Ukrainians trust the Azov Battalion, the Special Operations Forces, the SBU’s “Alpha” unit, the 2nd Corps of the National Guard of Ukraine (“Charter”), and the 3rd Army Corps the most when it comes to carrying out state tasks. This is according to the results of a survey conducted by Active Group.
When asked which units citizens trust most in carrying out state tasks, respondents most often named the 1st Corps of the National Guard of Ukraine “Azov” (15.2%). Close behind in terms of trust were the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (14.7%) and the Special Operations Center “A” of the Security Service of Ukraine, known by the unofficial name “Alpha” (13.4%).
The 2nd Corps of the National Guard of Ukraine “Charter” received 11.7% of respondents’ support, surpassing the Third Army Corps by 0.7%.
The list of units with a notable level of trust also included the “Kraken” Active Operations Unit of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (7.3%), the 95th Separate Airborne Assault Polissya Brigade (5.4%), and the 93rd Separate Mechanized Brigade “Kholodny Yar” (4.9%). These results indicate stable support for combat units that have a reputation for being effective in carrying out specific operational tasks.
A lower but still noticeable level of trust is demonstrated by the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade “Magura” (4.5%), the 92nd Separate Assault Brigade named after Cossack Ataman Ivan Sirko (3.9%), as well as the 55th Separate Artillery Brigade “Zaporizhzhia Sich” and volunteer military formations (3.5% each).
“Even the slight difference between the ratings of the ‘Charter’ and the 3rd Corps is telling, as it reflects society’s perception of the units’ roles outside of a political context. Less media-friendly but more apolitical structures may inspire a higher level of trust, especially in wartime, when the key criterion is the fulfillment of tasks,” noted Active Group Director Oleksandr Pozniy.
More than half of Ukrainians believe that the military should remain outside politics during the war; however, a significant part of society allows their limited participation in public processes, primarily in defense-related issues, according to the results of the study “Military and Politics: the Balance of Media Presence, Influence and State Unity,” presented by Active Group.
According to the presentation, 23.1% of respondents “definitely” support the apolitical nature of the military, another 27.3% “rather support” it, while 37.6% (23.1% “rather no” and 14.5% “definitely no”) allow their participation in politics, and another 12% were undecided.
“We saw that there are two simultaneous demands in society – that the military stay out of politics and that they have influence. And there is no contradiction in this: the majority want the military to remain military during the war, but at the same time allow their participation in processes directly related to state defense. This is more about balance than extremes,” said Active Group director Oleksandr Poznyi at a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine agency on Thursday.
At the same time, an absolute majority of Ukrainians support a strict system of army management: 41% consider a unified chain of command very important, another 31.5% consider it rather important (a total of 72.5%), while only about 10% do not share this position.
On the issue of decision-making during the war, public opinion is distributed among key centers of authority: 22.4% believe that decisions should be made by the president as Supreme Commander-in-Chief, 25.6% by the Commander-in-Chief, 25.4% by the General Staff, about 14% by lower-level commanders, and 12.9% were undecided.
“These figures show that society trusts the vertical chain of command and expects that strategic decisions are made at the highest level. At the same time, people do not always clearly distinguish the functions of different levels of military leadership. Therefore, we see a certain distribution of answers between the president, the Commander-in-Chief and the General Staff,” explained Active Group founder Andriy Yeremenko.
The study also recorded a demand for a combination of centralization and flexibility: 40.1% of respondents support mainly a vertical management model (16% – exclusively vertical, 24.1% – rather vertical), while 37% support the autonomy of units (29.5% – more autonomy, 7.5% – full autonomy), and another 22.9% were undecided.
“Society is essentially saying: strategy should be formed at the top, but at the level of units there should be freedom of action. This means rejecting micromanagement and at the same time the need for high-quality feedback. People expect that decisions take into account the real situation on the ground,” Yeremenko added.
The most acceptable forms of military participation in public life, according to Ukrainians, are calls to politicians to make decisions in the field of defense (37.3% support), public positions on draft laws (26.3%), and the creation of veteran and public organizations (24.6%). At the same time, the greatest rejection is caused by the use of military authority to influence voters (–30.4% balance), as well as participation in the formation of political decisions or commenting on political processes.
“There is a clear boundary: the military may influence defense decisions, but should not interfere in electoral processes. Attempts to use military authority in political competition are perceived very negatively. This is an important signal for future political campaigns,” Poznyi emphasized.
Among the key qualities of a modern commander, respondents named responsibility for subordinates (64.9%), strategic thinking (59.9%), as well as the ability to execute tasks (37.1%), discipline (35.4%) and interaction with command (33.4%), while media activity received only 2.4% support.
Among the factors that harm the effectiveness of the army, corruption risks dominate: 53.9% pointed to abuses in procurement, 46.1% to abuses in operational planning. Respondents also named fatigue of personnel and insufficient rotation (42.7%), outdated training approaches (35.3%), low motivation (35.1%) and bureaucratic procedures (34%).
“Corruption is traditionally perceived as the main problem in any sphere. But alongside this, we see systemic issues – rotation, motivation, quality of management. This is a set of factors that shape the effectiveness of the army and require systemic solutions,” Yeremenko noted.
At the same time, 76.5% of Ukrainians (47.8% positive, 28.7% rather positive) have a favorable attitude toward units that combine discipline, state subordination and modern approaches to warfare.
In the ranking of units by perceived discipline and effectiveness, the Special Operations Center “A” of the Security Service of Ukraine (“Alpha”) leads with 17.9%, followed by the 3rd Army Corps (14.5%) and “Azov” (13.2%). In terms of trust in fulfilling state tasks, “Azov” ranks first (15.2%), followed by the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (14.7%) and “Alpha” (13.4%).
At the same time, more than 40% of respondents were unable to name specific units, indicating limited public awareness and the significant influence of media presence on the formation of public opinion.
Overall, the study demonstrates a demand in Ukrainian society for the depoliticization of the military, the preservation of a strict chain of command, and at the same time flexibility at the unit level, as well as a clear distinction between influence in the field of defense and participation in political competition.
According to the results of a joint study by Active Group and Experts Club, Ukrainians view Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Lithuania most favorably, while China and Hungary receive significantly lower ratings, despite their importance in Ukraine’s foreign trade.
“The modern international economy is not just about foreign trade figures, but also about reputation, trust, political proximity, 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 evaluated,” noted Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club information and analytical center, at a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine agency on Thursday.
Urakin also cited Ukraine’s overall foreign trade figures for 2025. According to his data, total trade turnover exceeded $125 billion, of which nearly $85 billion was accounted for by imports and about $40 billion by exports, while the trade deficit in goods amounted to approximately $44.5 billion. He noted that this indicates the continued high openness of the Ukrainian economy even amid the war, but at the same time highlights its significant dependence on foreign supplies.
As noted during the presentation, China remains Ukraine’s largest trading partner in terms of trade turnover. At the same time, it is trade with China that creates the largest trade imbalance for Ukraine, as out of $20 billion in total trade, about $19 billion is accounted for by imports, while Ukrainian exports amount to only about $1.8 billion.
“In essence, nearly 39–40% of Ukraine’s entire annual trade deficit is attributable to China. This is a classic example of asymmetric trade: Ukraine sells resources and buys goods with high added value,” Urakin emphasized.
According to him, Ukraine has a different type of relationship with Poland. Poland remains a key neighbor, a logistics hub, an important political ally, and at the same time the largest market for Ukrainian exports. Total trade with Poland exceeds $13 billion, but here too, Ukraine’s trade balance remains negative—at nearly minus $3 billion. At the same time, as noted by participants at the press conference, Poland is not merely a sales market but a bridge connecting Ukrainian producers with the European Union market.
A similar situation is observed in trade with Germany, Turkey, and the United States. According to data presented at the press conference, trade turnover with Germany amounts to about $9 billion, with Turkey—nearly $9 billion, and with the United States—nearly $6 billion, with Ukraine having a negative balance in all three cases. Urakin emphasized that the U.S. market is particularly important, as the significance of the United States for Ukraine is determined not only by trade volumes but also by the role of the United States as a security, financial, technological, and political partner.
At the same time, as noted during the presentation, the most advantageous markets for Ukraine in terms of a positive trade balance are Egypt, Moldova, the Netherlands, Spain, Lebanon, Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Kazakhstan, and the United Arab Emirates.
“Ukraine achieves the best results where it has a strong position in the agricultural sector and where the Ukrainian export offering is well-suited to the respective market. Future improvements in the trade balance lie in the transition to products with higher added value in those markets where Ukraine already has a presence and is proving itself to be a stable partner,” he said.
The sociological part of the study, presented at the press conference, showed that Ukrainians demonstrate the highest levels of positive attitude toward Germany—77.4%, Lithuania—75%, France—74%, the United Kingdom – 74%, Sweden – 72.5%, Japan – 71.8%, Italy – 70%, and the Czech Republic – 67%. Ratings for Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, and Turkey also remain high. At the same time, 56% of respondents view Poland positively, compared to 14.7% negative ratings, and 55% view Turkey positively, compared to 5.6% negative ratings.
China, however, presents a different picture: 23% of respondents expressed a positive attitude toward it, while 42% expressed a negative one. Assessments of Hungary were even more critical: only 18.6% held a positive view, compared to 52% who held a negative one. 44.1% of respondents view the United States positively, while 24.7% view it negatively.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of the research company Active Group, emphasized that this is the second study in the series, allowing for tracking the dynamics of public perceptions. According to him, this is not only about the emotional perception of other countries but also about a factor increasingly linked to foreign economic relations, security, and the image of a partner country within Ukrainian society.
“The ratings of some countries have deteriorated slightly compared to the previous survey. In the case of the United States, this could have been influenced by changes in American policy following the arrival of the new president and the corresponding media coverage,” Pozniy noted.
The participants in the press conference paid particular attention to cases where a country’s economic importance does not align with how it is perceived emotionally in Ukraine. Responding to questions from the audience, Pozniy cited China as an example—a country that is viewed quite negatively but remains Ukraine’s largest trading partner. Similarly, he noted, there are cases where a country, such as Iraq, has a positive trade balance with Ukraine, yet attitudes toward it remain reserved or negative.
Olga Bezrukova, Ph.D. in Sociology and head of the Kyiv branch of the Sociological Association of Ukraine, emphasized that public opinion during wartime is particularly sensitive to external factors, and therefore such measurements must be considered within a specific temporal context. “Attitudes toward a country should be viewed as attitudes toward the country as a whole, and they are shaped by Ukrainians’ perception of that country as a strategic partner in achieving peace in Ukraine. The second component is attitudes toward its representatives and citizens, which are based either on personal experience or on the experiences of friends, colleagues, and family members,” she explained.
According to Bezrukova, social media, the political context, cultural stereotypes, and everyday perceptions acquired through socialization play an important role in shaping these assessments. This, in particular, may explain the high proportion of neutral responses regarding certain countries about which Ukrainians have insufficient personal experience or information in the public sphere. She also drew attention to the influence of stereotypes on attitudes toward some countries in the Muslim world, even though, from an economic standpoint, some of them are important partners for Ukraine.
Maksym Urakin noted that foreign missions should communicate with Ukrainian society not in abstract diplomatic language, but in the language of tangible benefits—through jobs, investments, humanitarian projects, educational programs, and logistical opportunities. He also called on diplomatic missions to work more actively not only in Kyiv but also in the regions, and to link their countries’ images not only to political support for Ukraine but also to tangible participation in reconstruction, energy, industry, agricultural processing, healthcare, and education.
“If society sees a massive flow of imports coming into the country but does not see a corresponding flow of investment, technology, or localized production, a sense of imbalance arises. And this directly affects the emotional perception of the partner. That is why countries with a large trade surplus with Ukraine should pay particular attention to the reputational aspect of their presence in the Ukrainian market,” added Urakin
In summary, the participants of the press conference emphasized that the study’s findings could be useful for businesses, government institutions, and Ukraine’s international partners alike. In their view, public opinion can influence economic policy, consumer behavior, and even the perception of goods and services from various countries, and thus becomes a crucial element of today’s foreign economic reality. Oleksandr Pozniy noted that the world is not “black and white” for Ukrainians, and the large proportion of neutral assessments regarding a number of countries indicates caution and a desire for balanced judgment rather than indifference.
The survey was conducted in March 2026; sociologists analyzed Ukrainians’ attitudes toward 50 countries that are among Ukraine’s largest trading partners. The study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire on an online panel; 800 respondents participated, and the stated margin of error does not exceed 3.5%.
You can view the full presentation of the study by clicking the link.
ACTIVE GROUP, ECONOMICS, EXPERTS CLUB, Pozniy, SOCIOLOGY, URAKIN, БЕЗРУКОВА
According to the results of a survey conducted by the research company Active Group and the Experts Club think tank, 34.1% of respondents described a healthy lifestyle as “very important,” 53.1% as “somewhat important,” 10.8% — “somewhat unimportant,” and 2.1% — “not important at all.” The data was presented at a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine press center.
“The high value placed on a healthy lifestyle is an opportunity for the system to shift its focus toward prevention and early diagnosis,” said Maksym Urakin.
“People are ready to change their habits, but they need accessible tools—consultations, screenings, and clear recommendations,” added Oleksandr Pozniy.
The study was conducted on the SunFlowerSociology online panel using a representative sample in February 2026. The survey involved 1,000 respondents from a representative sample across all regions of Ukraine, excluding temporarily occupied territories.
ACTIVE GROUP, EXPERTS CLUB, Healthy Lifestyle, Pozniy, URAKIN
According to the results of a study conducted by Active Group and the Experts Club analytical center in February and presented at the Interfax-Ukraine press center, only 13.1% of respondents reported that they use the state drug reimbursement program, 70.6% do not use it, 16.3% had heard of it but did not use it.
“Low use of the program is often associated not with a lack of need, but with barriers to awareness and access,” said Experts Club founder Maxim Urakin.
“If people ‘have heard of it but have not used it,’ then the patient’s path to compensation remains difficult,” added Alexander Pozniy.
The survey was conducted on the SunFlowerSociology online panel on a representative sample on February 11-12, 2026.
The survey involved 1,000 respondents from a representative sample in all regions of Ukraine, except for the temporarily occupied territories.
ACTIVE GROUP, ALEXANDER POZNIY, EXPERTS CLUB, MAXIM URAKIN, MEDICINES, Reimbursement
According to the results of a survey conducted by the research company Active Group and the analytical center Experts Club in early February, 52.3% of respondents said that the prices of medicines they buy regularly have increased significantly, 43.9% said they have increased slightly, 3.6% said they have not changed, and 0.2% said they have decreased.
“The widespread perception of rising prices is a factor that directly affects adherence to treatment,” said Experts Club founder Maksim Urakin.
“Rising prices are prompting some patients to delay purchases and self-medicate, which increases the risk of complications,” said Active Group CEO and co-founder Alexander Pozniy.
The survey was conducted on the SunFlowerSociology online panel using a representative sample on February 11-12, 2026. The survey involved 1,000 respondents from a representative sample in all regions of Ukraine, except for the temporarily occupied territories.
