s How do citizens of US allies assess different reassurance strategies? This article investigates the effects of US reassurance policies on public opinion in allied states. We design and conduct a survey experiment in five Central–Eastern European states—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania—in March 2022. Set against the backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this experiment asked respondents to evaluate four types of reassurance strategies, each a critical tool in US crisis response policy: military deployments, diplomatic summitry, economic sanctions, and public reaffirmations of security guarantees. The international security literature typically values capabilities for their deterrence and reassurance benefits, while largely dismissing public reaffirmations as “cheap talk” and economic sanctions as being ineffective. Yet we find preferences for the use of economic sanctions and public statements as reassurance strategies during crises, in part because these approaches help states manage escalation risks.

中文翻译：

---

危机中的信誉：赞助人如何安抚盟友

■ 美国盟友的公民如何评估不同的安抚策略？本文研究了美国的安抚政策对盟国舆论的影响。我们于 2022 年 3 月在五个中东欧国家（爱沙尼亚、拉脱维亚、立陶宛、波兰和罗马尼亚）设计并进行了一项调查实验。该实验以俄罗斯入侵乌克兰为背景，要求受访者评估四种类型的保证战略，每一项都是美国危机应对政策的关键工具：军事部署、外交峰会、经济制裁和公开重申安全保证。国际安全文献通常重视威慑和安抚利益的能力，同时在很大程度上将公开重申视为“廉价言论”，并将经济制裁视为无效。然而，我们发现在危机期间人们倾向于使用经济制裁和公开声明作为安抚策略，部分原因是这些方法有助于各国管理升级风险。