In 2025, the United States had the largest number of active military personnel out of all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, with almost *** million troops. The country with the second-largest number of military personnel was Türkiye, at around ******* active personnel. Additionally, the U.S. has by far the most armored vehicles in NATO, as well as the largest Navy and Air Force. NATO in brief NATO, which was formed in 1949, is the most powerful military alliance in the world. At its formation, NATO began with 12 member countries, which by 2024 had increased to 32. NATO was originally formed to deter Soviet expansion into Europe, with member countries expected to come to each other’s defense in case of an attack. Member countries are also obliged to commit to spending two percent of their respective GDPs on defense, although many states have recently fallen far short of this target. NATO in the contemporary world Some questioned the purpose of NATO after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union a few years later. In 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron even called the organization 'brain-dead' amid dissatisfaction with the leadership of the U.S. President at the time, Donald Trump. NATO has, however, seen a revival after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Following the invasion, Sweden and Finland both abandoned decades of military neutrality and applied to join the alliance, with Finland joining in 2023 and Sweden in 2024.

As of 2025,the combined forces of NATO had approximately 3.44 million active military personnel, compared with 1.32 million active military personnel in the Russian military. The collective military capabilities of the 32 countries that make up NATO outnumber Russia in terms of aircraft, at 22,377 to 4,957, and in naval power, with 1,143 military ships, to 419. In terms of ground combat vehicles, NATO had an estimated 11,495 main battle tanks, to Russia's 5,750. The combined nuclear arsenal of the United States, United Kingdom, and France amounted to 5,559 nuclear warheads, compared with Russia's 5,580. NATO military spending In 2024, the combined military expenditure of NATO states amounted to approximately 1.47 trillion U.S. dollars, with the United States responsible for the majority of this spending, as the U.S. military budget amounted to 967.7 billion dollars that year. The current U.S. President, Donald Trump has frequently taken aim at other NATO allies for not spending as much on defense as America. NATO member states are expected to spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense, although the U.S. has recently pushed for an even higher target. As of 2024, the U.S. spent around 3.38 percent of its GDP on defense, the third-highest in the alliance, with Estonia just ahead on 3.43 percent, and Poland spending the highest share at 4.12 percent. US aid to Ukraine The pause in aid to Ukraine from the United States at the start of March 2025 marks a significant policy change from Ukraine's most powerful ally. Throughout the War in Ukraine, military aid from America has been crucial to the Ukrainian cause. In Trump's first term in office, America sent a high number of anti-tank Javelins, with this aid scaling up to more advanced equipment after Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. The donation of around 40 HIMARs rocket-artillery system, for example, has proven to be one of Ukraine's most effective offensive weapons against Russia. Defensive systems such as advanced Patriot air defense units have also helped protect Ukraine from aerial assaults. Although European countries have also provided significant aid, it is unclear if they will be able to fill the hole left by America should the pause in aid goes on indefinitely.

On May 15, 2022, the Swedish government announced its intention to join the military alliance NATO. After over a year of negotiating with the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the two countries reached an agreement, with Erdoğan stating that he would support a Swedish NATO-membership. The final hurdle was removed in February 2024 when Hungary's parliament voted to approve Sweden's membership application, the last NATO-member needing to do so. As of March 2024, only a formal signing of the membership remains before Sweden will become the 32nd NATO member.

Membership comes after decades of neutrality

The Nordic country had remained outside the organization, referring to its neutrality, a stance supported by a majority of the population over the past years. However, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, there were more Swedes in favor of a NATO-membership in 2022. By May 2022, nearly 60 percent of the Swedes were in favor of the country joining NATO, a trend that continued into 2023 and 2024. Also in Sweden's neighboring country Finland, who joined NATO in April 2023, there was a majority in favor of joining the alliance.

Increased military spending

Sweden's military spending reached a new record in 2022 amid the rising global tensions. As a share of the gross domestic product (GDP), the military expenditure reached 1.3 percent, below the NATO-target of two percent. Read all about the Swedish Armed Forces here.

Opinion on questions concerning security policy. East-West comparison.

Topics: Satisfaction with the standard of living; attitude to France, Great Britain, Italy, USA, USSR, Red China and West Germany; preferred East-West-orientation of one´s own country and correspondence of national interests with the interests of selected countries; judgement on the American, Soviet and Red Chinese peace efforts; judgement on the foreign policy of the USA and the USSR; trust in the foreign policy capabilities of the USA; the most powerful country in the world, currently and in the future; comparison of the USA with the USSR concerning economic and military strength, nuclear weapons and the areas of culture, science, space research, education as well as the economic prospects for the average citizen; significance of a landing on the moon; Soviet citizen or American as first on the moon; assumed significance of space research for military development; attitude to a united Europe and Great Britain´s joining the Common Market; preferred relation of a united Europe to the United States; fair share of the pleasant things of life; lack of effort or fate as reasons for poverty; general contentment with life; perceived growth rate of the country´s population and preference for population growth; attitude to the growth of the population of the world; preferred measures against over-population; attitude to a birth control program in the developing countries and in one´s own country; present politician idols in Europe and in the rest of the world; attitude to disarmament; trust in the alliance partners; degree of familiarity with the NATO and assessment of its present strength; attitude to a European nuclear force; desired and estimated loyalty of the Americans to the NATO alliance partners; evaluation of the development of the UN; equal voice for all members of the UN; desired distribution of the UN financial burdens; attitude to an acceptance of Red China in the United Nations; knowledge about battles in Vietnam; attitude to the Vietnam war; attitude to the behavior of America, Red China and the Soviet Union in this conflict; attitude to the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam and preferred attitude of one´s own country in this conflict and in case of a conflict with Red China; opinion on the treatment of colored people in Great Britain, America and the Soviet Union; judgement on the American Federal Government and on the American population regarding the equality of Negros; degree of familiarity with the Chinese nuclear tests; effects of this test on the military strength of Red China; attitude to American private investments in the Federal Republic; the most influential groups and organizations in the country; party preference; religiousness.

Interviewer rating: social class of respondent.

Additionally encoded were: number of contact attempts; date of interview.

In 2024, the United States spent an estimated ***** U.S. dollars per capita on defence, compared with the NATO average of ***** per head.

Motivated by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ farewell address to NATO, this article investigates whether NATO burden-sharing behavior has changed during the last ten years. Based on a Spearman rank correlation test, we find almost no evidence that the rich NATO allies shouldered the defense spending burden of the poor allies during 1999–2009. In 2010, there is the first evidence of the exploitation of the rich. When allies’ defense burdens are related to defense benefit proxies, a Wilcoxon test finds that there is no concordance between burdens and benefits after 2002. This is indicative of a less cohesive alliance, in which allies are not underwriting their derived benefits. We also find that allies’ benefits, which are tied to their exposed border protection and terrorism risk, motivate defense spending. Allies’ benefits, based on economic base and population, are less of a driver of defense spending for most NATO allies. We devise a broad-based security expenditure burden that accounts for defense spending, UN peacekeeping, and overseas foreign assistance. In terms of this security burden, there is evidence of the exploitation of the rich by the poor beginning in 2004. Our findings indicate a two-tiered alliance that faces significant policy challenges.

This statistic shows the total population of the Netherlands from 2020 to 2024, with projections up until 2030. In 2024, the total population of the Netherlands was around 17.94 million people. Population of the Netherlands Despite its small size, the Netherlands is the twenty-third smallest nation in the European Union, and it is one of the most important nations in Europe and the world. The Netherlands is a founding member of the European Union, a member of the Group of Ten, and NATO. The total population of the Netherlands has rapidly increased over the past decade. Between 2004 and 2014, the total population increased by around 600 thousand people, currently estimated to be around 16.9 million altogether. The biggest cities in the Netherlands include Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague, with Amsterdam alone being home to almost 800 thousand residents. Among other factors, the Netherlands' increasing population is due to high life expectancy, economic growth and job opportunities. In 2011, the population of the Netherlands grew by around 0.47 percent in comparison to 2010. That same year, life expectancy at birth in the Netherlands was a little over 81 years, the highest recorded life expectancy since 2001. In addition, the unemployment rate in the Netherlands is one of the lowest unemployment rates in all of Europe.

A majority of people in all countries which are part of NATO would vote to stay in the military alliance if they were given the option, with 70 percent of respondents advising they would vote in favor of NATO membership, compared with 17 percent who don't know, and 14 percent who would vote to leave. According to this survey which was conducted in 2024, NATO membership is most popular in Albania and Poland, with 98 percent and 91 percent indicating they would vote for NATO membership, and least popular in Slovenia, with just a slight majority of people there supporting membership.

Since 1996, the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr (ZMSBw) has conducted a representative survey of the German population on defense and security policy issues on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Defense. In 2001, this study was continued. For this purpose, N = 2462 persons were interviewed on various issues from November 2, 2001 until December 8, 2001. The present survey focused in particular on Security and threat perceptions, the role and image of the Federal Armed Forces and its soldiers, the soldier´s profession, the tasks of the Federal Armed Forces and the Federal Armed Forces´ missions abroad, the role of compulsory military service, military cooperation in Europe, political and social participation, psycho-social profile-items, and questions about the work environment.
1. Perception of security and threat: personal feeling of security; personal significance of various aspects of security (e.g. job, military attacks, social security, income, ecological security, etc.); feeling of being threatened by: environmental destruction, violence by other people, poverty, crime, unemployment, wars or military conflicts in the world, right-wing extremism, financial problems, new technologies (e.g. genetic engineering), diseases (e.g. AIDS), population growth, nuclear weapons, left-wing extremism, military threat to Germany, lack of data protection, nuclear power stations, foreign infiltration, international terrorism, drugs.

1. Security policy attitudes, foreign deployments of the Federal Armed Forces: Germany´s role in the world: preference for a rather active vs. rather passive international policy of Germany; approved or rejected measures for international action by Germany (e.g. aid with food and medicine, aid of a financial and economic nature, technical assistance by civil organisations, peacekeeping operations of the Federal Armed Forces within the framework of a UN mission, etc.); general attitude towards the Federal Armed Forces and NATO and the participation of the Federal Armed Forces in the operational forces in Kosovo (KFOR), in Bosnia-Herzegovina (SFOR) and in Macedonia (AMBER FOX)

2. Evaluation of public institutions: Institutional trust (Federal Constitutional Court, other courts, police, Bundesrat, state government, Federal Armed Forces, Bundestag, television, press, churches, trade unions, federal government, school system, universities, political parties).

3. Personal connection to the Federal Armed Forces: respondent is currently doing military service in the Federal Armed Forces or has done military service in the Federal Armed Forces/ NVA, is/was a temporary or professional soldier in the Federal Armed Forces/ NVA or is doing civilian service/ has done civilian service.

4. Role and image of the Federal Armed Forces and their soldiers: Agreement to statements about the Federal Armed Forces (compared to other armies, the Federal Armed Forces is equipped with modern weapon systems, in the Federal Armed Forces discipline and order prevails, in the Federal Armed Forces you can find real camaraderie, in the Federal Armed Forces soldiers often discuss the execution of orders with their superiors, in the Federal Armed Forces you are tempted to drink too much alcohol, the equipment of the Federal Armed Forces is outdated, in international missions of the Federal Armed Forces, German soldiers do their jobs just as well as soldiers from other countries, in an emergency many Federal Armed Forces soldiers would try everything not to have to go into action, the Federal Armed Forces would fight back the enemy, if there really was a military attack on Germany, to ward off an attack on Germany, the Federal Armed Forces needs the help of allies) agreement to various statements on the profession of the soldier (e.g. e.g. German soldiers earn good money, Federal Armed Forces soldiers do not need to worry about their jobs, German soldiers are well trained for a possible military mission, etc.).

5. Tasks of the Federal Armed Forces: preferences with regard to the tasks of the Federal Armed Forces (tasks of international arms control, the fight against international terrorism, the fight against international drug trafficking, border security against illegal immigrants such as economic refugees, tasks in the field of environmental protection, international disaster relief, humanitarian aid and rescue services such as refugee assistance, reconstruction and development aid such as road construction, military combat operations or peace-keeping military missions on behalf of or under the control of the UN or other international organisations, education and character building of soldiers, defence of German territory, defence of allies, training in civilian professions, evacuation of German citizens from crisis areas, taking over police security tasks within Germany such as object and building protection); opinion on increasing defence expenditure; opinion on increasing the...

"Opinions and Views of the Population of Ukraine" is a regular omnibus survey, conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) among Ukraine's adult population and covering a wide range of topics. The data presented here is a subset of the survey conducted in December 2024 and includes KIIS's own research questions. Topics covered by the survey include: readiness for concessions for peace, and acceptability of specific hypothetical scenarios for the end of the war; how long Ukrainians are ready to bear the burden of war; the potential impact of Donald Trump's election as President of the United States on the conflict in Ukraine; perceptions of Ukraine's future in 10 years; Ukraine's progress toward becoming a unified political nation; trust in Volodymyr Zelenskyy; trust in social institutions; public confidence in sociological surveys; attitudes towards the EU and NATO; attitudes towards the concept of Ukraine potentially restoring nuclear weapons; personal experiences with stressful situations. Data collection took place from December 2 to 17, 2024. The full sample consists of 2,000 respondents, divided into two subsamples of approximately 1,000 respondents each for specific questions. The data is available in an SAV format (Ukrainian, English) and a converted CSV format (with a codebook). The Data Documentation (pdf file) also includes a short overview and discussion of survey results as well as the relevant parts of the original questionnaire.

Among the founding NATO nations, the United States was the country with the highest incarceration rate of *** per 100,000 population in 2021. The United Kingdom was second on the list, with *** prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants.

For this survey, opinions were sought from respondents across Europe and the United States on several topics of national and international interest. These topics included: (1) the European Union (EU) and the United States as superpowers, threats facing the global community, (2) the United Nations (UN), (3) the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), (4) general opinions of various countries, institutions, and people, (5) actions taken by the George W. Bush Administration, (6) intervention policy, (7) Turkey's (potential) membership in the EU, (8) Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, (9) China's human rights record, and (10) political preferences and voter intentions. Regarding the EU and the United States as superpowers, respondents were asked whether it was desirable for the EU or the United States to exert strong leadership in the world, whether the EU or the United States or neither should be superpowers, if the motive for opposing the EU becoming a superpower was increased military expenditure, whether increased military expenditure was necessary for the EU to become a superpower, whether the EU should concentrate on becoming an economic power, and if a more powerful EU should cooperate with the United States. Respondents were asked about threats facing the world such as Islamic fundamentalism, immigration, international terrorism, global warming, the spread of diseases such as AIDS, a major economic downturn, and the spread of nuclear weapons, and whether they expected to be affected by any of them in the next ten years. With respect to the United Nations, respondents were asked their overall opinion of the UN, whether they believed UN involvement legitimized the use of military force, whether the UN could help manage the world's problems better than a single country could, and whether the UN helps to distribute the costs of international actions. Regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), respondents were asked whether NATO could help share the United States military burden, whether NATO was an essential part of national security, if NATO involvement legitimized the use of military force, if NATO was dominated by the United States, and whether Europe should maintain a defensive alliance independent of the United States. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups: the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. In regard to the Bush Administration, respondents were asked whether relations between the United States and Europe were better or worse, whether Bush's efforts to improve relations between the United States and Europe were successful, what the future of relations between the United States and Europe would be because of Bush's efforts, and whether or not Europe should be more independent from the United States with respect to issues of security and diplomacy. Respondents were also asked whether they approved of Bush's handling of international policies. With respect to intervention policy, the following questions were asked: should the EU help establish democracies, should the EU be involved in monitoring elections, would the respondent be in favor of the EU supporting trade unions, human rights associations, and religious groups in an effort to promote freedom, and should the EU support political dissidents and impose political and economic sanctions in opposition to an authoritarian regime. Respondents were asked several questions regarding Turkey's membership in the EU, including whether Turkey's membership in the EU could help promote peace and stability in the Middle East, if Turkey's membership in the EU would be good for the EU in economic terms, whether a predominately Muslim country belonged in the EU, if Turkey was too populous to become a member of the EU, and whether Turkey was too poor to be admitted into the EU. Respondents were also asked what they felt was the best way to put pressure on Iran in light of its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and whether or not the EU should limit its relations with China due to China's human rights violations. Respondents were also asked about their voting intentions for the next elections and what factors they took into consideration when deciding for which party to vote. The dat

The purpose of the study: assess knowledge of the German population about Lithuania and its inhabitants. Major investigated questions: respondents were asked whether they heard about Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, whether they know much about these countries and could name their capitals, and finally whether they would like to visit these countries. Further, the questions were only related to Lithuania. It was wanted to know how much the respondents know about Lithuania and with which region they would most likely associate this country. Those who think that Lithuania is not worth a trip or who have doubts about visiting Lithuania were asked to give their reasons in group of questions. After a group of questions, respondents that formerly visited Lithuania were asked to answer what made them visit Lithuania, what they liked and what they did not like about the country. When asked to imagine that they were planning to visit a European country, and after being asked a group of questions, it was wanted to know what would have the most influence on such a decision. Respondents were asked to rate whether Lithuania's membership in the EU, NATO and the OECD was a positive or negative thing. Next, respondents rated the groups of statements about Lithuania. It was clarified whether they had seen the campaign "Lithuania. Real is beautiful". They were asked to answer which of the listed tourist attractions or activities would be interesting for them if they were to visit another country. It was investigated which positive and negative descriptions best describe Lithuanians. At the end of the survey, questions were asked about how often respondents travel abroad (including all types of travel: work, weekends, holidays) and who usually travels abroad with them. Socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, place of residence, education, household income, occupation.

This study sought opinions from respondents across Europe and the United States on various topics pertaining to foreign policy and international relations. The primary topics included: (1) the state of relations between the European Union (EU) and the United States, (2) the George W. Bush Administration's handling of global affairs, (3) the functioning of the European Union (EU), (4) the relevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), (5) general opinions on various countries, institutions, and population groups, (6) perception of potential international threats, (7) China as an emerging power, (8) Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, (9) civil liberties and national security, (10) the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and (11) the role of the EU and the United States in establishing democracy. Respondents were asked about relations between the United States and Europe including whether it was desirable for the EU to exert strong leadership in the world, whether they were in favor of the United States exerting strong leadership in the world, whether relations between the United States and Europe had improved or gotten worse, and how relations between the United States and Europe regarding security and diplomatic affairs should evolve in the future. Respondents also were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the way George W. Bush was handling international policies. There were several questions that related to the functioning of the EU, such as (1) whether the EU should have its own foreign minister, (2) whether military or economic power is more important when dealing with international problems, (3) whether the EU should seek to strengthen its military power, (4) what effect Turkey's membership would have on the EU, and (5) how further enlargement would change the EU's role in world affairs and its ability to promote peace and democracy. Respondents were questioned about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and whether they believed NATO was still essential to their country's national security. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups using a scale of 0 (very cold, unfavorable feeling) to 100 (very warm, favorable feeling): the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. Respondents were also asked about potential threats facing Europe and the United States such as international terrorism, the inflow of immigrants and refugees, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the spread of diseases like avian flu, a major economic downturn, global warming, the growing economic and military power of China, instability in Iraq, and Islamic fundamentalism. Respondents were then asked if they perceived these threats to be important in the next ten years. With respect to Iran, respondents were asked whether action should be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, what would be the best and worst options for preventing Iran from obtaining them, whether military action should be taken if diplomacy could not prevent Iran from obtaining them, and which country or organization was best suited for handling the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. The survey contained a series of questions relating to national security and civil liberties. Opinions were sought on whether respondents would support the government taking actions such as monitoring phone calls, Internet communication, and banking transactions made by citizens, all in the name of preventing terrorism. Questions were also asked about Islam and democracy including whether the values of the two institutions were compatible or not, and if there were problems, whether they existed in Islam as a whole or just in certain Islamic groups. In addition, respondents were asked if the EU and the United States should help establish democracy in other countries, whether this help should be dependent on whether or not the countries would be more likely to oppose the EU and/or the United States, and whether the EU and United States should monitor elections in new democracies, support independent groups and political dissidents, impose political and/or economic sanctions, or intervene militarily in order to establish democracy. Finally, respondents were asked about their voting intentions for

Opinions across Europe and the United States on various topics pertaining to foreign policy and international relations. The primary topics included: the state of relations between the European Union (EU) and the United States, the George W. Bush Administration´s handling of global affairs,) the functioning of the European Union (EU), the relevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), general opinions on various countries, institutions, and population groups, perception of potential international threats, China as an emerging power, Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, civil liberties and national security, the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and the role of the EU and the United States in establishing democracy.

Topics: Respondents were asked about relations between the United States and Europe including whether it was desirable for the EU to exert strong leadership in the world, whether they were in favor of the United States exerting strong leadership in the world, whether relations between the United States and Europe had improved or gotten worse, and how relations between the United States and Europe regarding security and diplomatic affairs should evolve in the future. Respondents also were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the way George W. Bush was handling international policies. There were several questions that related to the functioning of the EU, such as whether the EU should have its own foreign minister, whether military or economic power is more important when dealing with international problems, whether the EU should seek to strengthen its military power, what effect Turkey´s membership would have on the EU, and how further enlargement would change the EU´s role in world affairs and its ability to promote peace and democracy. Respondents were questioned about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and whether they believed NATO was still essential to their country´s national security. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the following countries, institutions, and population groups using a scale of 0 (very cold, unfavorable feeling) to 100 (very warm, favorable feeling): the United States, Russia, Israel, the European Union, Palestinians, Italy, Turkey, China, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain. Respondents were also asked about potential threats facing Europe and the United States such as international terrorism, the inflow of immigrants and refugees, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the spread of diseases like avian flu, a major economic downturn, global warming, the growing economic and military power of China, instability in Iraq, and Islamic fundamentalism. Respondents were then asked if they perceived these threats to be important in the next ten years. With respect to Iran, respondents were asked whether action should be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, what would be the best and worst options for preventing Iran from obtaining them, whether military action should be taken if diplomacy could not prevent Iran from obtaining them, and which country or organization was best suited for handling the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. The survey contained a series of questions relating to national security and civil liberties. Opinions were sought on whether respondents would support the government taking actions such as monitoring phone calls, Internet communication, and banking transactions made by citizens, all in the name of preventing terrorism. Questions were also asked about Islam and democracy including whether the values of the two institutions were compatible or not, and if there were problems, whether they existed in Islam as a whole or just in certain Islamic groups. In addition, respondents were asked if the EU and the United States should help establish democracy in other countries, whether this help should be dependent on whether or not the countries would be more likely to oppose the EU and/or the United States, and whether the EU and United States should monitor elections in new democracies, support independent groups and political dissidents, impose political and/or economic sanctions, or intervene militarily in order to establish democracy. Finally, respondents were asked about their voting intentions for the next elections and what factors they took into consideration when deciding for which party to vote.

demography: gender, age, level of education, occupation, household size, region, and ethnicity.

The annual survey charted Finnish public opinion on foreign policy, state security and defence policy, and military alliances. Respondents were asked how well Finland has managed its foreign policy, and what kind of military tasks should the country's armed forces undertake. One theme pertained to what kind of impact the following issues have on the security of Finland: EU or NATO membership of certain countries (e.g. the Baltic States, Eastern Europe, Sweden, Turkey), Finland's potential NATO membership, Finnish participation in the European Rapid Reaction Force, Russia's and EU's fight against terrorism, and Finland's neutrality. Respondents were also asked whether Finland should join NATO. Attitudes towards partnership cooperation between Finland and NATO were studied with questions pertaining to the Partnership for Peace programme, participation in crisis management operations led by NATO, and making equipment and command systems interoperable with those of NATO. For the first time, views were charted on whether the EU has the right to carry out a military intervention in an EU member state or a non-member state, and on what grounds (e.g. for humanitarian help or to prevent genocide). Respondents were also asked whether the EU's military intervention should be based on the decision made by the EU alone, or should it be based on a UN mandate. Opinions of Finland's defence expenditure were surveyed. Respondents were also asked which factors should be most important when deciding which Finnish garrisons to close down, and should Finland have a conscription army or a professional army. One topic covered possible future threats to Finland (e.g. climate change, Israel-Palestinian conflict, international terrorism and crime.) Further questions explored causes of terrorism, the impact of Finland's EU membership, and trust in the future of the EU. Background variables included the respondent's gender, age, economic activity, occupational status, marital status, household composition, age and number of children, level of education, household income, driving licence status, household ownership of certain consumer durables (car, television, holiday home, videos, computer, mobile or fixed-line phone, digital camera), province and region of residence, type and population of the municipality of residence, accommodation type, Internet and mobile phone use, who the respondent would vote for if the parliamentary elections were held at that time, and who in the household is responsible for household duties like shopping.

Three out of four Ukrainians would vote for their country's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), according to a survey from September 2024. Less than 10 percent of respondents were against Ukraine's membership in NATO. The highest level of support toward the accession was recorded in western Ukraine. The majority of Ukrainians expected their country to join NATO until 2032.

PurposeThe study aims to highlight the behavior of people in a state in the vicinity of a military conflict zone. Specifically, it highlights the psychological behavior of Romanian citizens after the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. It was considered appropriate to carry out this study, given the novelty of such a situation, since, after the end of the Second World War, Europe has no longer faced major problems of insecurity caused by armed conflicts of this magnitude.MethodsThe study was based on the questionnaire applied to a number of 1,193 people with permanent residence in Romania and a minimum age of 18 years. The data were collected in the beginning phase of the invasion of Ukraine by the troops of the Russian Federation, i.e. between March 1–17, 2022. The aim was to obtain information that would allow the observation of re-spondents' opinions on the conflict in Ukraine and its potential escalation, and on the other hand, to allow the assessment of quality of life, using the WHQOL-BREEF measurement instrument.ResultsBased on the results of the study, the highest average satisfaction among the four domains of WHOQOL-BREF is represented by the “Psychological” domain, of the category of people with the lowest fear about a potential future war between Romania and the Russian Federation (83.62 ± 17.48). On the contrary, the lowest average is represented by the “Environment” domain, for the category of persons who do not feel protected by the fact that Romania is a NATO member state (61.77 ± 20.96).ConclusionsThe results of the study show that the indices of the quality of life of the people in Romania, as a state in the proximity of a military conflict with the potential to escalate, are negatively influenced by the fears of people who believe that the war in Ukraine will escalate into a regional or global conflict, or that the Russian Federation is going to use its nuclear arsenal against Ukraine or another NATO member state.

The purpose of the study: assess knowledge of the Norwegian population about Lithuania and its inhabitants. Major investigated questions: respondents were asked whether they heard about Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, whether they know much about these countries and could name their capitals, and finally whether they would like to visit these countries. Further, the questions were only related to Lithuania. It was wanted to know how much the respondents know about Lithuania and with which region they would most likely associate this country. Those who think that Lithuania is not worth a trip or who have doubts about visiting Lithuania were asked to give their reasons in group of questions. After a group of questions, respondents that formerly visited Lithuania were asked to answer what made them visit Lithuania, what they liked and what they did not like about the country. When asked to imagine that they were planning to visit a European country, and after being asked a group of questions, it was wanted to know what would have the most influence on such a decision. Respondents were asked to rate whether Lithuania's membership in the EU, NATO and the OECD was a positive or negative thing. Next, respondents rated the groups of statements about Lithuania. It was clarified whether they had seen the campaign "Lithuania. Real is beautiful". They were asked to answer which of the listed tourist attractions or activities would be interesting for them if they were to visit another country. It was investigated which positive and negative descriptions best describe Lithuanians. At the end of the survey, questions were asked about how often respondents travel abroad (including all types of travel: work, weekends, holidays) and who usually travels abroad with them. Socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, place of residence, education, household income, occupation.

This data collection, which focuses on military spending and arms transfers, supplies information on 145 developed and developing countries of the world. The first file contains background data for each country, including items such as region, sub-region, alliances (OPEC, NATO, and Warsaw Pact), and OECD and World Bank membership. The second file tabulates annual military expenditures, GNP, central government expenditures, arms imports and exports, and total imports and exports in current and constant dollars for each country from 1973 to 1983. Additional variables detail total population, number of armed forces personnel, number of armed forces personnel per 1000 people, GNP in constant dollars per capita, and military expenditures in constant dollars per capita. (Source: downloaded from ICPSR 7/13/10)

Please Note: This dataset is part of the historical CISER Data Archive Collection and is also available at ICPSR at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08532.v1. We highly recommend using the ICPSR version as they may make this dataset available in multiple data formats in the future.