Among the respondents in Russia, the lowest level of public support toward the actions of Russian military forces in Ukraine was recorded among the population aged 18 to 24 years, at around 66 percent in April 2025. In the age group of 55 years and above, that share stood at over 80 percent. Russian forces invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Overall, eight out of ten Russians supported the military actions.

How many soldiers does Russia have? The Russian Armed Forces had 3.57 million troops as of 2025, with 37 percent of them, or 1.32 million, being active military personnel. Two million were reserve service members, and 250,000 were paramilitary forces. The number of people in the Russian military was increased twice after the invasion of Ukraine; the respective presidential decrees came into force in January and December 2023. Largest armies worldwide The Russian Army had the fourth-largest available active military manpower in 2025, having shared that rank with North Korea. The militaries of China, India, and the United States had more active soldiers. In terms of defense spending, Russia ranked third after the U.S. and China. Military personnel of Ukraine and NATO Russia’s active troops outnumbered Ukraine’s by 420,000 as of 2025. Furthermore, reserve and paramilitary forces of Russia were higher. When comparing Russia’s active military personnel to that of the countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it was roughly 2.6 times smaller. In total, NATO members were estimated to over 3.4 million troops, including active, reserve, and paramilitary units. The U.S., Turkey, and Poland have the largest armies in NATO.

The Second World War had a profound impact on gender ratios within the Soviet Union's population, and its effect on different age groups varied greatly. The Soviet population structure had already been shaped heavily by the First World War, the Russian Revolution, and the famines of the early 1920s and early 1930s. The impact of these events on mortality and fertility meant that, in 1941, the generations whose births corresponded with these events had a lower population than would be expected on a typical population model. For example, in 1941, those aged between 5 and 9 had a significantly lower population than those aged 10 to 14, due to the effects of the Soviet famine of 1932-1933. Additionally, women outnumbered men in all age groups except the very youngest, due to the disproportionate effect of conflict and infant mortality on male populations. Impact of WWII In order to observe the impact of the war, one must compare populations of specific age groups in 1941 with the following age group in 1946. For men of "fighting age" in 1941, i.e. those aged between 15 and 44, these populations experience the most substantial decrease over the course of the war. For example, there are 5.6 million men aged 15-19 in 1941, but just 3.5 million aged 20-24 in 1946, giving a decrease of 38 percent. This decrease of almost forty percent can be observed until the 45-49 group, where the difference is 25 percent. Additionally, women aged between 15 and 34 saw a disproportionate decrease in their populations over this period, as many enlisted in the army and took an active part in the conflict, most notably as medics, snipers, and pilots.

The war's impact on fertility and child mortality meant that, in 1946, the total population under four years old was less than half its size in 1941. Generally, variations between age groups then fluctuated in line with pre-war patterns, however the overall ratio of women to men increased further after the war. For all age groups over 20 years, the number of men decreased between these years, whereas all women's age groups over 30 years saw an increase; this meant that, despite the war, women over 30 had a higher life expectancy in 1946.

More than one half of the Russian population supported the partial mobilization of reservists announced in September 2022 during the war in Ukraine, according to a survey from October 2022. The lowest level of support was recorded in the age group from 18 to 24 years, at nearly 40 percent.

Attitudes of East German young people. Topics: relation between civilian population and People's Police; military purpose of the People's Police; relation between members of the People's Police and Russian troops; attitudes to the People's Police; internal conviction of members of the People's Police; voluntariness of membership in the People's Police; flight of members of the People's Police into the west; reputation of Russian troops in the civilian population; frequency of contact between Russian troops and the German civilian population; personal acquaintance with Russian soldiers; listening to western radio stations by Russian soldiers; change of views of Russian soldiers about the West from their stay in Germany. Demography: age; occupation; education; sex; state; city.

The Survey of Russian Elites consists of one dataset that covers the years 1993, 1995, 1999, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. The data were collected as part of a larger study of mass-elite interactions in post-Soviet Russia, with particular emphasis on the links between the domestic political economy and foreign policy perspectives. The dataset includes questions on international relations, threat perceptions, foreign policy decision-making, domestic politics, and economic issues. In particular, respondents were asked their opinions about the national interests of Russia, the role of military force in international relations, the greatest threats to stability and security, the enlargement of the European Union, NATO expansion, the need for order in Russia, and how closely Russia should follow the path of developed countries. Additional questions asked respondents about their level of influence on foreign policy decision-making, how they find out about world and domestic events, how often they discuss such events with friends or family members, whether the United States represents a threat to Russia, whether they favor giving military aid to other countries, the importance of various foreign policy goals to Russia, the influence of various governmental institutions on foreign policy, and the permissibility of using military force. Questions focusing on domestic issues asked about their attitudes regarding government spending, the rights of individuals versus those of society, the role of political competition, the responsibility of the government to its citizens, the importance and meaning of democracy, and the type of political system that is most appropriate for Russia. Respondents were also asked about Russia's relations with other countries (e.g., Ukraine, Belarus, Japan, and China), various forms of property ownership, their willingness to open a new business, national pride, political protests, the environment, their views toward immigrants and other societal groups, and Russia's political and economic future. Demographic questions include nationality, education, occupation of the respondent and other family members, sex, age, country of birth, marital status, language spoken in the home, income level, household composition, political party affiliation, religion, military service, and foreign travel.

Attitude of the population of the FRG to the military, defense policy and NATO.

Topics: Attitude to rearmament of the FRG and a professional or volunteer army; military preparedness; military knowledge; attitude to military drill and obedience; position of the FRG in NATO; attitude and relationship of the Germans to American occupying forces; reasons and evaluation of presence of American soldiers in the FRG; attitude to military service; image of the soldiers of selected countries; social distance from Americans; evaluation of Russian recommendations about reunification; evaluation of the cultural achievements of various peoples; personal participation in the world wars; relative social prestige of selected occupations; membership in a club, trade union or party; honorary activities; party preference.

Demography: age (classified); sex; religious denomination; school education; occupation; household income; head of household; state; refugee status.

Interviewer rating: social class and willingness of respondent to cooperate; number of contact attempts; city size.

Also encoded were: identification of interviewer; sex of interviewer and age of interviewer.

During the Second World War, the three Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and Finland mobilized the largest share of their male population. For the Allies, the Soviet Union mobilized the largest share of men, as well as the largest total army of any country, but it was restricted in its ability to mobilize more due to the impact this would have on its economy. Other notable statistics come from the British Empire, where a larger share of men were drafted from Dominions than from the metropole, and there is also a discrepancy between the share of the black and white populations from South Africa.

However, it should be noted that there were many external factors from the war that influenced these figures. For example, gender ratios among the adult populations of many European countries was already skewed due to previous conflicts of the 20th century (namely WWI and the Russian Revolution), whereas the share of the male population eligible to fight in many Asian and African countries was lower than more demographically developed societies, as high child mortality rates meant that the average age of the population was much lower.

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.

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 2016, this study was continued. For this purpose, N = 2.295 persons were interviewed on various issues from May 17, 2016 until May 19, 2016. The present survey focused in particular on population´s threat perception and sense of security, personal attitudes toward the Federal Armed Forces, the perception of the Federal Armed Forces as an attractive employer, and the population´s knowledge of the tasks of the Federal Armed Forces, their number of personnel, and the level of defense expenditures.
1. Security and threat perception: assessment of the current security situation worldwide and in the Federal Republic of Germany and personal sense of security (split); sense of threat from: Job loss or difficulty in finding a job, insufficient financial security in old age, worldwide climate change due to global warming, major natural disasters, war in Europe, terrorist attacks in Germany, worldwide spread of a dangerous disease or epidemic, xenophobia in Germany, religious fundamentalism in Germany, immigration to Germany, rising prices, crime in the personal environment, malfunction in a nuclear power plant, tensions between the West and Russia, conflict in Iraq and Syria, Internet attack on infrastructure in Germany).

1. Security policy attitudes: increase vs. decrease in Germany´s responsibility at the international level; preference for an active vs. passive German international policy; agreement with various instruments of German foreign and security policy (development aid, acceptance of refugees, diplomatic negotiations, economic sanctions, military cooperation, arms deliveries to allied states, combat missions of the Federal Armed Forces, stabilization missions of the Federal Armed Forces, training missions of the Federal Armed Forces, police missions); agreement with various statements on foreign and security policy (war necessary under certain conditions, in international crises economic power is more important than military power, Germany should play a more active role in world politics, German protection of interests most likely through non-interference in the affairs of other states, in an international crisis Germany and its allies should agree on a common stance, Germany should ensure its security primarily on its own, in foreign policy matters Germany should act in concert with the United States, Germany should be more assertive in representing its interests to the US; the federal government should be able to act alone in military matters without the involvement of the Bundestag; Bundeswehr soldiers should only be sent on missions with the approval of the Bundestag; Germany should engage in security and defense policy primarily together with the states of the EU; the EU should act as an independent defense and security policy actor; Germany should engage in security and defense policy primarily in NATO; Germany must continue to be a member of NATO to ensure its security); attitudes toward NATO, alliance defense, and Russia (concerns about a new ´Cold War´ between Russia and the West, Germany should limit its economic relations with Russia, Germany should have more understanding of Russia´s position, Russia´s military action in Ukraine or in Syria threatens Germany´s security, NATO should strengthen its military presence in Eastern Europe).

2. Attitude toward the Federal Armed Forces: associations with the Federal Armed Forces (open); personal attitude toward the Federal Armed Forces; importance of the Federal Armed Forces for Germany; reputation of the Federal Armed Forces by the respondent; reputation of the Federal Armed Forces by most other people in Germany; degree of recognition by the respondent and in our country for the service of soldiers; evaluation of the Federal Armed Forces with regard to: Its performance at home and abroad, equipment and armament, integration of the Federal Armed Forces into society, public appearance, and the training of soldiers; institutional trust (public schools, German Bundestag, statutory pension insurance, political parties, Federal Employment Agency, trade unions, Federal Constitutional Court, statutory health insurance, Federal Armed Forces, police, Protestant Church, Catholic Church, Federal Criminal Police Office, Federal Intelligence Service, Federal Government, Office for the Protection of the Constitution); reasons for trust or for lack of trust in the Federal Armed Forces (open); perception of the Federal Armed Forces in the last 12 months on the following occasions: in everyday life, at public events, conversations with friends, relatives or colleagues, on TV broadcasts or on the radio, articles on the Internet, and reports in newspapers and magazines; personal impression of the Federal Armed Forces on the...

For most of the Second World War, the Soviet Union had the largest number of active military personnel each year, peaking at over 12 million people in the war's final years. The Soviet Union's ability to draw from its larger population was decisive in its eventual victory over Germany in 1945, whose eastern forces were greatly diminished by 1944 after it had already suffered heavy losses fighting the Soviets and was then forced to fight on the western front.

Each of the Great Powers had varying conscription systems in place that allowed them to draft citizens into the military. In the U.S., over 50 million men aged 18-45 would register for the draft before the war's end, and over 10 million of these were inducted into the military (alongside volunteers and those already in service). Conscription in Japan grew more aggressive as the war progressed, and its armed forces doubled in size in the final two years of the war.

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.

The First World War saw the mobilization of more than 65 million soldiers, and the deaths of almost 15 million soldiers and civilians combined. Approximately 8.8 million of these deaths were of military personnel, while six million civilians died as a direct result of the war; mostly through hunger, disease and genocide. The German army suffered the highest number of military losses, totaling at more than two million men. Turkey had the highest civilian death count, largely due to the mass extermination of Armenians, as well as Greeks and Assyrians. Varying estimates suggest that Russia may have suffered the highest number of military and total fatalities in the First World War. However, this is complicated by the subsequent Russian Civil War and Russia's total specific to the First World War remains unclear to this day.

Proportional deaths In 1914, Central and Eastern Europe was largely divided between the empires of Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia, while the smaller Balkan states had only emerged in prior decades with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. For these reasons, the major powers in the east were able to mobilize millions of men from across their territories, as Britain and France did with their own overseas colonies, and were able to utilize their superior manpower to rotate and replace soldiers, whereas smaller nations did not have this luxury. For example, total military losses for Romania and Serbia are around 12 percent of Germany's total military losses; however, as a share of their total mobilized forces these countries lost roughly 33 percent of their armies, compared to Germany's 15 percent mortality rate. The average mortality rate of all deployed soldiers in the war was around 14 percent.

Unclarity in the totals Despite ending over a century ago, the total number of deaths resulting from the First World War remains unclear. The impact of the Influenza pandemic of 1918, as well as various classifications of when or why fatalities occurred, has resulted in varying totals with differences ranging in the millions. Parallel conflicts, particularly the Russian Civil War, have also made it extremely difficult to define which conflicts the fatalities should be attributed to. Since 2012, the totals given by Hirschfeld et al in Brill's Encyclopedia of the First World War have been viewed by many in the historical community as the most reliable figures on the subject.

Estimates for the total death count of the Second World War generally range somewhere between 70 and 85 million people. The Soviet Union suffered the highest number of fatalities of any single nation, with estimates mostly falling between 22 and 27 million deaths. China then suffered the second greatest, at around 20 million, although these figures are less certain and often overlap with the Chinese Civil War. Over 80 percent of all deaths were of those from Allied countries, and the majority of these were civilians. In contrast, 15 to 20 percent were among the Axis powers, and the majority of these were military deaths, as shown in the death ratios of Germany and Japan. Civilian deaths and atrocities It is believed that 60 to 67 percent of all deaths were civilian fatalities, largely resulting from war-related famine or disease, and war crimes or atrocities. Systematic genocide, extermination campaigns, and forced labor, particularly by the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets, led to the deaths of millions. In this regard, Nazi activities alone resulted in 17 million deaths, including six million Jews in what is now known as The Holocaust. Not only was the scale of the conflict larger than any that had come before, but the nature of and reasoning behind this loss make the Second World War stand out as one of the most devastating and cruelest conflicts in history. Problems with these statistics Although the war is considered by many to be the defining event of the 20th century, exact figures for death tolls have proven impossible to determine, for a variety of reasons. Countries such as the U.S. have fairly consistent estimates due to preserved military records and comparatively few civilian casualties, although figures still vary by source. For most of Europe, records are less accurate. Border fluctuations and the upheaval of the interwar period mean that pre-war records were already poor or non-existent for many regions. The rapid and chaotic nature of the war then meant that deaths could not be accurately recorded at the time, and mass displacement or forced relocation resulted in the deaths of many civilians outside of their homeland, which makes country-specific figures more difficult to find. Early estimates of the war’s fatalities were also taken at face value and formed the basis of many historical works; these were often very inaccurate, but the validity of the source means that the figures continue to be cited today, despite contrary evidence.

In comparison to Europe, estimate ranges are often greater across Asia, where populations were larger but pre-war data was in short supply. Many of the Asian countries with high death tolls were European colonies, and the actions of authorities in the metropoles, such as the diversion of resources from Asia to Europe, led to millions of deaths through famine and disease. Additionally, over one million African soldiers were drafted into Europe’s armies during the war, yet individual statistics are unavailable for most of these colonies or successor states (notably Algeria and Libya). Thousands of Asian and African military deaths went unrecorded or are included with European or Japanese figures, and there are no reliable figures for deaths of millions from countries across North Africa or East Asia. Additionally, many concentration camp records were destroyed, and such records in Africa and Asia were even sparser than in Europe. While the Second World War is one of the most studied academic topics of the past century, it is unlikely that we will ever have a clear number for the lives lost in the conflict.