Overwhelmingly negative/oppositional sentiment in replies to the @DefenceHQ post (ID 2091634910075183492, posted 23 Aug 2026 ~21:13 GMT).
The original post stated: “Tomorrow, Ukraine celebrates 35 years of independence. Tonight, London shines in blue and yellow. We stand with Ukraine. #SlavaUkraini 🇬🇧🤝🇺🇦” (with an accompanying photo of London lit in Ukrainian colours). It had substantial overall engagement (~8.1k likes, ~1.5k reposts, ~1.5k replies, ~268k views as of sampling).
Exact percentages for all ~1,499 replies are not publicly computable in full without complete data access, but sampling of top-engaged, latest, and keyword-filtered replies (via conversation_id searches, top/latest modes, and semantic relevance) shows a clear pattern:
Opposition/anger/criticism: ~85–95%+ of sampled replies. The large majority reject the “We stand with Ukraine” framing, often with strong language (“I don’t,” “stick your ‘we’,” “not our war,” “corrupt,” “traitors,” etc.).
Support/agreement: ~5% or less in visible samples (occasional short affirmations like “Slava Ukraini,” flag emojis, or “We do”). These are sparse and low-engagement relative to critics.
Neutrality/unclear/other: ~0–5% (rare pure questions, off-topic, or pure emoji reactions without clear stance).
This is consistent across top replies (highest likes/reposts), latest replies, and broader conversation samples. Support appears underrepresented in the reply thread relative to the post’s overall likes (which can include passive or algorithmic engagement). Reply volume and intensity lean heavily critical of the official message.
Replies cluster around these recurring themes (drawn from high-engagement and representative samples):
Domestic priorities / “not our war” / taxpayer money: Strong emphasis on UK issues first—borders, immigration, housing, cost of living, and resource allocation. Common claims: government prioritises foreign borders/aid over British ones; “stop giving our money away”; “fix the invasion happening on our shores”; accusations of neglecting British people while supporting Ukraine.
Accusations of hypocrisy and double standards (especially flags/identity/independence): Frequent comparisons to Scotland (or other UK nations). Examples: “Independence for Ukraine – good. Independence for Scotland – very very very bad. Hypocrites”; questioning why Ukrainian independence/flag displays are celebrated while Scottish or domestic identity concerns are not. Also broader “you speak for ‘we’ without asking the public.”
Geopolitical skepticism, corruption claims, and proxy-war framing: Ukraine described as highly corrupt, a “shithole,” money-laundering hub, or tool of Western/globalist/NATO/US interests (“proxy war,” “extending Russia,” elite enrichment). Criticisms of Zelenskyy, lack of elections, forced mobilisation, and claims the war serves external agendas rather than genuine independence. Some reference historical events (e.g., 2014) or call the support “treasonous”/anti-British.
Rejection of official voice and institutional distrust: Direct pushback on the Ministry of Defence using “we” (e.g., “You can stick your ‘we’. Many are not with Ukraine”; “Why as a Civil Service ministry you can push such a political message”). Framing of the government/elite as out of touch, captured, or lying on the public’s behalf. Some invoke “the vast majority of British people don’t.”
Other/less common: Occasional pro-Russia framing, anti-Nazi claims directed at Ukraine, peace-focused notes, or pure invective. Supportive replies are mostly brief endorsements without deep argumentation in the sampled set.
These themes overlap heavily; many replies combine domestic neglect + hypocrisy + corruption skepticism.
The post itself drew high visibility (~268k views, 1.5k+ replies). Top replies amplify the critical consensus and drive further engagement:
Highest-engagement critical replies include: one with ~550 likes (“I don’t stand with Ukraine. It is a corrupt shithole”); another with ~320 likes (“You can stick your ‘we’. Many are not with Ukraine...”); others in the 70–400 likes range covering money, borders, hypocrisy, and “public doesn’t stand with Ukraine.” These often attract their own reply threads continuing the critique.
Supportive or neutral replies in the samples generally have very low engagement (single-digit likes or zero in many cases).
Impact: Critical replies dominate visibility in the conversation, reinforcing the perception (among respondents) of a disconnect between the official “We stand with Ukraine” message and significant portions of the commenting public. Media/quote activity and further quote-tweets also leaned into the controversy around the post’s framing.
Overall qualitative summary: Public replies under this post show strong, consistent pushback against the official solidarity message, centred on prioritising Britain, perceived elite hypocrisy (especially around independence/flags), and doubts about the Ukraine policy’s costs, corruption, and strategic value. Supportive voices exist but are marginal in the reply ecosystem sampled. This reflects a polarised online discourse rather than a uniform national view; X replies are not a scientific poll and tend toward motivated, vocal users. Data drawn from the thread structure, top/latest conversation samples, and engagement metrics as of analysis.
You can review the breakdown yourself via the Full Grok Thread Analysis Report (PDF).