While studies show that the public disapproves of trade with adversaries, political discourse has historically used security rhetoric to both justify and oppose trade with threatening states. Does emphasizing the potential of trade to exacerbate or mitigate security risks sway public opinion? Is public opinion malleable regardless of the level of threat? These questions become increasingly important as security and economic interactions between states become more intertwined. In a 2019 survey experiment, Ukrainian citizens report more optimism about the effects of trade with Russia (engaged in conflict with Ukraine since 2014) when told that trade decreases security risks. They are more pessimistic when presented with information that trade increases the risk of conflict. In contrast, attitudes about trade with a non-threatening trading partner (the European Union) are unaffected. This study demonstrates that the security effects of trade can both improve and worsen attitudes about trade with politically salient adversaries, even in the context of actual conflict. However, security rhetoric is unlikely to change public opinion about trade with non-threatening states unless they are viewed as reliable allies. Public opinion about trade, thus, responds to rhetoric about security, rather than representing an inflexible constraint on firms’ and states’ trade with adversaries.

中文翻译：

---

关于与敌人贸易的舆论：贸易对战争风险的影响

尽管研究表明公众不赞成与对手进行贸易，但政治话语历来使用安全言论来证明或反对与威胁国家的贸易。强调贸易加剧或减轻安全风险的潜力是否会影响公众舆论？无论威胁的程度如何，公众舆论是否具有可塑性？随着国家之间的安全和经济互动变得更加交织在一起，这些问题变得越来越重要。在 2019 年的一项调查实验中，当乌克兰公民被告知贸易可以降低安全风险时，他们对与俄罗斯（自 2014 年以来与乌克兰发生冲突）贸易的影响更加乐观。当他们得知贸易增加冲突风险的信息时，他们会变得更加悲观。相比之下，与非威胁性贸易伙伴（欧盟）的贸易态度不受影响。这项研究表明，贸易的安全效应既可以改善也可以恶化与政治上重要对手的贸易态度，即使是在实际冲突的背景下也是如此。然而，安全言论不太可能改变公众对与非威胁国家进行贸易的看法，除非这些国家被视为可靠的盟友。因此，关于贸易的公众舆论是对安全言论的回应，而不是对企业和国家与对手的贸易施加僵化的限制。