Ukrainians Support Balance Between Military Neutrality and Their Influence on Defense Decisions – Active Group Study

A study conducted by Active Group has uncovered that more than half of Ukrainians believe that the military should maintain a stance of political neutrality during the ongoing war. Nevertheless, a substantial part of society accepts their limited involvement in public processes, particularly in matters related to defense. These findings were presented during a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine agency.

According to the study's data, 23.1% of respondents firmly support the apolitical nature of the military, while an additional 27.3% lean towards this position. In contrast, 37.6% of those surveyed permit some level of military involvement in politics: 23.1% expressed a tendency to disagree, and 14.5% were outright opposed. Furthermore, 12% of respondents were undecided.

Alexander Pozniy, the director of Active Group, emphasized that there are two simultaneous demands within Ukrainian society: a call for military neutrality and a desire for their influence on defense decisions. "This is more about balance than extremes," Pozniy remarked, explaining that the majority of Ukrainians want the military to remain military during wartime, while also allowing for their participation in processes that directly pertain to the defense of the state.

Moreover, an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians support a strict command system within the army. 41% of respondents consider a unified command structure to be very important, while an additional 31.5% regard it as somewhat important, totaling 72.5%. Only about 10% of those surveyed disagreed with this viewpoint.

When it comes to decision-making during the war, opinions among Ukrainians are divided among key management centers. 22.4% believe that decisions should be made by the president as the supreme commander-in-chief, 25.6% by the commander-in-chief, 25.4% by the General Staff, around 14% by lower-level commanders, and 12.9% were undecided.

Andriy Yerenko, the founder of Active Group, explained that these figures reflect the public's trust in the management hierarchy and the expectation that strategic decisions will be made at the highest level. However, he noted that people do not always clearly distinguish the functions of different tiers of military leadership, which is reflected in the distribution of responses among the president, the commander-in-chief, and the General Staff.

The study also recorded a demand for a combination of centralization and flexibility in management. 40.1% of respondents predominantly support a vertical command structure, with 16% favoring an exclusively vertical system and 24.1% leaning towards a vertical structure. Meanwhile, 37% of respondents expressed support for the autonomy of units, with 29.5% advocating for greater autonomy and 7.5% for complete autonomy. An additional 22.9% of those surveyed were undecided.

Yerenko pointed out that society essentially demands that strategy be formulated from the top down, while allowing for freedom of action at the unit level. "This indicates a rejection of micromanagement and simultaneously a need for quality feedback. People expect decisions to take into account the real situation on the ground," he added.

Among the forms of military participation in public life, Ukrainians most support calls for politicians to make decisions in the defense sector (37.3% support), public positions on legislative initiatives (26.3%), and the establishment of veteran and civic organizations (24.6%). Conversely, the greatest disapproval arises from the use of military authority to influence voters (30.4% negative balance) and participation in shaping political decisions or commenting on political processes.

Pozniy stressed that "there is a clear boundary: the military can influence defense decisions but should not interfere in electoral processes. Attempts to use military authority in political struggles are perceived very negatively. This is an important signal for future political campaigns."

Additionally, respondents identified key qualities for a modern commander: responsibility for subordinates (64.9%), strategic thinking (59.9%), the ability to execute tasks (37.1%), discipline (35.4%), and interaction with command (33.4%). In contrast, media activity received only 2.4% support.

Among the factors negatively impacting the army's effectiveness, respondents pointed to corruption risks: 53.9% cited abuses during procurement, and 46.1% during operation planning. Respondents also mentioned personnel fatigue and insufficient rotation (42.7%), outdated training approaches (35.3%), low motivation (35.1%), and bureaucratic procedures (34%).

Yerenko noted that "corruption is traditionally seen as a major problem in any sphere. However, alongside this, we see systemic issues – rotation, motivation, and the quality of management. These are a complex of factors that shape the army's effectiveness and require systemic solutions."

At the same time, 76.5% of Ukrainians (47.8% positive, 28.7% somewhat positive) express a favorable attitude towards units that combine discipline, state subordination, and modern approaches to warfare.

In the ranking of units based on perceptions of discipline and effectiveness, the Special Operations Center "A" of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) leads with 17.9% support, followed by the 3rd Army Corps (14.5%) and Azov (13.2%). In terms of trust in fulfilling state tasks, Azov ranks first (15.2%), followed by the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (14.7%) and "Alpha" (13.4%).

However, more than 40% of respondents could not identify specific units, indicating a limited awareness among citizens and a significant influence of media presence on shaping public opinion.

Overall, the results of the study demonstrate the demand from Ukrainian society for the depoliticization of the military, the maintenance of a strict command hierarchy, and flexibility at the unit level, along with a clear distinction between influence in the defense sector and participation in political competition.