Trust in Zelensky Rises to 57% After US Pressure, Poll Finds

The striking change was a 14-point rise between two groups surveyed during the same polling period. Trust in Zelensky was 43% among people interviewed on Oct. 8-9, then 57% among those interviewed on Oct. 10-16. The later interviews followed the US-Russia diesel deal and Washington’s pressure on Kyiv.

KIIS linked the increase to a possible “rally-around-the-flag” effect. People who criticize Zelensky’s domestic policies may still support him when he represents Ukraine in foreign dealings, seeks military aid, or defends national interests. Outside pressure can make that support more visible.

The result does not prove a lasting shift. Across all 1,031 respondents, 54% trusted Zelensky and 41% did not, exactly matching earlier polling. KIIS also warned that interview timing, sampling differences, and wartime conditions may have affected the comparison. The institute said it was too early to judge the effect’s strength or duration.

The poll covered 1,031 adults living in Ukrainian-controlled territory. KIIS conducted the interviews by telephone between Oct. 8 and Oct. 16. This gave the institute an overall picture of trust in Zelensky during the period surrounding the diesel deal and subsequent pressure from Washington.

The comparison used two unequal groups. Only 274 respondents were interviewed on Oct. 8-9, before or around the announcement. Another 757 were interviewed from Oct. 10-16, after the announcement and pressure. KIIS reported a maximum sampling error of four percentage points for the full survey and 7.7 points for the earlier subgroup.

The figures describe uncertainty from sampling, not a guarantee that every result falls within that range. KIIS also warned that wartime conditions may create additional systematic error. That caution matters because the trust comparison involves different groups interviewed at different times, rather than the same people tracked repeatedly.

A “rally-around-the-flag” effect is a rise in public support for a national leader when people perceive the country as facing an external challenge. The leader becomes associated with defending the country, even among citizens who may disagree with domestic decisions. KIIS used this idea to explain the later rise in Zelensky’s trust rating.

The possible mechanism is visible in the poll’s timing. Trust was 43% among respondents interviewed on Oct. 8-9, but 57% among those interviewed on Oct. 10-16. The later group was surveyed after the diesel arrangement and Washington’s pressure on Kyiv. KIIS said Western criticism could be seen as broader pressure on Ukraine.

The explanation remains provisional. KIIS noted that trust ratings can be lower at the start of fieldwork and that earlier gaps were smaller. It also warned that wartime conditions may add systematic error. The institute said the current result suggests a rally effect, but cannot yet show how long it will last.

The poll showed strong opposition to a softer negotiating position toward Russia. Seventy-three percent of respondents rejected the idea that Ukraine’s government should be more accommodating in negotiations. Just 20% supported that approach. The figures indicate that most surveyed Ukrainians favored maintaining a firm position.

This result fits the pressure described by KIIS Executive Director Anton Hrushetskyi. He said Ukrainians can view criticism of Zelensky as pressure on Ukraine, especially when Kyiv is labeled “uncompromising” while Russia seeks Ukrainian territory and limits on Ukraine’s sovereignty. That framing can strengthen support for resistance rather than compromise.

The poll does not establish why every respondent chose an answer, nor does it show how views may change later. KIIS said Western allies’ response could influence future sentiment. The institute also cautioned that the trust increase may reflect both a rally effect and methodological differences between the interview groups.

Tensions grew because the diesel arrangement appeared to ease restrictions on Russian fuel while Russia continued its war against Ukraine. Officials and lawmakers in Kyiv argued that this could give Moscow additional revenue. At the same time, Trump pressured Kyiv to stop attacking Russian refineries, a sector Ukraine had targeted to weaken Moscow’s war chest.

Ukraine viewed the pressure as unequal. Zelensky proposed that Ukraine stop striking Russian oil infrastructure if Russia stopped attacking Ukraine’s energy system. As Russia continued hitting the Ukrainian grid, he later revised that offer into a 30-day energy truce. He tied the proposal to replenishing Ukraine’s stockpiles of US Patriot air-defense missiles.

The disagreement placed Washington’s fuel and strike demands against Kyiv’s military and energy concerns. Trump announced the diesel arrangement with Putin on Oct. 9, and the US Treasury later authorized related transactions through April 7, 2027. The poll’s later interviews followed these events, and KIIS linked the trust shift to the resulting pressure.

Zelensky is the Ukrainian leader whose trust rating was measured. He defended Ukraine’s interests abroad, sought military assistance, and proposed energy arrangements responding to attacks on Ukraine’s grid. He first offered reciprocal limits on energy infrastructure strikes, then proposed a 30-day truce linked to more US Patriot missiles.

Trump announced the diesel arrangement with Putin on Oct. 9. He subsequently pressured Kyiv to stop striking Russian refineries. Putin is identified as Trump’s partner in the diesel arrangement, while Russia’s demands included Ukrainian territory and limits on Ukraine’s sovereignty. These positions formed the external pressure surrounding the poll.

Ukraine’s Western allies are part of the wider political setting. KIIS said criticism from Western public figures can be understood in Ukraine as pressure on the country, not only criticism of Zelensky. Hrushetskyi said the allies’ future response could influence public sentiment. The poll therefore reflects both domestic trust and international conflict over Ukraine’s strategy.

A political-trust poll asks selected adults whether they trust a leader and records how many say they trust or distrust that person. Researchers then summarize the responses as percentages. In this survey, respondents could say they trusted Zelensky “completely” or “rather trusted” him, or choose distrust categories. The sample is intended to describe the broader surveyed population.

The two trust figures came from different groups, not repeated interviews with the same people. The earlier group had 274 respondents, while the later group had 757. A result can therefore change because the groups differ by chance, because interviews occurred at different points, or because fieldwork commonly produces slightly lower early ratings.

KIIS reported four percentage points of maximum sampling error overall and 7.7 points for the earlier subgroup. It also warned that wartime conditions may create systematic error. For that reason, the 43%-to-57% movement suggests a possible rally effect, but does not establish a permanent change in public opinion.