Summary and conclusions
1. The increased non‑response rate in the study may indicate a decline in trust; however, on the other hand, the questions did not elicit as strong an emotional reaction among the respondents.
A significantly larger proportion of Russian speakers reached during the data collection phase of the study declined to participate in the interview compared to the first round of the study conducted in 2022.
The increase in the refusal rate may reflect a broader societal shift, where Russian speakers are becoming increasingly cautious about participating in studies, especially in situations where their responses could be interpreted politically.
Additionally, the current political climate, particularly the new government's stricter stance on immigration, may further increase the reluctance to participate in studies. Russian citizens and dual citizens may experience uncertainty and fear about how the interpretation of their responses could affect their status.
The respondents' calmer and less emotionally charged responses during the interviews were also a notable phenomenon. This may indicate the subsiding of the shock from the spring of 2022 and the normalization of the war and other related global political situations.
2. The declining trend in assessments of inclusion and trust is challenging, but on the other hand, trust in official guidelines during emergency situations remains strong.
The views of Russian speakers on inclusion and Finnish society have declined overall, as has the trust in Finnish societal institutions. On the other hand, trust in certain operators has only decreased marginally (e.g., the police and the justice system). However, the experience of trust is generally lower among Russian speakers than in the entire population, particularly concerning NATO, the media, and healthcare.
In order to assess whether Russian speakers' trust in Finnish society is declining, consistently low, or dynamically varying, it should be measured more frequently.
The results regarding trust in authorities during exceptional situations and the willingness to participate in rescue/evacuation work are positive: respondents are very confident in authorities’ instructions and are engaged in societal activities. It seems that trust in Finnish society is good at a concrete level, even though there may be significant differences in political and ideological positions.
3. Trust in Finnish media is relatively low, and the level of trust is reflected in attitudes and opinions.
Trust in Finnish media has a clear positive connection with trust in other societal institutions. Individuals who trust Finnish media are also more positive toward supporting Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Russia, and they are more concerned about Russia's actions. They also less frequently consider military actions to be justified and more often see Finland's NATO membership positively impacting their sense of security.
Respondents who trust the media are, in other words, more likely to have a positive attitude toward Finland's actions and Western values.
However, the media is not seen as an entity intentionally behind misleading influence; rather, it is perceived more as a tool used by external operators, such as NATO or states, to influence opinions, rather than an independent and autonomous operator.
Trust in Finnish media may, in part, strengthen Russian speakers' attachment to Finnish society. Through the media, individuals are exposed to the central narratives and values of society, and high media trust increases the likelihood that individuals will adopt these views. Trust in the media can thus serve as an important bridge between social participation and commitment to societal values.
4. The attitudes of Russian speakers toward the impacts of NATO membership divide opinions and differ from those of the entire population, with some viewing NATO as a misleading influencer.
Among Russian speakers, opinions about Finland's NATO membership are significantly divided. Only 21% feel that membership improves their sense of security, while 37% feel it undermines it. In comparison to the views of the entire population, Russian speakers have a clearly more negative attitude toward the impacts of NATO membership on their sense of security.
Older individuals and those who have lived in Finland for a long time are more critical of NATO membership than younger individuals and those who have been in the country for a shorter time. Trust in the media is also strongly connected to views on NATO: those who trust Finnish media have a more positive attitude toward NATO.
It is also noteworthy that NATO is perceived to be intentionally engaging in misleading influence among the majority of those who have experienced some form of influence. NATO is, in the experiences of Russian speakers, thus likened to an operator similar to the United States or other Western states.
5. Misleading influence is perceived consistently from NATO, Russia, Finland, and Ukraine alike.
About a third of the respondents felt that their opinions had been intentionally influenced misleadingly. The most commonly perceived influencers were NATO, Russia, Finland, and Ukraine. It is noteworthy that the perceived influence from NATO has increased significantly compared to two years ago.
Respondents who have low trust in Finnish media more frequently felt that there was an attempt to misleadingly influence their opinion, whereas those who trust the media were more likely to view Russia as a misleading operator.
This suggests that respondents' experiences of influence are closely related to the types of media and information sources they follow, as well as how they perceive the role of the media in geopolitical conflicts.
6. There is distrust toward both the Finnish and Russian states and media, and some Russian speakers do not seem to trust any entity at all.
The study paints a picture that some Russian speakers perceive various media, different states, and warring parties as lying, producing propaganda, and acting to promote their own agendas. Thus, the overall attitude toward the world is one of suspicion, and the true state of affairs cannot be known or assessed.
7. Perceptions of Russia's military actions divide Russian speakers, but at the same time, many find it challenging to assess the situation or refuse to discuss it.
Two‑thirds of respondents do not consider Russia's military actions in Ukraine to be justified, and the proportion of those defending Russia's military actions has decreased compared to two years ago. Instead, the number of “I don’t know” responses has increased, indicating that opinions have become more uncertain.
Assessing the justifications for Russia's military actions is not seen as straightforward by the respondents, just as it was not in the previous round of the study. Some respondents who believed that the military actions are unjustified also expressed understanding toward Russia's actions or saw that other countries are equally guilty. On the other hand, there were also many respondents who clearly condemned Russia's actions.
Overall, it seems that many Russian speakers find the situation complex, do not want to intervene, or do not feel capable of assessing the situation.
8. Experiences of discrimination caused by the war in Ukraine have increased, partly influenced by anti‑Russian politics and perceptions.
Among Russian‑speaking respondents, experiences of discrimination caused by the war in Ukraine have increased compared to two years ago. Experiences of discrimination appear to be related to anti-Russian politics and perceptions in two ways: on one hand, some feel that they have been labelled based on the actions of the Russian government, which has increased their sense of alienation. Respondents expressed frustration over the asymmetric treatment of Ukrainian refugees, which has raised feelings of dissatisfaction. On the other hand, some respondents' views supporting the Russian state's politics may have influenced their perception of how attitudes toward Russia are seen as hate speech and discrimination, as they notice their own views diverging from social norms and the mainstream.
9. Russian speakers do not form a homogeneous group in their opinions and experiences, but as a group, they differ from the entire population on several issues.
The attitudes, opinions, and experiences of Russian speakers are diverse, and they do not form a cohesive group.
The respondents' opinions on the war between Russia and Ukraine, Finland's actions, and the role of Western countries were varied. Some respondents defended Russia's actions, while others strongly condemned them. Additionally, some respondents positioned themselves in between these views, reflecting the diversity of the group. This divergence of viewpoints reflects broader differences in worldviews and identities among Russian speakers.
Although the attitudes of Russian speakers are heterogeneous, on average, their views clearly differ from those of the entire population. Russian speakers are more critical of measures taken against Russia and support for Ukraine than the average population. They also have less trust in Finnish institutions, such as healthcare, the media, and NATO.