Ukrainians’ attitudes toward Lebanon in August 2026 remain predominantly neutral; however, among respondents with a formed opinion, negative assessments significantly outnumber positive ones. 57.3% of those surveyed have a neutral attitude toward the country, 22.1% have a negative attitude, and 12.9% have a positive attitude, according to the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center.
According to the results of the August survey, 3.9% of Ukrainians have a completely positive attitude toward Lebanon, while 9% have a mostly positive attitude. 57.3% of respondents hold a neutral position. 18% expressed a mostly negative attitude, 4.1% a completely negative one, and another 7.6% were undecided.
The balance between positive and negative assessments stands at minus 9.2 percentage points. Lebanon is thus one of the few countries surveyed with a negative balance of attitudes. At the same time, a notable feature is the large neutral group—more than half of those surveyed do not hold a clearly positive or negative stance.
In March 2026, 10.5% of respondents viewed Lebanon positively: 3.3% viewed it entirely positively and 7.2% viewed it mostly positively. 62.5% of respondents held a neutral stance, 18.2% expressed a negative attitude, and another 8.9% were undecided.
Thus, over the course of five months, the positive segment increased by 2.4 percentage points—from 10.5% to 12.9%—but the negative segment grew more sharply, by 3.9 percentage points, to 22.1%. The share of neutral responses decreased by 5.2 percentage points. The balance of attitudes accordingly worsened from minus 7.7 to minus 9.2 percentage points.
On an annual basis, the trend is also characterized by greater certainty in assessments, but with a shift toward the negative. In August 2025, 8.7% of Ukrainians viewed Lebanon positively, while 15.3% viewed it negatively, resulting in a balance of minus 6.6 percentage points.
At the same time, the economic picture differs significantly from public perception. According to the results of the first half of 2026, Lebanon ranked among the top ten trading partners with the largest trade surplus for Ukraine—approximately $220.5 million. Thus, the country serves as an example of a market where Ukrainian exports structurally outweigh imports, despite the negative balance in public assessments.
ACTIVE GROUP, EXPERTS CLUB, EXPORTS, FOREIGN TRADE, LEBANON, MIDDLE EAST, PUBLIC OPINION, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE
Ukrainians’ attitudes toward Azerbaijan in August 2026 became more positive compared to the previous wave of the study: 48.7% of respondents view the country positively, compared to 44.3% in March. At the same time, the share of neutral assessments decreased from 47.1% to 39.5%, according to the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center. In the Caucasus and Central Asia regional group, Azerbaijan ranks second after Georgia in terms of the level of positive attitudes among Ukrainians.
According to the results of the August survey, 12.5% of Ukrainians have a completely positive attitude toward Azerbaijan, while 36.2% have a mostly positive attitude. A neutral stance is held by 39.5% of respondents. 7.6% view the country mostly negatively, 1% view it entirely negatively, and another 3.1% were undecided.
The total share of negative assessments is 8.6%, and the balance between positive and negative attitudes is +40.1 percentage points. Thus, positive assessments of Azerbaijan outnumber negative ones by more than five to one.
In March 2026, 14.2% of respondents had a completely positive attitude toward Azerbaijan, while 30.1% had a mostly positive attitude, meaning the overall positive rating was 44.3%. At that time, 47.1% of respondents expressed a neutral attitude, 6.5% a negative one, and another 2.1% were undecided.
Consequently, over the course of five months, the positive segment increased by 4.4 percentage points—from 44.3% to 48.7%. Negative assessments also increased—by 2.1 percentage points—while the neutral segment shrank by 7.6 percentage points. The balance between positive and negative attitudes rose from +37.8 to +40.1 percentage points.
At the same time, a noticeable shift occurred within the positive segment: the share of fully positive responses decreased from 14.2% to 12.5%, while the share of mostly positive responses rose from 30.1% to 36.2%. This indicates an expansion of the overall group with a favorable attitude, although their assessments have become somewhat less categorical.
At the same time, the figures remain lower year-over-year. In August 2025, 56.7% of Ukrainians viewed Azerbaijan positively, while 5.7% viewed it negatively. Thus, the current trend shows an improvement compared to March but has not yet returned to the level of positive perception recorded a year earlier.
Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club information and analytical center and a candidate of economic sciences, emphasized that public perception of international partners depends not only on the scale of economic relations but also on their visibility to citizens.
“The modern international economy is not just about foreign trade figures, but also about reputation, trust, political closeness, humanitarian presence, and a sense of partnership at the societal level. It is precisely within this framework that both Ukraine’s trade ties and the work of foreign embassies in Ukraine’s information and public spheres should be assessed,” Urakin noted.
In his assessment, for countries with a significant share of neutral responses, a systematic informational presence, the demonstration of specific economic and humanitarian projects, and active engagement by diplomatic missions with Ukrainian society remain crucial.
The latest wave of the survey shows that attitudes toward Azerbaijan are becoming more defined: the share of neutral responses has decreased significantly, while positive assessments have risen to nearly half of those surveyed. At the same time, the 39.5% of neutral responses indicate significant potential for further shaping the country’s public image.
ACTIVE GROUP, AZERBAIJAN, CAUCASUS, EXPERTS CLUB, international relations, PUBLIC OPINION, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE, URAKIN
The personal participation of Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights Dmytro Lubinets in the humanitarian mission in the temporarily occupied town of Oleshky in Kherson region was positively assessed by 61.3% of surveyed Ukrainians, while 29.6% said their attitude toward the ombudsman had improved following reports of his involvement, according to the results of an Active Group study presented on Tuesday at a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
According to the survey, conducted on October 31 at the request of the publication Politarena, 28.4% of respondents assessed Lubinets’ decision to personally join the humanitarian operation very positively, while another 32.9% assessed it rather positively. Some 3.3% viewed the decision negatively, 23.5% expressed a neutral attitude, and another 11.9% reported having insufficient information.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of Active Group, noted that the survey demonstrated a predominantly positive perception of the Ukrainian ombudsman’s actions, despite critical discussions surrounding his contacts with representatives of the Russian side.
“A huge proportion of people, 54%, said their attitude had not changed. But among those whose opinions did change, we see that approximately 4% changed their opinion in a negative direction, while almost 30% changed it in a positive direction. This speaks very clearly about the level of support for Dmytro Lubinets,” he said.
According to the study, 12.3% of respondents said their attitude toward Lubinets had improved significantly, while 17.3% said it had rather improved. It remained unchanged for 54.1% and worsened for 4.2%. Another 12.1% were unaware of his participation in the mission or were unable to answer.
A separate question concerned the impact of the personal participation of the head of a humanitarian operation on trust in its organizers as a whole.
In particular, 20.6% of respondents believe that such participation significantly increases trust, while 35.7% believe it rather increases trust. Meanwhile, 21.9% are convinced that it has no effect on trust, 4.9% believe it reduces trust, and 16.9% were undecided.
Andriy Yeremenko, founder of Active Group, explained that the personal presence of the mission leader in territory controlled by the enemy could have been an important factor in building confidence among people who agreed to be evacuated.
“People could simply have been afraid to board these buses, given their experience of living under Russian control. But the appearance of such a person, whose presence in a certain way guarantees security, gives them confidence and a willingness to leave. On the other hand, it is also a guarantee for all sides that there will be no violation of the ceasefire,” Yeremenko noted.
Viktoriya Plotnikova, editor-in-chief of Politarena, drew attention to the difference between the reactions of social media users and the assessments of survey respondents.
“The mission in Oleshky was truly unique, not only because of the local ceasefire but also because of communication with the enemy. We saw the Ukrainian and Russian ombudsmen communicating about such an important humanitarian issue as saving people. This, of course, caused a very emotional reaction among Ukrainians,” she said.
According to Plotnikova, it was precisely the unusual format of the operation and the public discussion surrounding direct communication between representatives of Ukraine and the Russian Federation that prompted the rapid sociological study.
Vitaliy Kulyk, director of the Center for Civil Society Studies, described Lubinets’ personal participation as one of the key factors in the implementation of the humanitarian mission.
“It was a risky operation; no one guaranteed the safety of Lubinets and his advisers. There was a constant sense of danger that a provocation might occur. But this did not happen, in particular thanks to the mediation mission of Melania Trump,” the expert noted.
In Kulyk’s opinion, the experience of the humanitarian operation demonstrated the possibilities for direct working contacts between human rights commissioners even during wartime. At the same time, he emphasized that the effectiveness of the mission should be assessed not only by the evacuation itself but also by the subsequent support provided to the rescued citizens.
“We saved people, but what comes next? Those rescued from Oleshky are internally displaced persons. The issue of their reintegration into normal life is one of the issues we have no right to leave unattended,” Kulyk stressed.
He drew attention to the need to ensure that evacuees, many of whom are elderly, have access to social benefits, document restoration, medical assistance and other public services.
Overall, 93.6% of respondents support the humanitarian mission in Oleshky, while 93.8% consider it important. Some 57.1% of respondents gave positive assessments of the international mediation by US First Lady Melania Trump.
At the same time, the results concerning increased trust in organizers relate to the personal participation of humanitarian mission leaders in general and do not constitute a direct measurement of changes in Lubinets’ trust rating.
The survey was conducted by the research company Active Group on October 31, 2026, at the request of Politarena through the SunFlower Sociology online panel among 1,000 respondents. The stated statistical margin of error is ±3.1%. According to the organizers, the sample represents Ukraine’s adult population, excluding temporarily occupied territories.
ACTIVE GROUP, Dmytro Lubinets, humanitarian mission, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE, Олешки
Direct contacts between Ukrainian authorities and representatives of the Russian Federation exclusively for the purpose of providing humanitarian assistance and saving civilians are considered acceptable by 86.8% of surveyed Ukrainians, while 65.5% consider the use of an evacuation route through Russia and Belarus acceptable, according to the results of an Active Group study presented on Tuesday at a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
According to the survey, conducted on October 31 at the request of the publication Politarena, 49.6% of respondents consider direct humanitarian contacts with Russia unconditionally acceptable, while another 37.2% consider them acceptable under clearly defined conditions and supervision. Such contacts were described as unacceptable by 3.7% of respondents, while 9.5% were unable to decide.
Andriy Yeremenko, founder of the research company Active Group, noted that the results reflect Ukrainians’ pragmatic approach to humanitarian agreements, in which preserving human lives remains the main criterion of effectiveness.
“We see a demand for issues that can be resolved in Ukraine’s interests, on Ukrainian terms and for Ukraine’s benefit, to be resolved through negotiations rather than military action. This is a very widespread opinion among Ukrainians,” he emphasized.
At the same time, the sociologist stressed that willingness to engage in humanitarian contacts does not mean agreeing to political concessions to Russia.
According to him, Ukrainian society maintains its fundamental demands regarding the non-recognition of the occupation of Ukrainian territories, preventing any reduction in the country’s defense capabilities and restrictions on its sovereign decisions. At the same time, citizens are becoming more flexible in assessing practical mechanisms for achieving specific results.
A separate section of the study concerned the route of the humanitarian mission in the temporarily occupied town of Oleshky in Kherson region through the territories of Russia and Belarus.
According to the sociologists, 30.3% of respondents consider such a route acceptable, while another 35.2% consider it acceptable only with additional security guarantees. It was described as unacceptable by 11.1% of respondents, while 23.4% stated that they did not have sufficient information to assess it.
The question was formulated taking into account circumstances in which a direct route across the front line would require demining strategic areas and could weaken Ukraine’s defenses.
Yeremenko explained that the choice of route was determined not only by logistical possibilities but also by the need to take military risks into account.
“Organizing a corridor for a bus to cross the front line means that demining would have to be carried out, and there would be a possibility of losing or exposing certain concealed positions. These are real problems for Ukrainian defense, at least potentially. The main thing is to evacuate people, because that is the principal result,” he said.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of Active Group, drew attention to the significant difference between critical assessments widespread on social media and the survey results.
“We have repeatedly seen that the way social media and society online became agitated differed very significantly from what Ukrainians actually thought. It was important for us to measure this difference in order to understand what Ukrainians really think,” he said.
Vitaliy Kulyk, director of the Center for Civil Society Studies, commenting on the results, described the mission in Oleshky as unprecedented in terms of its implementation mechanism and the participation of Ukrainian Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets.
“This is truly an extraordinary mission, since during a war an ombudsman travels to enemy territory and rescues citizens. As a rule, similar cases in the history of conflicts have taken place through the mediation of international organizations,” the expert stated.
In Kulyk’s opinion, the successful implementation of the humanitarian operation could create the preconditions for subsequent local agreements. At the same time, he cautioned that expanding such a practice would depend on the political situation and the parties’ willingness to fulfill their commitments.
According to the study, 72.3% of respondents identified preserving the lives and health of civilians as the most important result of the mission, 61.3% cited the safe and voluntary departure of those wishing to leave, and 39.8% cited the delivery of food, water and medicines.
The possibility of conducting similar humanitarian operations in the future was mentioned by 31.6% of respondents, while 29.7% mentioned maintaining the ceasefire and complying with the agreed arrangements. Respondents could select up to three answers.
Overall, 93.6% of respondents supported the humanitarian mission in Oleshky, while 93.8% consider it important for the civilian population.
The survey was conducted by Active Group on October 31, 2026, at the request of Politarena through the SunFlower Sociology online panel. The number of respondents was 1,000. The stated statistical margin of error is ±3.1%. According to the organizers, the sample represents Ukraine’s adult population, excluding temporarily occupied territories.
ACTIVE GROUP, humanitarian mission, RUSSIA, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE, Олешки
Following US participation in humanitarian agreements concerning the temporarily occupied town of Oleshky in Kherson region, 20.3% of surveyed Ukrainians improved their attitude toward the United States, while 57.1% positively assessed the role of US First Lady Melania Trump in reaching the agreements, according to the results of a sociological study by Active Group presented on Tuesday at a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
According to the survey, conducted on October 31 at the request of the publication Politarena, 6.2% of respondents said their opinion of the US had improved significantly, while 14.1% said it had somewhat improved. Meanwhile, 66.5% reported that their attitude toward the United States remained unchanged, 4.9% said it had worsened, and another 8.3% were unable to decide.
Andriy Yeremenko, founder of the research company Active Group, noted that successful humanitarian operations can positively influence the international image of countries involved in organizing them.
“Such humanitarian events, if they are repeated and are genuinely effective, will increase trust, particularly in the US. This event could become one of those that truly improve Ukrainians’ attitude toward the United States. A person who is safe is better off than a person who is in danger,” he said.
The sociologists separately examined attitudes toward Melania Trump’s personal role in the agreements concerning Oleshky. Her participation was assessed very positively by 29.7% of respondents and somewhat positively by 27.4%. A neutral position was expressed by 21.7%, a negative one by 5.7%, while 15.5% said they did not have sufficient information.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of Active Group, pointed out that the US First Lady’s involvement in humanitarian mediation is not limited to the operation in Oleshky. In particular, he recalled previous efforts aimed at returning Ukrainian children.
According to the sociologist, tangible humanitarian results can positively influence citizens’ attitudes toward international partners even when assessments of their policies are contradictory.
Vitaliy Kulyk, director of the Center for Civil Society Studies, described the humanitarian operation in Oleshky as a precedent for diplomatic mediation carried out without the direct involvement of traditional international humanitarian organizations.
“This is not institutional diplomacy at the level of foreign ministers or the US State Department. It was specifically Melania Trump’s team that maintained constant contact with the Ukrainian and Russian ombudsmen. What was achieved through her team’s diplomacy had not been achieved by anyone before,” Kulyk said.
In the expert’s opinion, the agreements reached demonstrated the potential of personal mediation and working contacts between representatives of the parties even under conditions of full-scale war.
At the same time, Viktoriya Plotnikova, editor-in-chief of Politarena, cautioned against excessive optimism regarding the repetition of similar operations. According to her, the mission’s success resulted from a combination of favorable political circumstances and personal interaction among the participants in the negotiations.
“Here, it is cooperation not between institutions but, most likely, between individuals, which coincided with a favorable situation both with the United States and in Russia. Therefore, it is very difficult to predict what will happen next. Of course, I hope that there will be such successful humanitarian missions,” she emphasized.
Overall, 93.6% of surveyed Ukrainians support the humanitarian operation in Oleshky, while 93.8% consider it important for the civilian population. The decision by Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights Dmytro Lubinets to personally join the mission was positively assessed by 61.3% of respondents.
The results concerning changes in attitudes toward the US reflect respondents’ self-assessments following reports about the humanitarian agreements, rather than a comparison of indicators from two separate surveys.
The Active Group study was conducted on October 31, 2026, at the request of Politarena through the SunFlower Sociology online panel among 1,000 respondents. The stated statistical margin of error is ±3.1%. According to the organizers, the sample represents Ukraine’s adult population, excluding temporarily occupied territories.
ACTIVE GROUP, humanitarian mission, Melania Trump, SOCIOLOGY, UNITED STATES, Олешки
Latvia continues to enjoy a high level of positive perception among Ukrainians: in August 2026, 68.3% of respondents viewed the country positively, while only 3.9% viewed it negatively. Compared to March, the share of positive assessments has decreased slightly; however, the country continues to rank among the nations with the highest levels of public favor, according to the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center.
According to the results of the August survey, 39.7% of Ukrainians view Latvia entirely positively, and 28.6% view it mostly positively. 26.6% of respondents hold a neutral position. 2.5% view the country mostly negatively, 1.4% view it entirely negatively, and another 1.2% were undecided.
The balance of positive and negative assessments stands at plus 64.4 percentage points. Thus, positive attitudes toward Latvia outnumber negative ones by more than 17 times. Overall, the countries of Northern Europe and the Baltic states maintained some of the highest levels of positive attitudes among Ukrainians in the August wave of the survey.
In March 2026, 71.6% of respondents had a positive attitude toward Latvia: 42.4% viewed it entirely positively and 29.1% viewed it mostly positively. A neutral stance was held by 24.5% of respondents, negative assessments accounted for about 2.6%, and another 1.4% were undecided.
Thus, over five months, the share of positive assessments decreased by 3.3 percentage points—from 71.6% to 68.3%. The negative segment increased by approximately 1.3 percentage points, while the neutral segment rose by 2.1 percentage points. The balance between positive and negative attitudes decreased from approximately plus 69 to plus 64.4 percentage points.
At the same time, the most significant change occurred among respondents with the most strongly positive views: the share of entirely positive assessments decreased from 42.4% to 39.7%, while the share of mostly positive assessments remained close to previous levels—29.1% in March and 28.6% in August.
On an annual basis, the overall picture also remains stable. In August 2025, 72.7% of Ukrainians viewed Latvia positively, while 5.3% viewed it negatively. In other words, the current share of positive responses is slightly lower than a year ago, but the negative segment also remains smaller.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of the research firm Active Group, commenting on the results of the previous survey wave regarding Latvia, attributed the high level of public support to the country’s consistent engagement with Ukraine.
“Ukrainians, in general, are very good at distinguishing between countries that demonstrate consistent support for Ukraine. At the same time, the level of positive attitude is shaped not only by political statements but also by concrete actions that people can experience firsthand. That is precisely why even small countries can have a very strong positive image,” Pozniy noted.
The latest wave of the survey shows a slight decline in positive assessments of Latvia, but no fundamental shift in public perception. More than two-thirds of Ukrainians continue to view the country positively, while the share of negative responses remains below 4%.
The survey was conducted in August 2026 using an online self-administered questionnaire via the SunFlowerSociology panel among 800 Ukrainian citizens aged 18 and older. The maximum theoretical margin of error for indicators at the 50% confidence level is ±3.5 percentage points.
ACTIVE GROUP, BALTIC STATES, EUROPEAN UNION, EXPERTS CLUB, international relations, LATVIA, Pozniy, PUBLIC OPINION, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE
