Follow us on social

Original-1-scaled

Do Americans support fighting in Ukraine? It depends how you ask

Early polling showed the US public approved sending troops to back Kyiv, but then surveys started describing what that would entail.

Analysis | Europe

As Ukraine struggles against the Russian invasion and the war’s horrors continue to unfold, American foreign policy elites are divided over what more the United States should do to support Ukraine. The recent Russian retreat from Kyiv has shifted the war to the east, spurring calls to give Ukraine more weapons to protract the war in hopes of victory. Some have advocated sending U.S. advisers to Ukraine and considered direct U.S. military intervention.

But what do the American people think? Public opinion polling reveals that the answer depends on context the pollster provides to those surveyed and that popular support for escalatory policies grows lukewarm when Americans understand the risks.

The outcome of this war — even with no direct involvement by foreign military forces on Ukraine’s behalf — is far from certain, but direct U.S. or NATO involvement risks further escalation by Russia. A U.S.-enforced no-fly zone — an idea hotly debated last month — means the United States would have to shoot down Russian warplanes over Ukraine. This would put the United States at war with Russia, pitting two nuclear-armed powers against each other. But the risk of great-power war did not stop several members of Congress and prominent foreign policy commentators from advocating for a no-fly zone and further escalation of the conflict.

Early polls of American views on deploying U.S. military forces to Ukraine and enforcing a no-fly zone appear at first glance to confirm support for their positions. In July 2021, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs asked Americans if they’d support the use of U.S. troops should Russia invade the rest of Ukraine. Fifty percent favored while 48 percent opposed. The share of Americans favoring the use of force had increased substantially from 30 percent in 2014, when Russia first invaded eastern Ukraine. A YouGov survey from March 10 to 14, 2022, found that 40 percent of Americans supported a U.S. no-fly zone over Ukraine while only 25 percent opposed.

But the notion of all-out war in Ukraine and the meaning of a no-fly zone — whose Google search queries peaked in early March — were abstract for most Americans until Russia’s new invasion in late February. Respondents to the polls above could only theoretically assess the risk of escalation from inserting U.S. ground troops or standing up a no-fly zone. As the scope of the war and Russia’s commitment to it became clear, however, the risks of escalation became clearer as well. In turn, U.S. public support for escalatory policies dropped substantially.

An Ipsos/Reuters poll on U.S. attitudes regarding Ukraine was conducted from March 7-8 — after two weeks of substantial news coverage of the conflict — found that just 35 percent of Americans supported sending U.S. troops to Ukraine, a decrease from 50 percent in July 2021. This figure was the same as of late March, according to Chicago Council polling.

On the issue of a no-fly zone, the aforementioned YouGov poll asked additional respondents the same question but included an explanation of what a no-fly zone would entail. Only 23 percent of those who were actually told what a no-fly zone issaid they supported one, while 43 percent opposed — the opposite outcome from the same question offered without a contextual explanation. (Though the late March Chicago Council poll saw support for a no-fly zone move back toward 40 percent, it did not define a no-fly zone for respondents as the YouGov poll did.)

Simply put, most Americans do not want to send the U.S. military into this fight.

Even as public discussion of a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone has subsided, the American public’s  reluctance to support one has held. A recently published Ipsos online survey conducted from March 25 to April 3 found that 65 percent of respondents said the United States “should avoid getting militarily involved” in the Ukraine conflict. Just under a quarter said U.S. troops should be sent to Ukraine.

A CBS News/YouGov poll conducted a week later — by which time Russia had stopped trying to pounce on Kyiv — found that less than a quarter of respondents supported sending U.S. troops to Ukraine, though over half said they would support U.S. military action if chemical or nuclear weapons were used. A poll from April 14 to 18 by the AP and the National Opinion Research Center found that support for sending U.S. troops to Ukraine was unchanged at 22 percent. These figures have been relatively stable from early March to mid-April — from Kyiv’s direst moment in the war thus far to the shift in Russian strategy.

By contrast, in 1978, a majority of Americans supported sending troops to Western Europe if the Soviets invaded. This position grew more popular in the 1980s. While the balance of power and circumstances were certainly different then, like for example the U.S. obligation to help defend other NATO countries, the nuclear specter and the risk that escalation is met in kind remain. It matters that the public now has a reminder of what a real shooting war looks like. After consuming this visual media and obtaining a better understanding of options, a majority of the American public is cautious.

Public opinion is but one consideration in a well-deliberated foreign policy. Yet it is telling that advocates of a no-fly zone and other direct U.S. military engagement have failed to adequately sell their case to the Americans that would pay for these actions, certainly in treasure and potentially in blood. These lessons should be remembered as the war grinds on; the next months may well see rekindled calls to increase U.S. involvement on the battlefield. The bluntness of military tools and the high stakes of the war ensure that substantial military escalation of any kind will carry substantial risks. Given adequate time and context to consider this, policy makers should take note that most Americans have realized the implications.


A paratrooper assigned to the Troop B, 5-73 Cavalry, 82nd Airborne Division trains a Polish soldier during a combined training event in Nowa Deba, Poland, Feb. 22, 2022. The 82nd Airborne Division is currently deployed to Poland to train with and operate alongside our Polish allies. The training allows allies to get to know each other’s equipment, capabilities and tactics to enhance readiness and strengthen the NATO alliance. (U.S. Army photo by Master Sgt. Alexander Burnett)
Analysis | Europe
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.