30
votes
Most Ukrainians now favor ending the war with Russia through negotiations, as support for fighting until victory has dropped sharply since the early days of the conflict
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Ukrainian Support for War Effort Collapses
- Authors
- Gallup, Inc.
- Published
- Aug 7 2025
- Word count
- 898 words
As other commenters have highlighted already, but to be more succinct: the title does not reflect the content of the poll in my view.
I think the title is a bit exaggerated, but not unreasonably so. The data does indeed suggest there has been a large decrease in the Ukrainian public's belief they can secure a victory over Russia. I can't imagine these figures rising unless foreign support increases massively.
"Support for the war effort" and "belief they can secure a total victory" are two vastly different things.
Yeah, some might say it is the difference between "we should surrender" vs "we will not be able to make Russia surrender".
The "as soon as possible" bit is also very important. Of course, the Ukrainians don't want to fold on points they don't have to, but I think it's accurate to say that support for the war is a fraction of what it was before.
The frustrating element to me is that, to do an effective off-ramp, Ukrainian morale needs to stay high and they need maintain an assertive posture. It's also the case that, in a war of attrition, Russia will take more and more of Ukraine.
It's the case that, in a war of attrition, Russia has consumed the entirety of its inheritance of USSR military gear to get the territory it already has. There's no reason to think that the force they've been able to bring to bear in the past is the same as what they'll have in the future. Both sides are wearing down in their own ways.
Unless it becomes a war of attrition between the West as a whole and Russia, Russia has the natural resources, productive capacity, and manpower to outlast Ukraine. The loss in Soviet equipment I think is only a medium term problem for Russia. With enough time, the investments they've made into modernizing their equipment will bear fruit. One could argue that the longer conflict continues, the more pressure there will be on the regime. But, the war is by most accounts still popular in Russia, and, even if it weren't, power has been consolidated enough such that they'll be able to continue the war for a long time regardless.
Even Russia is running out of eligible men to run both the military and economic labor front. There's a bidding war between military signing bonuses and industrial businesses.
They're still able to fulfill their monthly volunteer quota but the average age of their soldiers is rapidly increasing and their economic system is feeling the squeeze of the war too.
Unless you're talking absolute scraping the barrel total war economy, Russia is not in a good place man power wise. Neither is Ukraine, but it looks like Ukraine is at least attempting to prevent a demographic collapse after the war by keeping their draft age above 25.
And even if you're talking absolute scraping the barrel total war economy, Russia may have the manpower and resources, but they're diplomatically isolated. Europe can get their resources elsewhere. Besides, the rest of Europe or NATO or the EU is far richer than Russia and especially the NATO block has significant man power pools in Turkey alone. As for tech, none of Russia's next gen fighter jets or tanks are able to be produced in any measurable quantity either. They simply don't have the means.
I think you're overestimating the specter of the Soviets a bit more than they deserve. I'll never forget John McCain saying Russia is "a gas station masquerading as a country". He's on the money there.
So far it has been exactly that war of attrition between the West as a whole and Russia. Trump is doing a great job of destabilizing that dynamic, but every country in the West that isn't headed by someone identified by heads of state and intelligence services as a Russian asset sees the benefit of bleeding Russia by supporting Ukraine.
Current support is insufficient, and I'm skeptical that Europe will go all in on supporting Ukraine after the US starts to bow out, even if they're fairly ideologically unified.
I dunno, I think that Europe will double down because they have more skin in the game. Given Russia's overall objective is to take at the very least all of the Ukrainian coast on the Black Sea all the way to the border with Romania, the EU knows that they can either support Ukraine now, or deal with an expansionist Russia on their borders in a couple of years.
I edited the topic title to be the article lede instead, since that's more accurate.
Man, the absolute impunity with which nuclear states operate. Russia and the US can do whatever they want and other countries can't interfere or else they'll start armageddon.
It's absolutely not fair that Ukrainians
are going[EDIT: might have] to have to give up their land to end the war.It's also not a sure thing. Notably, while more Ukrainians than ever are willing to negotiate an end to the fighting, this poll doesn't address what they're willing to negotiate on. The major polls in years past that asked about that in particular showed that a large percentage of people who were willing to negotiate weren't actually willing to concede the major points that Russia was unwilling to bend on, like complete control of territories they don't actually hold in full.
Also, other countries are interfering continuously despite Russia's bluster about nuclear red lines (which have never actually been red lines when tested.) Plenty of countries other than the USA are providing support to Ukraine without getting nuked.
You're right about that and I don't understand why Gallup doesn't dive deeper into this data, they have before.
Last round this happened, the media picked up on the "collapsing war effort" story but if you looked a little deeper it didn't actually change how many Ukrainians wanted to concede and give in to demands, just an increase in the amount that were now willing to negotiate.
I'm going to assume the latter holds true until someone shows me data that proves the opposite.
Regardless, their war exhaustion must be getting to levels that are difficult to manage. The endless Russian offensives must be rough on morale. I can sit here in my safe chair and say that they can absolutely grind the Russians to a humiliating loss, but that doesn't take into account the toll of their suffering.
And iirc an interesting detail on this is that there was relative political unity in these matters, opinions were roughly the same among both Zelensky supporters and supporters of the opposition. So it's unlikely to change even if an election happens and Zelensky loses.
Huh, who said that Ukraine should give up their land to end the war? Russia wants to take all Ukraine.
It’s not fair, but it is what it is. Fair’s never been worth much when push comes to shove.
If someone is mugging you and has a gun held to your head, is it fair that you need to give them your wallet? No, but there’s a gun barrel next to your head, so unless you want to make your case with Jesus there’s not much you can do about it.
If you want to compare, then let me provide a better example in this context.
Someone want to kill you, but your door is stopping him. That someone did some damage, but still cann't to break. Now he says, that you should give a key to him. But to others he says thatʼs only about keys, not your head. And now @stu2b50 and not only repeat after that someone, that itʼs only about the key, not your head.
That isn’t really accurate to the situation. The person has not just broken through your door but owns your living room and garage.
Obviously if Russia were kept entirely out of Ukrainian borders, as in that hypothetical, it would be stupid to randomly give them land. If that were the case we would simply have said that Russia lost the war at that point.
In any kind of settlement the main thing Russia will ask for is that they keep the land they currently occupy.
Itʼs pretty accurate to the situation. You ask to give up lands which Russia doesn't control, but have a pretty not bad defence.
To be honest I can’t tell what you’re even trying to say
a) when did I ask anything
b) that second clause isn’t valid English
You didn't understand the clause? Or do you want just to change the topic into something else?
The formatting on this one is a mess too.
The point was that fairness is an irrelevant quality in geopolitics. The only thing that matters is what leverage you have and what leverage the other party has. That is and has always been the case.
When someone is mugging you, the idea of fairness goes out the window. When a country invades you, that is inherently unfair - they are trying to use force of violence to coerce disproportionate gain for themselves.
And no, I don’t understand the second clause, it’s completely incomprehensible.
Okay, let me rephrase it. Russia asks pretty defended lands which arenʼt under their control. Do you still not understand why my comparing is a way better than your?
Btw, just another question. Whereʼre you from?
This sentence doesn’t make sense. Unless you’re commenting about the beauty of the land? I’m going to assume you mean that Russia is asking for land which they do not control.
That’s kinda irrelevant to the situation. Putin is going to ask for the world because it’s the starting negotiation and he holds most of the cards.
The realistic ceasefire would involve turning the current lines of control into semi-permanent borders, the same way the DMZ is in Korea or the LoCs in Kashmir.
But that’s also irrelevant: my point is that fairness doesn’t matter.
Do you think fairness matters?
Huh? Iʼm pretty sure, «pretty» is a synonym for «very» or something like this.
Ehm… if you bring Korea here, you assume, Ukraine would have a good secury guaranty? If so, then why Ukraine doesn't see any realized guaranty already? Just for compare & reminding, Korea already had allies during the war on their lands (which isnʼt totally the same case here). So DMZ isnʼt possilbe here. Canʼt say about Kashmir so, because I donʼt know their situation. But I know about Ukraine & Russia very well. So… where are you from?
No, not in that context. You'd have to say "pretty well defended" if you had to use the word "pretty", or "heavily defended". But that still wouldn't make sense. I also don't think "defended" makes a lot of sense in thsi case. I assume you're trying to say something in the vein of
"Russia is ask_ing_ for heavily fortified land they don't control".
I feel like you legitimately have no idea what I'm trying to say if that's what you got out of it.
Where do you think I'm from?
Ehm… thatʼs why Iʼm asking? Can you into normal dialog, not this shit (as the next one too). As I said, DMZ (or Korean situation) isnʼt possible here.
You tell me. Why you cannʼt tell directly and simple, without any round-going?
It's obvious that losing your blank check makes you rethink writing a new one but also making that hard is that there's no end in sight to the fighting.
It should also be noted that this comes with a complete collapse in US favorability. War Fatigue is a hell of a debuff.