While Russia Pounds Kyiv, Most Russians Support ‘Global Cooperation’

On Sept. 28, a Russian drone reportedly struck a National Academy of Sciences building in central Kyiv, setting it on fire. Three days earlier, Vladimir Putin had accused the Baltic states of violating Russian speakers’ rights and presented Moscow’s response as consistent with international law. While a new UN Foundation survey found that 62% of Russian respondents believed countries should solve problems together rather than prioritize national interests at cooperation’s expense, a separate August polling by the Levada Center showed that 76% approved of Putin and 68% supported Russian military actions in Ukraine.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. How can support for international cooperation coexist with approval of a government invading its neighbor? The surveys may be reaching different Russians GeoPoll’s September survey for the UN Foundation questioned 250 people in each of 20 countries. Russian participants answered online, with recruitment guided by quotas for age, gender, and geography. The methodological annex describes the sample as nonprobability-based and warns against treating each country’s results as nationally representative. In practical terms, that means researchers cannot assume the people who participated accurately reflect the wider Russian population. An uneven balance of ages or locations could contribute to that problem, even though the researchers used demographic quotas to limit such imbalances. The more difficult issue is that matching basic characteristics does not necessarily produce a politically representative sample. Other Topics of Interest Russian Airlines See 7% Drop in Passengers Amid Airport Disruptions From Ukrainian Drone Attacks Russian airports have faced frequent temporary closures and flight restrictions amid Ukrainian drone attacks, affecting airports in Moscow and other regions. For example, an online survey could meet its age quotas while disproportionately reaching people comfortable using digital technology. Their views might differ from those who rarely go online or decline surveys. Meanwhile, Levada’s August survey used a different approach: face-to-face interviews with 1,600 adults across urban and rural communities in 50 Russian regions, with results weighted to population characteristics. The two surveys therefore provide a broad comparison of attitudes, though still largely contradictory. People may give the answer they consider safe Who agrees to participate is only one issue – what people feel able to say is another. Daniil Chebykin, a Russian opposition activist and founder of the Omsk Civic Association, previously told Kyiv Post that political interviews at respondents’ homes can create pressure to conceal dissent. “The respondent understands that the people asking the questions have his home address and other information,” he said. Chebykin argued that critics may refuse an interview altogether or give an answer they consider safe. As a result, some opinions never enter the sample, while others enter it inaccurately. His comments concerned state-linked Russian polling and should not be read as evidence that reportedly non-Kremlin affiliated Levada manipulates as results. Yet, they do identify a broader concern about political questioning under repression, without establishing how much it affects any particular rating. The risks of dissent are concrete. Opposition politician Lev Shlosberg received an 11-year-and-one-month prison sentence in August in cases involving an anti-war debate and a reposted newspaper cover, as Kyiv Post reported. Expressing support for countries working together is considerably less politically confrontational than telling an interviewer that Putin is wrong. Different questions can therefore produce different levels of candor, even before differences in sampling are considered. Some respondents may see no contradiction A person who accepts the Kremlin’s claim that Russia is defending itself may also sincerely favor peace and international cooperation. From that perspective, responsibility for ending the confrontation rests elsewhere. Chebykin’s work with Russians seeking to leave military service offers examples of how that understanding can change. In an earlier interview with Kyiv Post, he described soldiers who initially accepted official explanations but became disillusioned after experiencing the front and their commanders’ treatment. “They increasingly understand that they are not fighting Nazis and that they are not defending Russia from NATO,” he said. Other respondents may interpret cooperation more narrowly. They could favor countries working together on trade, climate, or health while endorsing military action they consider justified. The UN Foundation question did not ask them to apply their answer specifically to Russia’s invasion. The apparent contradiction may thus involve different understandings of the war and of cooperation itself, rather than a conscious decision to endorse incompatible principles. Wanting negotiations is not the same as rejecting the war Levada’s war polling provides a closer comparison within one respondent pool: 68% supported Russian military actions, while 59% favored negotiations. Those majorities necessarily overlap. Some respondents supported the campaign while also wanting talks. That could reflect fatigue, concern about casualties, or hopes for a settlement favorable to Russia. The question did not establish which territories respondents thought Russia should retain or what concessions they would accept. Accordingly, a preference for negotiations does not automatically mean rejecting the invasion. People can want fighting to stop while believing their own side should keep what it has seized. The UN Foundation survey also found Russian respondents relatively hopeful: 46% described themselves as hopeful about the world and 44% as worried. The pooled figures were 34% and 57%, respectively. What that means practically isn’t fully known: The survey also cannot tell us whether Russian respondents’ hopefulness reflected expectations of peace, confidence in their government, or concerns unrelated to Ukraine. The government’s double standard is clearer The uncertainty surrounding individual attitudes does not obscure the contradiction in Moscow’s own conduct. At his Sept. 25 press conference, Putin accused the Baltic states of violating Russian speakers’ rights and said Moscow was responding “within the framework of international law,” according to Ukrainska Pravda. Yet Russia has also been condemned of illegal war of aggression and continued it despite the International Court of Justice’s March 2022 order to suspend military operations. The Kremlin often invokes international protections while threatening neighboring countries and disregarding constraints on its own actions. As Kyiv Post reported, Moscow’s claims to protect Russian speakers also recall arguments used to justify aggression against Ukraine. Meanwhile, Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev warned that Lithuania could “disappear from the map of the world” in a conflict linked to its potential hosting of nuclear weapons. The polling does not show how many Russians recognize or approve of that double standard. It leaves several explanations open: different groups answering the surveys, concealed dissent, acceptance of official narratives, or support for cooperation that stops short of accepting concessions by Russia. Distinguishing among them would require asking the same respondents more specific questions. Would they support withdrawing Russian troops, complying with an international ruling, or accepting Ukraine’s independent security choices? For Ukrainians, those answers would reveal considerably more than a general preference for countries solving problems together.