IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/typvk.html

Breaking the Stalemate: Europeans’ Preferences to Expand, Cut, or Sustain Support to Ukraine

Author

Listed:
  • Eck, Bjarn
  • Michel, Elie

Abstract

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 marked a turning point for European security. European countries have provided significant military and financial aid to Ukraine so far, but public support for such measures is a critical factor to sustain this assistance. In this article, we focus on two key aspects of public opinion on the war in Ukraine: whether Europeans want to increase, decrease, or maintain current support levels, and what factors shape these attitudes. Using survey data from six countries – Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland – fielded in June 2024, we find little evidence of war fatigue among the European public two years after the outbreak of the war. Most respondents express satisfaction with current aid levels, and a narrow majority in most countries even supports increasing aid, while around 10 percent firmly opposes any support. Importantly, differences in desired change seem unrelated to whether countries have been relatively large or small aid donors so far. Furthermore, support for aiding Ukraine is shaped by economic evaluations and national identity. Citizens who negatively assess the domestic economy are less supportive of aid, whereas personal financial concerns do not have such an impact. In addition, citizens who identify along national versus European lines are also more likely to oppose aiding Ukraine. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine and the challenges they pose for sustaining public support crucial to European security.

Suggested Citation

  • Eck, Bjarn & Michel, Elie, 2024. "Breaking the Stalemate: Europeans’ Preferences to Expand, Cut, or Sustain Support to Ukraine," OSF Preprints typvk, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:typvk
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/typvk
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6751cf64577972f5adf452cd/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/typvk?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eichenberg, Richard C. & Dalton, Russell J., 1993. "Europeans and the European Community: the dynamics of public support for European integration," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 507-534, October.
    2. Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 1-23, January.
    3. Swen Hutter & Edgar Grande, 2014. "Politicizing Europe in the National Electoral Arena: A Comparative Analysis of Five West European Countries, 1970–2010," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1002-1018, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chase Foster & Jeffry Frieden, 2021. "Economic determinants of public support for European integration, 1995–2018," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 266-292, June.
    2. repec:osf:osfxxx:typvk_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Julian Aichholzer & Sylvia Kritzinger & Carolina Plescia, 2021. "National identity profiles and support for the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 293-315, June.
    4. Soetkin Verhaegen & Marc Hooghe & Ellen Quintelier, 2014. "European Identity and Support for European Integration: A Matter of Perceived Economic Benefits?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 295-314, May.
    5. Rauh, Christian, 2015. "Communicating supranational governance? The salience of EU affairs in the German Bundestag, 1991–2013," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 116-138.
    6. Brigitte Pircher & Karl Loxbo, 2020. "Compliance with EU Law in Times of Disintegration: Exploring Changes in Transposition and Enforcement in the EU Member States between 1997 and 2016," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(5), pages 1270-1287, September.
    7. Braun, Daniela & Grande, Edgar, 2021. "Politicizing Europe in Elections to the European Parliament (1994–2019): The Crucial Role of Mainstream Parties," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(5), pages 1124-1141.
    8. Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, 2013. "Why do they want the UN to decide? A two-step model of public support for UN authority," TranState Working Papers 171, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    9. Patricia Esteve‐González & Helmut Herwartz & Bernd Theilen, 2021. "National support for the European integration project: Does financial integration matter?," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 357-378, July.
    10. Rauh, Christian, 2022. "Clear messages to the European public? The language of European Commission press releases 1985–2020," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Latest Ar, pages 1-19.
    11. Luca Carrieri, 2024. "Awakening the Europhile Giant: EU Issue Voting in Western and Central‐Eastern Europe," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 262-284, January.
    12. Caroline Mcevoy, 2016. "The Role of Political Efficacy on Public Opinion in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1159-1174, September.
    13. Hutter, Swen & Kriesi, Hanspeter, 2019. "Politicizing Europe in times of crisis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(7), pages 996-1017.
    14. Hanspeter Kriesi, 2016. "The Politicization of European Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54, pages 32-47, September.
    15. Ioannis Vergioglou & Sven Hegewald, 2023. "From causes to consequences: Investigating the effects of differentiated integration on citizens’ EU support," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 206-224, March.
    16. Koen Abts & Tom Etienne & Yordan Kutiyski & André Krouwel, 2023. "EU-sentiment predicts the 2016 Dutch referendum vote on the EU’s association with Ukraine better than concerns about Russia or national discontent," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(3), pages 494-515, September.
    17. Thomas Winzen & Rik de Ruiter & Jofre Rocabert, 2018. "Is parliamentary attention to the EU strongest when it is needed the most? National parliaments and the selective debate of EU policies," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 481-501, September.
    18. Dimiter Toshkov, 2011. "Public opinion and policy output in the European Union: A lost relationship," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 169-191, June.
    19. Sara B Hobolt & Sebastian Adrian Popa & Wouter Van der Brug & Hermann Schmitt, 2022. "The Brexit deterrent? How member state exit shapes public support for the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 100-119, March.
    20. Rauh, Christian & Zürn, Michael, 2020. "Authority, politicization, and alternative justifications: endogenous legitimation dynamics in global economic governance," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 27(3), pages 583-611.
    21. John Curtice, 2017. "Why Leave Won the UK's EU Referendum," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55, pages 19-37, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:typvk. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.