Follow us on social

Poll: Zelensky's star fading among NATO countries

Poll: Zelensky's star fading among NATO countries

After two and a half years of war, a growing number wonder whether Ukraine's leader is doing 'the right thing'

Reporting | Europe

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which will mark its 75th anniversary at next week’s summit in Washington DC, retains strong support among its constituent nations, according to a new poll of 13 member states released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.

A median of 63% of respondents across the 13 nations said they had a positive view of NATO, while a median of 33% said they had a negative opinion of the Brussels-based organization. The most positive views were found in Poland (91%), the Netherlands (75%), and Sweden (72%), which only joined the alliance in March, making it the organization’s newest member.

The most negative views were found in Greece (37% positive) and Spain (45%). Only 42% of Turkish respondents said they had a positive view of NATO, but that was double the level of support for the alliance since Pew last polled the country in 2018.

The new poll, which was conducted from January to May as part of a much larger multinational survey of over 44,000 respondents in 35 NATO and non-NATO countries worldwide, also found a marked decline in confidence in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “to do the right thing regarding world affairs” compared to last year.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine nearly two-and-a-half years ago, NATO member states have provided tens of billions of dollars in economic and military aid to support Kyiv’s war effort, and Zelensky’s leadership was given significant credit for rallying that support.

But as it became clear that Ukraine’s much-anticipated counter-offensive failed to live up to hopeful expectations and Russia seemed to regain the upper hand, confidence in the Kyiv’s leadership among the NATO publics, particularly in Europe, appeared to falter.

That decline was most striking in neighboring Poland, where confidence in Zelensky “to do the right thing regarding world affairs” fell from 70% to 48%. Less dramatic, but nonetheless remarkable, confidence in Zelensky fell by around seven percentage points in the Netherlands (from 73% to 66%), Germany (61% to 54%), Spain (55% to 48%), France (50% to 43%), and Sweden (86% to 80%).

Polling in four countries showed splits in views about whether their country is providing too much, too little, or the right amount of support for Kyiv in the war. Perhaps reflecting the decline in support for Zelensky, only six percent of Polish respondents said their government was providing “not enough” support. The rest of Polish respondents were evenly split between the “right amount” and “too much.”

Respondents from Hungary and Turkey – both of which, unlike most NATO members, have retained relatively friendly relations with Russia since the war began, were also split. In Hungary, which has provided very little aid to Ukraine, 61 percent of respondents said their government had provided “about the right amount” and another 21% said it was “too much.” In Turkey, which provided critical drones to Ukraine early in the war, 46% said it was “about the right amount, 16% said it was too much, and 20% said it was “not enough.”

As for the U.S., which has provided the most military aid of all NATO members by far, opinions were roughly evenly split – 24% of respondents said the support was “not enough,” 25% said “about the right amount,” and 31% said it was too much. Of those who said it was “too much,” 51% identified themselves as “conservatives,” while only 13% of self-identified liberals said Washington had provided “too much.”

That difference was also reflected in views toward NATO. Nearly four out of five self-identified liberals in the U.S. said they held a positive view of the alliance, while only 41% of self-identified conservatives agreed.

Conversely, in Greece and Spain, two countries with the least favorable views of NATO, found that people who identified politically with the right in their countries were much more likely than those on the left to say their views of NATO were positive. The same pattern applied to Swedish respondents.


Biden should take the public's temperature on Ukraine War
Biden should take the public's temperature on Ukraine War
Reporting | Europe
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

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.