More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Last answered 2 hours ago
Distribution of answers submitted by American voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Aug 3, 2016. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Choose a demographic filter
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
Learn more about Ukraine
In March 2014, Russian soldiers entered Ukraine and took control of several strategic positions within the country. The following month the Ukrainian parliament declared that its territory was officially being occupied by Russia. The invasion was immediately condemned by the U.S. and other U.N. member states as a direct invasion of a sovereign country and an act of war. In response NATO countries began military exercises in the region including the addition of 600 U.S. ground troops in Poland. Opponents of military action argue that the conflict the U.S. should not get involved in regional conflicts that do not directly threaten the U.S. Proponents argue that Russian military aggression against Ukraine threatens the balance of power in the region and the U.S. military should directly aid Ukrainian forces to prevent the conflict from spreading to Europe. See recent Ukraine news
More stances on this issue
No, and the US needs to honor the agreements made between Gorbechev and Reagan and stop agitating Russia for geopolitical reasons. 2 years ago from a Libertarian in Lubec, ME
Yes- we should outlaw major war by declaring "The next country to invade another we will turn to glass within 24 hours of their aggression. As the leading superpower we will not tolerate war- and any organization acting on behalf of a country or... 2 years ago from a Constitution in Knoxville, TN
We should watch the situation and ensure there are no human rights violations. 3 years ago from a Green in San Diego, CA
On a humanitarian level only. 3 years ago from a Democrat in Dallas, TX
Ukraine needs to sort itself out, first. Once they have a legitimate government in place, then we can help them. As it stands, the only reason we are there is to protect corporate interests, particularly those of members of the current Presidential... 3 years ago from a Constitution in Dexter, MO
No, we should work diplomatically to deescalate the situation and work toward world peace. 3 years ago from a Socialist in Cheney, KS
Engage in diplomatic talks to ease tensions and rehabilitate the region so that all stake holders walk away with something to gain. It also ensures that the people in this region are saved from more bloodshed, have their own voices heard and can move on. 3 years ago from a Green in Commack, NY
Only if human rights are at stake. 3 years ago from a Democrat in New York, NY
The UN Security Counsel should decide if the use of force is appropriate. 3 years ago from a Libertarian in San Diego, CA
We need to find out what the will of the people is in all areas of the Ukraine. If the majority wants to be a part of Russia, let them, but give dissenters an option to leave those areas. 3 years ago from a Constitution in Provo, UT
Yes, but only if Russia advances further and only after every diplomatic solution is exhausted. 3 years ago from a Democrat in West Columbia, SC
Yes, but only with supplies and equipment. 3 years ago from a Republican in Waverly, MI
Yes, if NATO and the Ukraine ask for assistance. 3 years ago from a Republican in Renton, WA
No, but we should arm them with the weapons and technology to defend themselves. 3 years ago from a Libertarian in Muncy, PA