Multilateral institutions

Military spending

The Ukraine conflict

Foreign policy priorities

Peaceful mitigation of conflicts

Foreign policy instruments

Coronavirus

Trust in institutions

EU-NATO relations

Relations with the EU

Threat perceptions

EU Army

Status in the world

Sanctions against Russia

Pragmatism

Relations with Russia

Military spending

Most respondents are dissatisfied with how the national government has dealt with the pandemic. In Norway, the vast majority (71%) of respondents are satisfied with their country‘s crisis management. But Norway is clearly the exception. In all other countries the majority or relative majority of respondents are dissatisfied, with the lowest satisfaction found in Latvia (24%) and Poland (27%).

When asked about the extent to which the respondents worry about wars and conflicts, the perceived threat level is in general rather high. Austria and Germany stand out as relatively relaxed, but even in Germany 47% are worried about wars and conflicts. At the other end of the spectrum are Armenia, Turkey and Ukraine, with the highest levels of threat perception.

Trust in institutions is generally low across the polled countries. Political parties, the media and the government suffer most from a very high degree of distrust. The highest and unique level of trust in institutions is observed in Norway. Norwegians place less trust only in the media (42%) and political parties (43%). In contrast, the lowest levels of trust can be found in Ukraine, Serbia and Poland. In these countries only the military is trusted by a majority (69%, 69%, 54%).

There are a disquieting number of countries where a majority of citizens are dissatisfied with their country’s status in the world. There seems to be a strong disparity between East and West: respondents in Western states seem to be more content with their countries’ international standing. All in all, a reservoir of discontent with the counties’ place in the world could thus pose a future challenge for European security.

In all surveyed countries clear majorities support increased collaboration with the European Union. Non-EU members Norway and the United Kingdom demonstrate a certain distance from the EU, with the lowest support for increased collaboration (54% and 57%, respectively). Despite all recent disagreements between Russia and the EU, more respondents support increased cooperation with the EU in Russia (66%) than in the United States (60%). The highest endorsement is found in EU’s Eastern Partnership members Armenia (85%) and Ukraine (84%). In all of the polled countries, even the United States, a substantial minority believe that there is regular disagreement between their country and the EU. Big majorities are found in non-EU members Turkey (69%), Armenia (65%) and Serbia (63%), closely followed by Russia (62%).

When asked whether the EU should deepen its cooperation with NATO, respondents in Poland (41%) and Ukraine (39%) are particularly supportive. On the other hand, strategic autonomy – the idea that the European Union should become increasingly or fully independent of NATO –has very little support in any polled EU member state. In the country that supports strategic autonomy most strongly, Italy, the combined support is only 32% (17% for increasing independence and 15% for complete independence).

The question whether the EU should build up its own powerful army to be on an equal footing with other great powers produces a rather high degree of variance between the countries. In Germany, France, Latvia and Poland there is more approval than disapproval for this idea. By contrast, in Italy and Austria, respondents are rather undecided. In non-member states of the EU, in particular in Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Norway, the idea of a powerful European army is perceived with some suspicion. Respondents in Armenia, Ukraine, Serbia and the United States look rather favourably on it, but only in Armenia is there a clear majority (71%) in favour of a European Army.

For our respondents the main factors currently shaping relations between Russia and Europe are the Ukraine conflict and the resulting sanctions regime against Russia. This sentiment is especially strong in Ukraine (79%) and Russia (71%), but also in neighbouring Latvia (71%), Poland (68%) and Armenia (67%). Besides the current and active conflict, incompatible values and mindsets between Russia and many European states are perceived as the main factors affecting relations throughout the sample. This view is especially strong in Ukraine (65%), Latvia (64%) and Poland (61%).

Because the Ukraine conflict is perceived as the main factor shaping the relationship between Russia and the rest of Europe, respondents in all countries believe that the resolution of this conflict is a prerequisite for peace and security in Europe. Concerning who is responsible for the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Russia is identified as the main culprit in all countries, with the exception of respondents in Russia and Serbia. The separatists are also believed by a sizable part of respondents as responsible for the escalation, although to a much smaller degree than Russia. The 40% of Ukrainians who believe this statement is the highest value for this question. The position that Ukraine itself is responsible is highly popular in Russia (55%); remarkably, however, also 28% of Ukrainians agree with this statement, the second highest rate of agreement.

Sanctions have been used regularly in dealing with Russia in the context of the Ukraine conflict. In Ukraine (67%) and Poland (58%) respondents support a widening of sanctions by a considerable majority, whereas in Russia and Serbia (both 77% against) we observe the opposite. Germany, Latvia, Austria and Armenia exhibit differentiated responses, with a very small margin in favour of more sanctions in Germany and Latvia and a considerable surplus against sanctions in Austria and Armenia.

In all countries the vast majority of respondents agree with the statement that for their respective country peace and security in Europe should be a policy priority. The lowest approval for this idea can be found in the United States and Russia. Nevertheless, 58% of Americans and 59% of Russians agree with this statement. Similarly high levels of approval greet the question of whether their respective country should be committed to relieving tensions in international politics and the peaceful mitigation of conflicts. The lowest rate of approval for this statement is found again in the United States (60%), but also in the United Kingdom (67%) and Norway (68%).

Regarding which three global foreign and security policy problems should be given priority, terrorism and extremism make the top of the list. There is a high level of agreement especially in France (70% select this topic), Russia (64%), and the United States (61%). The second topic on the list is climate change, however it is a significantly more important topic in central and Western Europe than elsewhere. Taking into account the disruptions caused by the coronavirus, the importance given to pandemics is rather low, with the highest value given to it in Ukraine (53%) and the United States (50%). International migration is a high priority especially in Turkey (51%) and Latvia (48%). Geopolitical tensions and conflicts are of comparatively high importance in Ukraine (41%) and Russia (37%), but far less important in most other countries.

A clear majority in all surveyed countries are in favour of the United Nations playing a bigger role in international politics. This sentiment is particularly strong in Ukraine (79%). The view that the EU should be more important is especially popular among member states Italy (67%), Latvia (64%) and France (63%), but also in Ukraine (71%). Regarding the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe a relative majority in all countries favour this organisation playing a bigger role on the world stage. Particularly high rates of approval can be found in Ukraine (67%), which hosts an OSCE Special Monitoring Mission and whose respondents are generally supportive of international organisations.

View detailed figures for all 14 countries

Whether national military spending should be increased is very strongly supported in Armenia (96%). There is clear approval also in Turkey, Ukraine, Poland and Serbia. In Norway, the United Kingdom and France respondents also rather support such a step. In the United States respondents are undecided, which could be explained by the enormous military spending there. Rather opposed to spending more money on the national military are Italy, Latvia, Austria, Germany and, interestingly, also Russia.

Throughout the survey, respondents do not perceive ideology or values as an impediment to dialogue and negotiation. A broad majority are in favour of cooperating with other countries for the purpose of peace and security in the world, even if they do not share the same values. This public pragmatism is especially high in Serbia (81%) and Latvia (77%) and comparatively low in France (54%), Germany (53%) and the United States (52%).

Respondents only in Turkey, Armenia, France, Ukraine and the United States consider military intervention to be an effective foreign policy instrument. However, only US-American and French respondents, two of the four surveyed permanent UN Security Council members, also perceive this instrument to be legitimate. In contrast, diplomatic negotiations are perceived as far more effective. In all countries a majority of respondents approve of this assessment. Nevertheless, respondents in the United Kingdom, the United States and France have a comparatively low opinion of the effectiveness of diplomatic negotiations.

page 1/2

Respondents only in Turkey, Armenia, France, Ukraine and the United States consider military intervention to be an effective foreign policy instrument. However, only US-American and French respondents, two of the four surveyed permanent UN Security Council members, also perceive this instrument to be legitimate. In contrast, diplomatic negotiations are perceived as far more effective. In all countries a majority of respondents approve of this assessment. Nevertheless, respondents in the United Kingdom, the United States and France have a comparatively low opinion of the effectiveness of diplomatic negotiations. Correspondingly, in all countries a vast majority of respondents also believe that this instrument is legitimate, albeit with a comparatively low legitimacy rating in the United States. Asked about the effectiveness of economic sanctions respondents in two-thirds of the surveyed countries considered them to be rather effective, especially in Turkey, Ukraine and Norway. By contrast, they are perceived as rather ineffective in Serbia, Russia and Latvia. Only Serbian and Russian respondents perceive economic sanctions rather as illegitimate than legitimate. Particularly high ratings of the legitimacy of economic sanctions can be found in Ukraine and Germany.

page 2/2

Correspondingly, in all countries a vast majority of respondents also believe that this instrument is legitimate, albeit with a comparatively low legitimacy rating in the United States. Asked about the effectiveness of economic sanctions respondents in two-thirds of the surveyed countries considered them to be rather effective, especially in Turkey, Ukraine and Norway. By contrast, they are perceived as rather ineffective in Serbia, Russia and Latvia. Only Serbian and Russian respondents perceive economic sanctions rather as illegitimate than legitimate. Particularly high ratings of the legitimacy of economic sanctions can be found in Ukraine and Germany.