Authors
Lilian Negura1; Petru Negură2; 1 University of Ottawa, Canada; 2 University of Regensburg, Germany Discussion
This paper explores ambivalent representations of the war in Ukraine among Moldovan citizens—an understudied dimension of public opinion that lies beyond the dominant pro-/anti-Russian binary framing. Based on a mixed-methods study—including a nationally representative survey (n=1,112), 17 semi-structured interviews, and two focus groups—this research draws on Serge Moscovici’s theory of social representations, with a particular focus on the concept of cognitive polyphasia and the typology of hegemonic, polemical, and emancipated representations.
While polemical representations—those assigning clear political blame to either Russia, Ukraine or the West—have received significant scholarly attention, our findings foreground emancipated, ambivalent representations. Respondents adopting this stance refrain from attributing singular responsibility for the war. Instead, they construct multifaceted narratives that implicate multiple actors, including Russia, Ukraine, and Western powers. These narratives are characterised by uncertainty, suspicion of media narratives, and a cautious, analytical tone that resists one-sided, polemical interpretations.
Ambivalent respondents frequently reject nationalistic binaries, instead interpreting the conflict through anti-elite or class-based lenses. Rather than blaming entire nations or ethnic groups, they attribute responsibility to political leaders and opaque geopolitical interests. Their discourse often reflects frustration with the lack of trustworthy information and reveals efforts to reconcile conflicting viewpoints, exemplifying the polyphasic coexistence of divergent rationalities within a single cognitive framework.
Far from indicating political disengagement or indecision, this ambivalent position reflects a critical, reflexive engagement with the war’s complexity. Despite variations in their geopolitical interpretations, these respondents consistently express a moral condemnation of violence and a strong desire for peace—aligning them, paradoxically, with the broader hegemonic representation of the war as a humanitarian tragedy.
This paper challenges conventional models of opinion formation in Eastern Europe that rely on binary oppositions and statistical generalisations. It argues instead for a more granular, discursively nuanced understanding of geopolitical attitudes in post-Soviet societies. In Moldova—positioned at the intersection of overlapping cultural, historical, and strategic spheres—ambivalence may not only reflect uncertainty but may also offer a discursive space for future reconciliation and societal cohesion in a polarised geopolitical environment. 
