High Demand for Increased Monthly and Lump-Sum Payments
This section focuses on three out of the four respondent segments who were surveyed through open-ended questions regarding their desired pay rates that could positively influence their decision to join the SMO. Consequently, the “unconditionally unwilling” segment has not been considered. The survey results reveal the respondents’ subjective payment expectations and compensation along with their awareness of the risks posed to their lives.
The question was phrased as follows: “Could an increase in the following payments influence your decision to join the SMO? Please indicate the amount to which each payment would need to be increased foryou to sign a contract within the next three months.”
- Increase in basic monthly pay
- Increase in lump-sum payment
- Increase in injury compensation
- Increase in death gratuity payment
- Increase in other payments. Which ones?
Based on the dataset of the respondents’ estimates, mean and median indicators were calculated for each of the five types of payments. For the variable related to the death gratuity and lump-sum payments, the dataset was cleaned of the extreme outliers ranging from 1 billion rubles to 1 trillion rubles, which significantly skewed the statistics (surveys numbered 48, 162, 409, 662, 666, and 738). Missing values were assigned to these payment estimates, and these surveys were excluded from the calculation of both the mean and the median (see Appendix 3).
Out of the 2,000 respondents surveyed, approximately 160–313 respondents, or 8% to 16%, provided an opinion on at least one type of payment, and only 43 respondents, or 2% of the entire sample, offered an assessment for all types of payments. This circumstance somewhat limits the ability to generalize and extend the conclusions to the overall population.
The standard deviations for each type of payment are several times greater than the mean, and the confidence intervals exhibit a wide range, indicating extreme variability in the respondents’ assessments. Responses for each type of payment display significant variability, with respondents tending to overestimate payment amounts. This results in a high number of outliers within the sample and an asymmetrical distribution of assessments skewed toward higher values (see Table 3).
The estimates of desired payments show a wide range of values due to cognitive and ethical challenges faced by the respondents when making such assessments. The awareness of the reference point plays a significant role. The considerable variation in values may be attributed to a lack of knowledge about the current level of payments, as well as the subjective character of assessing life risks, ethical norms, social status, financial status, ideological orientations, and other factors beyond the scope of this study. There were also instances of respondents not taking the survey seriously, which is particularly evident in the overestimation of death gratuity payments. In the presence of extreme values, the median serves as a more robust measure against outliers and provides a better representation of the “center” of the distribution compared with the mean, which is more sensitive to extreme values.
To assess the extent of the respondents’ payment expectations, we refer to the official payment rates for contract service set by MoD. Given the significant regional variations, the payment rates in the Moscow military district — offering one of the most lucrative payments — were selected as a reference point. Based on the information published on the official dobrovolets.rf website dated October 2024, it includes a minimum monthly pay of 210,000 rubles, a lump-sum payment of 1.9 million rubles, a maximum injury compensation payment of 3.5 million rubles, a maximum death gratuity payment of 15 million rubles, and a maximum payment for combat achievements of 1 million rubles, which corresponds to the “other payments” category in the survey terms (see Table 4) 1.
It should be noted that monthly payments vary depending on the military rank, specialty, duration of service, and achievements, and the injury compensation varies depending on the severity of the injury. The amount of insurance payments for the relatives of a contract soldier in the event of their death is subject to even greater variability.
According to Fig. 9, the average desired monthly pay sits at 850,000 rubles, at least four times the current pay offered in Moscow. Desired lump-sum payments upon the signing of the contract averaged at 3.7 million rubles (excluding outliers), nearly double the Moscow rate, while the median value closely aligns with the current lump-sum payment in Moscow. The average desired injury compensation was estimated at 3.6 million rubles, which is closest to the actual payment of 3.5 million rubles in Moscow. The average desired compensation in case of death across the sample settled at 16 million rubles, closely aligning with the current payment in Moscow, provisionally set at 15 million rubles (the actual insurance payment in case of the soldier’s death varies significantly in practice).
Being less sensitive to outliers, the median allows for conclusions about the payment expectations of the median respondent (see Fig. 10). The median respondent specifies the amounts of two existing payments accurately: the lump-sum payment and the injury compensation. For the monthly pay, however, they request an amount more than twice the Moscow rate. Yet, they significantly underestimate the death gratuity payment, which may indicate a lack of information regarding the current payments.
Whether or not the respondents were aware of the current payments, their overestimated monthly pay expectations, shown in both average and median values, indicate a perceived inadequacy in current monthly payment rates. Increasing the monthly pay could, therefore, have the greatest impact on their willingness to sign the contract. For other types of payments, the mean and median align more closely with the current pay offered in Moscow, which may reflect either low awareness of current rates among Russian men or may indicate the perceived adequacy of the other payments rates, including the Injury compensation and death gratuity.
Payment expectations by sociodemographic characteristics
This section provides an analysis of desired payments by key socio-demographic characteristics, covering each of the five types individually: monthly, lump-sum, injury compensation, death gratuity, and other payments. Averaging across all five payment types lacks validity, as only 43 responses included the data for each category. The analysis uses the full sample of respondents who ventured an estimate for any payment type, excluding six responses with exceptionally high estimates for lump-sum and death gratuity payments (see Appendix 3).
To evaluate the statistical significance of payment differences by socio-demographic characteristics, Levene’s test, one-way ANOVA, and Multivariate ANOVA were applied. In most cases, these tests did not reveal statistically significant differences in payment types across socio-demographic groups (due to the lack of data for many payment categories with only 43 responses covering all of the five types).
Payment Types by Age. Levene’s test showed a p-value < 0.05 for all payment types except injury compensation, indicating non-homogeneous variances between groups (groups have different data variability), making it unsuitable to evaluate significant age-related payment differences using ANOVA. The analysis of Fig. 11 clearly shows the uneven distribution of average payment estimates across different age groups. Monthly payments are the highest for the 18–19 and 40–44 age groups. Injury compensation is most highly rated by the respondents aged 20–24 and 45–49. The highest death gratuity ratings are observed among younger respondents in the 20–24 age group. Overall, from the 50+ age category onward, assessments for several payment types (all but monthly pay) decrease significantly, suggesting that younger respondents have higher expectations regarding payment amounts compared with older respondents, especially when it comes to the death gratuity money.
Based on Fig. 12 reflecting the median payments, the most demanding respondents represent the 45–49 age bracket, requesting the highest amounts for monthly (500,000 rubles), lump-sum, and other payments. This is followed by respondents aged 35–44, who also request 500,000 rubles for monthly payments. The 30–34 age group has the highest injury compensation estimates. For death gratuity, all age groups agree on the median value of 10 million rubles.
Payment types by education
For the analysis of payment types by education level, Levene’s test showed variance homogeneity in most groups, allowing for the use of ANOVA tests. ANOVA did not reveal statistically significant differences in payment types based on the education level. A visual analysis of the average payment values in Fig. 13 confirms the absence of significant patterns in desired payments based on the education level.
At the median level, a trend is observed where injury compensation increases with higher education levels (Fig. 14). For death gratuity, the median respondent across all education levels requests 10 million rubles.
Payment types by marital status
In this case, the Levene’s test showed homogeneity of variances in most groups, but the ANOVA tests did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the types of payments based on the marital status. A visual analysis of the average payment values in Fig. 15 suggests that monthly payments are more important to respondents who are legally married, while injury compensation is rated highest by the respondents who are divorced.
At the median level, lump-sum payments show a noticeable variation, with
married respondents rating them higher (Fig. 16). Additionally, injury compensation is rated higher by both married and divorced respondents compared with others. Regarding death gratuity, all groups of median respondents rated it at 10 million rubles.
Types of payments by number of children
Levene’s test showed homogeneity of variances in half of the groups. The ANOVA tests did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the types of payments based on the number of children. A visual analysis of the average payments in Fig. 17 reveals several patterns among the three categories of respondents with children (i.e. excluding those without children). First, the lump-sum payment tends to increase as the number of children rises. Injury compensation follows a similar trend. The highest value for death gratuity is observed among the respondents with more than two children. This is indicative of the correlation between higher pay demands and the number of children.
At the median level, this dependency is less pronounced, although the requests for monthly and lump-sum payments are noticeably higher among the respondents with multiple children compared with those without any (Fig. 18). For death gratuity, median respondents across all groups agreed on the amount of 10 million rubles.
Types of payments by income level
To determine the statistical significance of differences in payments depending on the income level, Levene’s test was conducted, which showed homogeneity of variances in the groups for monthly payments, injury compensation, and the group of other payments. Multivariate ANOVA test indicated significant differences that arise in average payments depending on the income level for the combination of all the five types of payments. A visual analysis of the average payment amounts in Fig. 19 reveals a clear trend towards an increase in desired monthly payments as income rises across categories: from 795,000 rubles for less affluent groups to 953,000 rubles for respondents with incomes above 100,000 rubles. A similar trend is observed in onetime payments, with more affluent respondents requesting significantly higher amounts compared to those with lower incomes. A similar pattern is also seen for injury compensation, averaging 4.2 million rubles among the wealthiest respondents and 3.4 million rubles among the least affluent. However, the other two types of payments (death and “other”) do not show such a clear pattern. Therefore, respondents’ income levels are directly associated with their expectations regarding the size of the payments.
An analysis of the median values reveals similar trends (Fig. 20). The median one-time payment increases with income, from lower to higher amounts. Monthly payments do not demonstrate such an upward trend, although it is the median respondent from the high-income group who gave the highest rating for this type of payment. As for death gratuity, contrary to the above, the median respondent with an income below 20,000 rubles estimated it at 12.5 million rubles, while respondents from all other income groups estimated it at 10 million rubles.
Payment expectations by willingness to join the SMO
For a more detailed analysis of the monetary incentives for joining the SMO, it is essential to examine the distribution of payment assessments across three of the four analyzed segments according to their willingness to join the contract military service. Importantly, not all of the respondents across the first three segments provided payment amount estimates, and only 43 respondents offered assessments for all five types of payments. SMO personnel were also surveyed, but they provided fewer estimates of the payments.
The statistical measures of the payment’s distribution are analyzed below (Table 6).
The average payment amounts show significant differences among the segments. Those conditionally willing to join the SMO demand the highest monthly pay, which exceeds the Moscow level by a factor of five, indicating a weaker intuitive leaning toward the reference point (actual pay rates). This conclusion is also supported by the fact that for all other payments, the“conditionally willing” segment reports expectations sometimes below the current ones.
By contrast, the current and former SMO personnel have expectations that are, on average, closest to the actual pay rates. Their highest demand is for monthly payments, valuing them, on average, at four times the Moscow pay level.
As for Segment 2, the participants who expressed potential willingness to serve before discussing the incentives, their demands are not as far removed from reality, with higher expectations only for monthly pay (2.6 times higher than the one offered in Moscow) and for the lump-sum payment.
To understand the degree of consolidation in the demand for higher payments, it is worth referring to the standard deviation from the mean indicator (Table 6). The higher standard deviation in the basic monthly pay is seen among the “conditionally willing to join” respondents, suggesting they have lower awareness of the current benefits and may be more prone to speculative estimates. For other types of payments, the largest deviations are observed in the “unconditionally willing” segment. The smallest variance is found among the current and former SMO personnel, likely due to their better understanding of the current payments. Their higher payment expectations are more likely associated with a genuine demand for increased compensation.
The analysis of the median payment values reveals a match across the three segments (Table 7). The exception is the SMO personnel segment, where the median respondent values the injury payment higher than those in other groups.
For the median monthly pay rate, respondents in all three segments expect an amount nearly double the payment currently offered in Moscow. The request for a lump-sum payment is almost identical to the current payment in Moscow, slightly exceeding it. As for the injury compensation and death gratuity, the median respondents request amounts lower than those currently in place in Moscow. This result may indicate a lack of awareness about the payment levels among at least half of the respondents who are not directly involved with the survey’s the subject matter.
The survey analysis shows that the percentage of men considering the possibility of joining the SMO is quite high. Aggregating all respondent categories — current SMO personnel, those willing to extend their contract, and those willing to join with or without certain conditions — reveals that 39% of all respondents are open to participation, while 61% state their unwillingness (Table 8). At that, the core of the willing category is made up of the current personnel (9% who are ready to continue service), and 13% of those who expressed willingness to join even before discussing the terms, amounting to a total of 22%.
It is important to consider several limitations that prevent these results from being generalized to assess the potential for participation in contract military service among all Russian citizens. Surveys on sensitive topics in Russia often face respondent avoidance, especially among those with socially disapproved opinions, leaving these groups underrepresented. Additionally, this survey was conducted in public spaces near transportation hubs, capturing a limited socio-demographic sample of urban residents who frequently use public rather than private or air transport. This setting likely contributed to the high percentage of SMO participants in the sample (16%), a figure that exceeds typical estimates for contract participation among conscription-age men in the SMO.