Europe Persuades More Than War
Over the past three years, the war in Ukraine has taught Europe a truth that foreign policy often forgets: the power of arms is only part of power itself. The other—less visible but no less decisive—is diplomatic influence.
In a continent where borders are no longer guaranteed by treaties or military divisions alone, the words of the European Union can have significant effects.
This is no paradox. A study by Ala Alrababah (Bocconi), together with Stephanie Wright and Rachel Myrick (Duke University), published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, shows that official statements by foreign actors in secessionist conflicts can deeply shape public opinion.
The research, based on a 2017 survey of more than 2,400 Ukrainians—before Russia’s full-scale invasion—tested how a hypothetical endorsement of independence for the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk by either the EU or Russia would affect attitudes.
Brussels moves minds, Moscow doesn’t
The results are striking. EU support increased approval for secession by 33% in Ukrainian-controlled Donbas and by 39% in the rest of the country compared with the control group. Russian endorsement, by contrast, did not shape attitudes outside of the Ukrainian-controlled Donbas region.
“Among Ukrainians who were not favorable of the European Union, hypothetical EU endorsement increased support for secession,” explains Ala Alrababah, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Bocconi University.
This finding, he adds, “may suggest that people associate EU endorsement with potential material benefits or aid, not necessarily with political alignment.”
By contrast, the Kremlin’s words fail to move opinion. “To Ukrainians, Russia was already seen as the implicit sponsor of the separatists. A formal endorsement added nothing new,” says Alrababah.
The power of credibility
The takeaway, the authors argue, is that credibility itself is a form of influence in territorial conflicts.
“Our findings show that endorsements from international actors can change how people weigh the costs and benefits of secession, even in conflict zones,” Alrababah notes.
“When endorsements are not perceived as credible or new, they fail to shift public opinion,” he adds.
Lessons for a pressured Europe
The Ukrainian case, the authors write, offers a broader lesson. “Public opinion can react to external signals, changing how people view territorial compromise depending on who speaks and with what authority,” says Alrababah.
“Our findings highlight that international statements can influence how citizens perceive disputed territories. While our survey predates the current conflict, the results suggest that words from Brussels or Moscow may affect public willingness to accept a peace agreement,” he concludes.
