This form of survey experiment allows us to draw causal inferences as you can with lab experiments,” says Thurner. “Unlike conventional surveys, we don’t just pose the simple question as to agreement or disagreement, but simulate precisely the kind of complex dilemmas that policymakers face, or which we hear discussed in talk shows every day.” This enables the researchers to precisely measure how people weight specific political options with respect to abstract war scenarios – and what are the strongest influences on their decisions.

“The results show that although the majority clearly endorses support for Ukraine,” says Rudolph, “the consideration of possible human suffering – especially high civilian casualties on the Ukrainian side – limits their approval of certain military strategies.” Meanwhile, the risk of nuclear escalation also weighs heavily in the balance. By contrast, financial disadvantages, expressed in terms of gross domestic product, play an “astonishingly” small role, notes Rudolph.

Similar patterns in all five countries

While the answers of the respondents across the five Western countries exhibit virtually identical patterns in relation to humanitarian costs, economic disadvantages, and risks of escalation, the limits of approval vary sharply on other issues. Respondents in the United Kingdom, Germany, and United States strongly insist on the full sovereignty of Ukraine, whereas respondents in France and Italy are less forceful in their rejection of curtailments to Ukrainian sovereignty. And with regard to possible territorial concessions, Italian citizens in particular have a less critical attitude and differentiate themselves in this way from the publics in the other four countries.

“The study also reveals a strong polarization,” explains Fabian Haggerty. “Depending on a person’s political orientation or worldview, opinions on support for Ukraine diverge sharply.” This polarization does not run along classic left-right lines, but according to attitudes toward the West: Thus, around a quarter of respondents with a strongly pro-Western attitude maintain their support even in the face of large risks and costs, whereas a similarly large proportion of respondents with anti-Western (pro-Russian) attitudes view this with skepticism.

Divided opinions on tanks and fighter jets

This difference becomes particularly apparent in relation to concrete weapons aid. Although the delivery of air defense systems to Ukraine is welcomed in all groups that fundamentally endorse support for the country, opinions on tanks and fighter jets widely diverge. Whereas the pro-Western group associates this with a shortening of the duration of the war, for instance, the anti-Western group sees risks. The sending of Western ground troops, meanwhile, is rejected by almost all respondents.

“Our investigation is the first systematic study of how Western populations weigh complex decisions and potential consequences in relation to a highly politicized war,” explains Thurner. “The clear public backing for the support of Ukraine on the one hand, and the distinct polarization and red lines for the support within Western society on the other, show that governments must carefully weigh up humanitarian risks and escalation dangers. Only then can they maintain the long-term support of voters.”

Publication:

L. Rudolph, F. Haggerty, P. W. Thurner: Examining public support for Ukraine’s defense against autocratic aggression. In: Nature Communications 2026

Funding:

The study was supported by the German Foundation for Peace Research (DSF) and originated in the context of the LMU-located project “A Conjoint Experiment on the Comparative Legitimacy of Arms Exports in Germany France, Italy, the US and the UK.” Project number: FP 07/22FB1-PRO-07. Principal investigators: Lukas Rudolph & Paul W. Thurner.