As part of the study "Justice in the context of Russian armed aggression" conducted by the Sociological Group "Rating", with the support of Switzerland through the Peace and Human Rights Division, results were obtained regarding Ukrainians' understanding of justice, punishment, and compensation in the context of Russia's military aggression; perceptions of collaborationist activities and commemoration.

Assessment of the situation

   
• 78% of respondents believe that the economic situation in the country has deteriorated over the past year, 6% believe it has improved, and another 13% believe it has remained unchanged. 59% mentioned negative changes in their family's financial situation, while for 36%, the situation has not changed, and for 4%, it has improved. Half of the respondents indicated a decrease in confidence in the future and the political situation in the country. In comparison with November 2022, the indicators of the situation deterioration have significantly increased. For a quarter of the respondents in these areas, nothing has changed, and about 15% observe improvement.

Losses due to war 

   
• Among the losses suffered by respondents as a result of the war, 50% reported worsening of their psychoemotional state, while approximately 40% mentioned deterioration in their physical health. About 30% experienced income loss. Separation from family was noted by 23%, while 22% mentioned job loss. Close to 20% of respondents indicated the loss or injury of a loved one and the breakdown of relationships with family members.
   
• According to surveyed Ukrainians, the worst harm caused by Russia is the loss of civilians (68%) and military personnel (65%), as well as injuries and disabilities suffered by citizens (40%).
   
• According to the survey results, the key victims of Russian aggression are relatives of the deceased (60%); individuals who have been held captive (41%); those who have suffered physical injuries (34%), and have lost their homes (33%). Respondents identify these same categories, as well as war veterans and relatives of the disappeared, as those who should be prioritized for compensation for the damages incurred. 
   
• Opinions among respondents regarding the appropriateness of supporting Ukrainians abroad are divided: 40% believe that support should be provided, while 57% disagree. The necessity of support is more frequently mentioned by the youth, as well as residents of the partially occupied, frontline territories, and conflict zones.

Understanding of Justice

   
• According to 47% of respondents, justice in the context of Russia's military aggression against Ukraine entails holding accountable those responsible for war crimes. For 30%, it involves uncovering the truth about all events, while 17% view it as compensating for damages to all affected parties. 
   
• 75% of respondents disagree with the idea that justice can be achieved without the arrest and trial of those responsible for the attack on Ukraine and military crimes. Only 22% agree with the possibility of achieving justice under such conditions. 
   
• Among the priority directions of activity for the Ukrainian government and society in ensuring justice, respondents most frequently mentioned holding the guilty accountable (55%), cleansing the government by removing and preventing those who collaborated with occupiers from holding office (46%), and locating missing persons and repatriating deportees (30%). Approximately a quarter of respondents indicated establishing facts of crimes and obtaining financial compensation, while one in five mentioned strengthening sanctions and freezing the assets of Russia and its citizens. 
   
• According to half of the respondents, achieving justice for war victims depends mostly on the President. 37% of respondents see Parliament as responsible, while 35% attribute responsibility to the Government. Approximately a quarter of respondents believe that Ukrainian citizens are responsible, with the youth expressing this opinion more frequently than other age groups. 
   
•  Nearly 90% of respondents believe that along with judicial proceedings, additional mechanisms for ensuring justice should be applied (such as lustration commissions, establishing the truth about war events, and compensating damages to victims): 51% indicated that they should be applied on a permanent basis, while 38% said they should be temporary. The majority of respondents (84%) believe that such mechanisms should operate throughout the territory of Ukraine. 
   
• 41% of respondents believe that the legality and legitimacy of these institutions' activities will be ensured through their creation based on agreements between Ukraine and several other countries. Twenty-four percent think that this will be influenced by establishing such institutions through changes in the Constitution and legislation, while another 18% suggest that the activities of additional institutions should be endorsed by UN structures. 
   
• The issue of the justification of vigilante justice regarding those guilty of war crimes is ambiguous among respondents: 46% consider vigilante justice justified, while 51% hold the opposite view. 
   
• An overwhelming majority (95%) of respondents consider it important to ensure transparency and regular information provision to citizens and victims about the progress of court proceedings regarding war crimes. 
     

Perceptions of reintegration

   
• The introduction of international temporary administration to facilitate the adaptation process in the liberated territories of Donbas and Crimea is supported by 76% of respondents, while 20% oppose this idea.
   
• According to the majority of respondents, the state should already be implementing measures to support and establish communication with the population remaining in the occupied territories. 47% believe that such initiatives should be directed only towards those who support Ukraine, while 40% suggest they should be aimed at all residents who remain in the occupied territories. 8% indicated that such measures are not a priority, while another 3% believe that the state should not allocate resources for this purpose at all.
   
• About 40% of respondents mention social and pension payments, as well as ensuring the broadcast of Ukrainian channels, as support measures for the population remaining in the occupied territories. Additionally, around 33% cite assistance in facilitating the relocation of people from these areas. Close to 30% mention guarantees of recognition for documents obtained during the occupation and organizing safe access to government services. Furthermore, approximately 23% note programs aimed at engaging youth from the occupied territories.
   
• 54% of respondents believe that restrictions on rights (such as the right to vote, hold certain positions, and engage in business activities) should not be applied to residents of the occupied territories, while 43% hold the opposite view. Regarding the appropriateness of restricting rights for Ukrainian citizens who have emigrated abroad, 29% of respondents indicated support for such initiatives, while 68% were against it.
   
• The situation and living conditions in the occupied territories are of constant interest to 34% of respondents, while an additional 25% show frequent interest. Rare interest is expressed by 33% of respondents, while 7% are almost never or never interested. Respondents from older age groups and those who have relatives in the occupied territories tend to show more frequent interest in the situation. 
   
• Regarding the justification of obtaining Russian citizenship, 10% of respondents unequivocally agree, while another 39% tend to agree. Forty-six percent of respondents disagree. Those who do not agree with the possibility of justifying obtaining Russian citizenship are more often respondents who do not have relatives in the occupied territories and residents of central and western regions.

Perceptions of collaborative activities

   
• Most often, respondents associated collaborationist activities with holding leadership positions in the authorities of the occupying regime (50%), serving in the ranks of the occupying armed forces (47%), involvement in organizing so-called elections and referendums (46%), serving in law enforcement and judicial bodies (32%), and holding any positions in the authorities of the local occupation self-government. Respondents living in conflict zones more frequently than others pointed out the collaborationist nature of holding positions in local occupation self-government. 
   
• 52% of respondents believe that any cooperation with the occupying administrations warrants criminal responsibility, while 47% believe it applies only to cooperation that led to serious consequences and crimes. 
   
• Most respondents (66%) believe that restrictions on holding certain positions could serve as punishment for collaboration with the occupying authorities. A quarter of respondents consider fines appropriate, while about 20% suggest restrictions on participation in public life or community service as potential punishments. Residents of conflict zones and frontline areas slightly more frequently opt for community service as a potential punishment. 
   
• 66% of respondents believe that the punishment for collaborating with the occupying administrations, such as being barred from holding public office or engaging in business activities, should be indefinite. Another 30% think it should have a limited duration.
   
• 61% of respondents believe that the courts should determine the degree and non-criminal forms of punishment for collaborationist activities. About a quarter believe that such decisions should be made by local government bodies, while more than 20% suggest that affected communities and their relatives should have a say. Active community involvement is deemed more relevant by older respondents, while younger individuals consider the role of courts and local government to be more important.

Possible amnesty

   
• Approximately 40% of respondents believe that amnesty could be granted to those convicted of crimes that did not result in loss of life, or on the condition of performing socially beneficial work to rebuild the country. Providing important and truthful testimony, compensating victims, may also be grounds for amnesty, according to about a quarter of respondents. Voluntary confession to a specific crime could be a condition for 20% of respondents. Fourteen percent of respondents consider amnesty for individuals guilty of committing war crimes during the war to be impossible under any circumstances. 
   
• Among the categories of residents of the occupied territories who collaborated with the occupiers and could potentially be eligible for amnesty, 58% of respondents mentioned teachers, doctors, and social workers, while 33% mentioned local municipal enterprise managers (schools, hospitals, municipal enterprises). Seventeen percent of respondents believe that amnesty cannot be applied to any group.

Perceptions of the future

   
• Among the initiatives that respondents are willing to support to stabilize the situation in the country after the war, a quarter are ready to agree to the preservation of Crimea's autonomy status. Approximately 20% are ready to support the introduction of a transitional administration under the auspices of the UN in the liberated territories of Donbas and Crimea; granting the liberated territories expanded economic powers. Only 17% are willing to support granting autonomy status to the liberated territories of Donbas. 23% of respondents are not willing to support any similar initiatives.
   
• More than 90% of respondents believe that Ukraine has a common future with the residents of the territories that were occupied in 2022. 83% of those surveyed see a common future with the residents of Crimea and Donbas, which were occupied in 2014. 
   
• Regarding the need for a national discussion among representatives from different regions of Ukraine about the format of a shared future after the liberation of the occupied territories, 83% of respondents indicate agreement, while 14% hold the opposite view.
   
• According to 48%, discussions should commence after the end of the war, while 32% believe that the process should begin now. Additionally, 19% stated that discussions should start after the situation on the front stabilizes. 51% see Ukrainian citizens as the initiators of the process, 39% - local authorities, 33% - national authorities, and 30% - civil society organizations.

Commemoration of memory

   
• Nearly 70% of respondents participated in events commemorating the memory of those affected and killed as a result of Russia's aggression: 34% in cases involving close relatives or personally, 35% in official events at the state or community level. 30% did not participate in such events. Youth and residents of western and central regions more frequently mentioned their participation in memorial events.
   
• Questions of historical memory and corresponding state policy are important for 91% of respondents. 
   
• 94% of respondents agree with the statement that Ukraine should already dignify the memory of the victims of Russian armed aggression, particularly through various national and local initiatives.
   
• Nearly 90% of respondents view positively the renaming of cities, streets, or squares in honor of fallen soldiers, military personnel, and veterans. Renaming place names in honor of volunteers is positively received by 78%, in honor of civilians by 68%, and in honor of the country's military-political leadership by 57%.
   
• According to 42% of respondents, national government bodies should act as coordinators of initiatives to honor the memory of victims of Russian aggression. Additionally, roles should be given to local authorities (34%), victims and their family members (29%), civil society organizations (27%), associations of victims (18%), and to the church and religious figures (5%).