The prevailing rationalist approach portrays war as a gradual process of information disclosure, where cost–benefit calculations can influence strategy, outcomes and internal support for conflict. This research advances our understanding of how battlefield dynamics influence public support for war by analyzing tangible indicators of support—private donations to Ukraine. Analysis reveals a striking asymmetric pattern: heightened Russian attacks reduce donations by up to 18%, while Ukrainian offensive operations show no meaningful effect on donor behavior. Disclosed asymmetry presents an intriguing theoretical puzzle that challenges conventional rationalist approaches.
BakerWDOnealJR (2001) Patriotism or opinion leadership? The nature and origins of the ‘rally ‘round the flag’ effect. Journal of Conflict Resolution45(5): 661–687.
2.
BaumeisterRFBratslavskyEFinkenauerC, et al. (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology5(4): 323–370.
3.
BennettDSStamAC III (1996) The duration of interstate wars, 1816–1985. American Political Science Review90(2): 239–257.
4.
BoettcherWACobbMD (2009) Don’t let them die in vain. Journal of Conflict Resolution53(5): 677–697.
5.
ClionadhALHegreHKarlsenJ (2010) Introducing ACLED-armed conflict location and event data. Journal of Peace Research47(5): 651–660.
6.
DillJSchubigerLI (2021) Attitudes toward the use of force: Instrumental imperatives, moral principles, and international law. American Journal of Political Science65(3): 612–633.
7.
EichenbergRC (2005) Victory has many friends: US public opinion and the use of military force, 1981–2005. International Security30(1): 140–177.
8.
FearonJD (1994) Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review88(3): 577–592.
9.
FearonJD (1995) Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization49(3): 379–414.
10.
FilsonDWernerS (2002) A bargaining model of war and peace: Anticipating the onset, duration, and outcome of war. American Journal of Political Science46(4): 819–837.
11.
Flores-MacíasGAKrepsSE (2017) Borrowing support for war: The effect of war finance on public attitudes toward conflict. The Journal of Conflict Resolution61(5): 997–1020.
12.
GartnerSS (1997) Strategic Assessment in War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
GartnerSS (2008) The multiple effects of casualties on public support for war: An experimental approach. American Political Science Review102(1): 95–106.
14.
GartnerSSSeguraGM (1998) War, casualties, and public opinion. Journal of Conflict Resolution42(3): 278–300.
15.
GelpiCFeaverPDReiflerJ (2005/2006) Success matters. Casualty sensitivity and the war in Iraq. International Security30(3): 7–46.
16.
GriecoJMGelpiCReiflerJ, et al. (2011) Let's get a second opinion: International institutions and American public support for war. International Studies Quarterly55(2): 563–583.
17.
HirshleiferJ (1989) Conflict and rent-seeking success functions: Ratio vs. difference models of relative success. Public Choice63(2): 101–112.
18.
JohnsRDaviesGAM (2017) Civilian casualties and public support for military action: Experimental evidence. Journal of Conflict Resolution63(1): 251–281.
19.
JohnsonDDPTierneyD (2019) Bad world: The negativity bias in international politics. International Security43(3): 96–140.
KimSJ (2021) Quick on the draw: American negativity bias and costly signals in international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution66(2): 246–271.
22.
KizilovaKNorisP (2024) “Rally around the flag” effects in the Russian–Ukrainian war. European Policial Science23(2): 234–250.
23.
LivingstonS (1997) Clarifying the CNN effect: Is news media driving foreign policy?Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics1(4): 77–100.
24.
MillerEKishiRRaleighC, et al. (2022) An agenda for addressing bias in conflict data. Scientific Data9(593): 1–6.
25.
MillerES (2005) Japan’s other victory: Overseas financing of the Russo-Japanese war In: SteinbergJMenningBvan der OyeDS, et al. (eds) The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective: World War Zero. Boston, MA: Brill, pp. 465–485.
26.
MuellerJE (1973) War, Presidents and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.
27.
NincicDJNincicM (1995) Commitment to military intervention: The democratic government as economic investor. Journal of Peace Research32(4): 413–426.
28.
PriceMBallP (2014) Big data, selection bias, and the statistical patterns of mortality in conflict. SAIS Review of International Affairs34(1): 9–20.
29.
RaleighCLinkeAHegreH, et al. (2010) Introducing ACLED: An armed conflict location and event dataset. Journal of Peace Research47(5): 651–660.
30.
RobinsonP (2002) The CNN Effect: The Myth of News, Foreign Policy and Intervention. London: Routledge.
31.
SanaeiA (2019) Time is of the essence. Journal of Peace Research56(6): 783–796.
32.
SorokaSMcAdamsS (2015) News, politics, and negativity. Political Communication32(1): 1–22.
TomzMWeeksJLP (2021) Military alliances and public support for war. International Studies Quarterly65(3): 811–824.
35.
UN Security Council (2024) “Spotlighting deadly July for civilians in Ukraine, UN official tells security council that ‘horrific devastation’ cannot be normalized,” 9174th Meeting (PM). Available from: https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15803.doc.htm (accessed 1 November 2024).
36.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyHE (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
WagnerRH (2000) Bargaining and war. American Journal of Political Science44(3): 469–484.
38.
ZielinskiRC (2016) How States Pay for Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
