This paper examines how populations in conflict zones perceive foreign military interventions, using Mali as a case study. Based on an original survey experiment (N = 1,594), it compares support for interventions led by the UN, ECOWAS, France, and Russia, focusing on how actor identity, perceived effectiveness, and integrity shape preferences. Findings challenge common assumptions: states—especially non-Western ones like Russia—often attract more support than international organizations; effectiveness raises support across all actors; and misconduct erodes approval, particularly for otherwise trusted interveners. The study highlights the importance of local perspectives for understanding legitimacy and warns Western states not to assume preferred-partner status in an era of multipolar competition and declining UN reach.