The survey was commissioned by the National Platform for Resilience and Social Cohesion.

Assessment of the situation 

• According to the survey, 67% of interviewed believe that things are headed in the right direction in Ukraine, 18% are of the opposite opinion and a further 15% could not assess. Although in all regions and among all age and property groups the assessment of the direction as the correct one continues to dominate, there are some differences. Estimates are somewhat lower relative to the average among residents of the southern and eastern regions, residents of villages, middle-aged people and the poorest.

• Believe in the Ukrainian Armed Forces (86%) and family and loved ones (61%) were the main factors that helped those surveyed remain stability during the war with Russia. One-third noted that such factor was daily work (31%), up to a quarter – faith in the state, religion, or belief in God. 12% said that participation in volunteering and fundraising, as well as international aid, contributed to their resilience.

Country Evaluation and its future

• An absolute majority of those surveyed (82%) consider Ukraine to be a successful state. Only 16% have the opposite view.  56% of the polled think that the main sign of a successful state is a strong army. One-third of them consider it to be a strong economy, the rule of law and unity of the society. 19% consider it to be the social protection of citizens and the country's international standing. By 14–16% each – modern science and technology, political stability, equal society and strong democratic institutions. 11% consider the national idea to be a factor of success.

• Assessments of the top priorities for the country's development after the war showed that the safety factor and social protection were dominant. 77% determined that the priority of development after the war in Ukraine should be the development of the military industry, the strengthening of borders and reforms. 70% considered a priority on the growth of salaries and pensions, access to healthcare, and financial aid to the low-income. Innovations in the state (new technologies, energy saving, science and education) are priorities for 44% of respondents.

• Most of those surveyed (58%) said that they were prepared to endure difficulties because of the war for several years to win. 11% said that they were prepared to endure it for about a year, and 12% for a few months. 11% of the interviewed were not prepared to tolerate hardship, the majority (23%) among the poorer strata of the population.

• Medicine (50%), military industry (46%), construction (43%), agriculture (38%) and education and science (34%) are the spheres of the economy that, according to respondents, should be developed first of all after the war in Ukraine. 23% believe that heavy industry and metallurgy should be the priority for development, and 15% - the IT sphere.

• Young people (50%) and military and veterans (46%) are the categories of the population that, according to the majority of respondents, will contribute the most to the effective development of Ukrainian society in the future. 30% of respondents believe that they should be scientists, and innovators, 26% - are volunteers, 25% - are entrepreneurs of small and medium–sized businesses, 16% - are public figures, and 13% - are politicians and heads of large businesses, and enterprises. 8% each consider representatives of local authorities or clergymen, and 6% consider journalists and bloggers.

Social distances

• Ukrainian-language people, residents of the European Union, settlers from other regions, and fellow citizens who were under occupation after February 24, 2022, are the group of persons who respondents are most willing to cooperate and interact with. Ukrainians who have left the country, Russian-speaking Ukrainians and residents of occupied Crimea are the groups with which the majority of the population is ready to collaborate. Russians who live in Ukraine less than half are ready to cooperate with, not ready - 49%. 30% are ready to work with the inhabitants of the so-called DNR/LNR, 63% - are not, 22% are willing to deal with the residents of Belarus, and 73% are not. 90% are not able to associate with the residents of Russia, and only 7% are ready. 

• The majority of respondents (over 75%) did not personally feel criticized or disapproved because of their political preferences, language of communication, belonging to a certain region, religious affiliation, or because of nationality. Despite this, 21% said that they had faced criticism over the past year because of their political preferences, 13% because of their primary language and 11% because of their religious identity. Only 8% were criticised because of their religious affiliation and 6% because of their nationality.

Assessment of institutional performance

• In general, respondents rate the performance of the central government relatively well (68% consider it effective) and of the local government (56% rate it as effective). 

• The Armed Forces of Ukraine (82%) is the institution that Ukrainians think is the most effective nowadays. The President of Ukraine is considered the most effective by 68% and volunteers by 59%. Other institutions are rated as the most effective by significantly fewer respondents. The Security Service of Ukraine is evaluated as such by 38%, public organizations - 27%, national police - 19%, mayors/village heads - 16%, church, regional military administration, government, and nationwide media - 13-15% each, local media - 7%. The last positions in this assessment are authorities of the prosecutor's office (5%) and the courts (4%).

Interaction with local authorities

• In general, most people surveyed consider the efforts made by local citizens (71%), authorities (55%), and businesses (50%) for solving important issues of your community, town/village as sufficient. The evaluations are also relatively good in the temporal dimension: half of the respondents consider the cooperation between the residents of your town/village and the local authorities to be sufficient to solve important issues of your community at the present time and before the full-scale invasion of Russia (the opposite view is about 40%). In the future, 65% see such interaction as efficient. Only 13% do not believe in its effectiveness. 

• According to the respondents, fighting against corruption (51%) is the main priority, where the local authorities should direct their efforts. Solution of economic and communal problems and military assistance are seen as priorities of local authorities by 32-34%. Reconstruction of damaged infrastructure was seen as a priority by 25% of those polled, arrangement of shelters by 21%, assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) by 18%, support for small and medium-sized businesses by 17%, improvement of pre-school and secondary education by 14%, social protection by 12%, transparency of government performance by 11%. 

• At the same time, respondents praised the effectiveness of local authorities in the following areas: helping refugees and IDPs (43%), solving economic and communal problems (29%), helping the army (29%), and rebuilding damaged infrastructure (21%).

Participation in community life

• Over the last year, 69% have not participated in NGO activities and movements that address important issues for your community, town/village and 31% - took part in this. 43% volunteer occasionally, and 6% do it on a regular basis. 6% are planning to do so. 44% have not engaged in volunteering recently. 

• 82% of those surveyed express their willingness to become personally involved in important issues for your community, town or village in the future, while 16% are not. 

• 85% of interviewed say that people in their town/village community help each other (only 15% are contrary minded). 68% note that their community is prepared for emergencies. 27% are of the opposite opinion. The latter are relatively more numerous among the inhabitants of villages, middle-aged respondents and women.