Gallup: 70% of Ukrainians want to continue fighting, 56% in the East

[FfFfFfFF 58,127]

A clear majority -- 70% of all Ukrainians say their country should continue fighting until it wins the war with Russia. Just over one in four (26%) favor negotiating to end it as soon as possible.

Gallup collected these data Sept. 2-11 across all regions of Ukraine, including the Donbas, as the country's military successfully retook swathes of Russian-held territory but before the recent retaliatory missile attacks across the country.

There are substantial differences in the levels of support among demographical groups. One of the largest divides is by gender, with 76% of Ukrainian men in favor of fighting the war until it is won, compared with 64% of women who say the same.

Support for continuing to fight is stronger in regions farthest from the ground war and weaker in parts of Ukraine where people are closest to the action. Backing for the war effort is highest in places such as the country's capital, Kyiv (83%), and in the West (82%), Central (78%) and North (75%) regions of the country. Much smaller majorities in the country's East (56%) and South (58%) support continuing the war.

Ukrainians who said their country should fight on until victory were asked a follow-up question about what would have to happen for Ukraine to declare victory. About nine in 10 (91%) said that victory would entail Ukrainian forces retaking all territory that Russia has seized since 2014, including Crimea.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/403133/ukrainians-support-fighting-until-victory.aspx

[palma 8,909]

Honestly I believe if the war doesn’t end in total Ukrainian victory, the country will have to live with constant threat from Russia as NATO/EU wouldn’t admit a country which is partially under the occupation of its main rival. I would like the war to stop as soon as possible but a decisive victory is the long term solution here.

[bionic 50,111]

Not a surprise that those more directly affected are more willing to end things sooner rather than later. I feel sorry for them all

[FfFfFfFF 58,127]

1 hour ago, palma said:

Honestly I believe if the war doesn’t end in total Ukrainian victory, the country will have to live with constant threat from Russia as NATO/EU wouldn’t admit a country which is partially under the occupation of its main rival. I would like the war to stop as soon as possible but a decisive victory is the long term solution here.

It is pill though to swallow for sure, but all countries were forced to cede some of their territories at one point in history, including Ukraine's neighbours ceding and giving up all their claims to territories in favour of Ukraine (in 1945 Soviet Ukraine was enlarged with territories from Romania, Hungary and Poland, in 1999 Romania gave up on its claims to Snake Island and in 2007 gave up part of its maritime claims in the Black Sea). These were unpopular and bitter decisions that had to be done in order for Ukraine's neighbours to be allowed into NATO.

[Luc 4,776]

If we look at the politics of countries that, whether legitimate or not, have territories outside of their own that they feel is theirs, what do we see? Looking at Serbia, Azerbaijan/Armenia, India/Pakistan, and some more. Their politics often becomes dominated by whichever guy can shout hardest that they will get the territory that belongs to them. It's no longer about economics, or which party is the least corrupt, or which party has the best vision on inequality and business opportunity, or which party has the best views on female emancipation, it's about nationalism vs. ultranationalism. It stymies all other progress. 

And that's what I fear for Ukraine. How does Ukraine's future look like after the war (however it ends)? Based on what I see my friends in/from Ukraine post: Zelensky will probably be president for as long as he wants to, and politics will otherwise probably be dominated by whichever politician can shout the hardest how much they hate Russians. But that is not how a country progresses. A corrupt guy might be elected just because they shout hardest that they'll take back Donbas and **** on all Russians. That's what happens in Serbia versus Kosovars, Bosniaks and Albanians (though of course Serbia's claims aren't legitimate).

So, in my view, Ukraine doesn't really have a future if it doesn't take back all of its territories, probably including Crimea. Besides, Ukraine needs to get to at least pre-February territory so as not to incentivize Russia to try again. Probably, the question of reparation payments should also be settled (preferably with the hundreds of billions of frozen assets). Getting the question of lost territories out of the way will make it much more likely for Ukrainian post-war politics to normalize, such that parties will compete over the issues that matter for the well-being of the population, like the economy, corruption, public services, and EU integration.

[FfFfFfFF 58,127]

11 minutes ago, Luc said:

If we look at the politics of countries that, whether legitimate or not, have territories outside of their own that they feel is theirs, what do we see? Looking at Serbia, Azerbaijan/Armenia, India/Pakistan, and some more. Their politics often becomes dominated by whichever guy can shout hardest that they will get the territory that belongs to them. It's no longer about economics, or which party is the least corrupt, or which party has the best vision on inequality and business opportunity, or which party has the best views on female emancipation, it's about nationalism vs. ultranationalism. It stymies all other progress. 

And that's what I fear for Ukraine. How does Ukraine's future look like after the war (however it ends)? Based on what I see my friends in/from Ukraine post: Zelensky will probably be president for as long as he wants to, and politics will otherwise probably be dominated by whichever politician can shout the hardest how much they hate Russians. But that is not how a country progresses. A corrupt guy might be elected just because they shout hardest that they'll take back Donbas and **** on all Russians. That's what happens in Serbia versus Kosovars, Bosniaks and Albanians (though of course Serbia's claims aren't legitimate).

So, in my view, Ukraine doesn't really have a future if it doesn't take back all of its territories, probably including Crimea. Besides, Ukraine needs to get to at least pre-February territory so as not to incentivize Russia to try again. Probably, the question of reparation payments should also be settled (preferably with the hundreds of billions of frozen assets). Getting the question of lost territories out of the way will make it much more likely for Ukrainian post-war politics to normalize, such that parties will compete over the issues that matter for the well-being of the population, like the economy, corruption, public services, and EU integration.

I love your way of seeing the situation, though to take the argument to its conclusion you will have to recognize that in this situation the ultranationalist faction will take power, not in Ukraine, but in Russia who will loose what considers to be its proper territories. Russia will never accept to loose Crimea and even using a nuclear weapon is in the realm of possibilities to prevent it. If it looses it, the next leader will at least brand himself to be the one who will defeat NATO "once and for all", end what its precedesor started etc.

[Luc 4,776]

56 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

I love your way of seeing the situation, though to take the argument to its conclusion you will have to recognize that in this situation the ultranationalist faction will take power, not in Ukraine, but in Russia who will loose what considers to be its proper territories. Russia will never accept to loose Crimea and even using a nuclear weapon is in the realm of possibilities to prevent it. If it looses it, the next leader will at least brand himself to be the one who will defeat NATO "once and for all", end what its precedesor started etc.

Well, that's not a change from the status quo (until they actually use nuclear weapons). Russia is already pretty close to a total war against Ukraine. They can't do much more (again, except for nuclear weapons).

I also agree with (I think it was some US secretary) who said that Russia must be weakened to the point it cannot wage these type of wars anymore. The purpose is to make Russia more of a failed state than it already is, by wearing them out in the war, by sanctioning them, so that every future attempt at something like this will be even less effective.