|
Three Polls On Support For The War In Ukraine
There are new polls out which show the changing opinion of U.S. citizens and others about supporting the war in Ukraine.
Newsweek came first, with a very deceiving headline:
U.S. Troops Should be Sent to Ukraine, Third of Americans Say
The text describing the poll does not really support what the headline says:
A total of 31 percent of eligible voters in the U.S. support or strongly support American military forces heading to the battlefields of Ukraine, polling conducted exclusively for Newsweek by Redfield & Wilton Strategies has revealed.
A quarter of respondents neither supported nor opposed the idea of sending U.S. soldiers to Ukraine, with 34 percent against the suggestion. Just under one in ten respondents did not know.
Can anyone tell me why one would put the loosing share of the opinion poll into the headline?
What is surprising, at least to me, is the huge difference of opinions between the young and the older voters:
In the poll, those identified as "Millennial," between 27 and 42 years old, were most likely to "strongly support" committing U.S. troops to Ukraine. However, more respondents aged between 18-26 (Gen Z) said they would support the measure overall, 47 percent saying they supported or strongly supported sending U.S. troops.
Nearly a third of respondents aged over 59 said they opposed pledging U.S. troops to Ukraine, with a further 25 percent "strongly" opposing the suggestion.
The pro-war Gen-Z-lers should be put through a boot camp to be shipped off to Europe. I have no doubt that it would change their opinion in no time.
In contrast to Newsweek the CNN poll pice is correctly headlined:
CNN Poll: Majority of Americans oppose more US aid for Ukraine in war with Russia
Most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, as the public splits over whether the US has already done enough to assist Ukraine.
Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding. And 51% say that the US has already done enough to help Ukraine while 48% say it should do more. A poll conducted in the early days of the Russian invasion in late February 2022 found 62% who felt the US should have been doing more.
The CNN poll seem to contradict the one by Newsweek on the most important question:
When asked specifically about types of assistance the US could provide to Ukraine, there is broader support for help with intelligence gathering (63%) and military training (53%) than for providing weapons (43%), alongside very slim backing for US military forces to participate in combat operations (17%).
There is a strong partisan divide about supporting the war:
Within both parties, there are splits by ideology. On providing additional funding, liberal Democrats are far and away the most supportive, 74% back it compared with 51% of moderate or conservative Democrats. Among Republicans, about three-quarters of conservatives oppose new funding (76%) compared with 61% of moderate or liberal Republicans.
Independents mostly say the US has done enough to help Ukraine (56%) and that they oppose additional funding (55%).
The progressives in the U.S., like the Greens in Europe, are now the fringe that is most eager to pursue the war. They are, of course, also those who are the least eager to serve in the military.
It is interesting to compare that with a change in opinion of young Poles, aged 16-34:
There has been a fundamental shift when it comes to the stance that young Poles think their government should adopt in the war in Ukraine. In 2022, an overwhelming majority of 83% argued that the government should support Ukraine – but this number has changed drastically.
Now, 65% of respondents back continuous support for Ukraine, whereas the remaining 34% wish for Poland to stay neutral. Clearly, more than one and a half years into the current phase of the conflict and amid fears of other countries being pulled into the war, young people have become more cautious.
Those numbers are a month old. It is likely that the support has sunk further and will no longer be in a majority by the end of this year.
While no poll can be trusted fully they show in aggregate that the general opinion is moving away from supporting the war.
That gives some hope that any unnecessary prolonging of the war, which some neoconservative circles seem to wish, will be met by a strong opposition.
Bernard… Not sure where to post this, but it’s importance demands it be posited somewhere…
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/subscriber-mailbag-answers-8323-part
37.
With all the discussion of the ‘re-industrialization’ of the EU with regard to any future pushback against Russia, how much does this rely upon access to Russian fossil fuels?
I think it relies on it a lot given that the world financial system is in a very precarious state right now. If it was any other era, they might be able to pull it off by simply racking up the debt as usual. But they’ve ‘kicked the can down the road’ for so long now, the system is unraveling and so they can’t really continue to soak up the hugely disproportionate prices of having to use much more expensive energy, while inflation is sky high and their economies are in turmoil.
The part that most people miss though is the fact that, ultimately, it doesn’t much matter. Meaning, with or without Russian fossil fuels, the global economic situation was already heading toward a collapse. It’s been that way since 2008, and they had been desperately shoring up the situation with massive “quantitative easing” and creating an unprecedented culture war as a distraction by introducing the radical LGBT/Transgender movements. These movements came precisely at the moment that the Occupy Wallstreet movement in the U.S. began to spur similar mirror movements in Europe.
The people were finally rising up against the banks and financial system so they had to create something to distract everyone. Then, as the system was again ready to collapse, they created the Covid fraud pandemic to shore it up one last time, which allowed them to slide in another stealth $4-5 trillion into the system to urgently keep it going.
The other biggest factor is that the West began to decouple from China as a way to try to slow China down from completely surpassing them. Trump accelerated it and began a trade war of both sides launching various tariffs and bans on each other’s goods which had the opposite effect and began to crack the system as the West relied on a lot of cheap Chinese parts, resources, etc.
Ultimately, the Russian energy issue is just the final cherry on top to a systemic issue that had already doomed the West. But the problems are so deeply rooted, they go way beyond any of these surface issues. For instance, the biggest problem of all is demographic. It’s the reason that Europe has been importing migrants so rabidly for a while now, because their shrinking workforce lacks the personnel to expand as globalism and liberalism have together destroyed Western civilization by completely uprooting the foundations on which families, children, etc., can exist.
These problems run so deep that no amount of Russian energy can ‘re-industrialize’ Europe—it’s completely doomed by the virus of globalism/liberalism. There is no way to reverse that without the EU first being broken apart, Westphalian sovereignty restored to each state, and a new class of nationalist/populist leaders like Orban taking charge of every single European country then changing all the laws to immediately curtail the virus of globalism/liberalism in the way that Putin has done; which include things like making all foreign NGOs register as foreign agents and be subject to complete oversight, audit, inspection or be booted from the country entirely; laws on banning the most virulent of the propaganda like radical LGBT movements and things of that nature. Only that can restore traditionalism and begin to make people even want to have families again, let alone worry about fossil fuels.
But very few of the above has much chance of happening any time soon so Europe will continue de-industrializing.
As a last note, the other big aspect is the natural resources, precious metals, rare earths, etc., in addition to the fossil fuels. This war is heating up now even more so, apropos the Nigerien situation, China’s new bans on selling rare earths critical for much of Western industries, etc. Things will likely only continue getting worse for Europe. However, as Alex Krainer wrote in his recent piece, which I discussed in my last report, the EU can potentially face disintegration in the wake of a ‘shocking’ and decisive Russian victory in Ukraine. Such a turn of events could eventually precipitate into a situation I outlined above, where a new sort of anti-EU/US movement begins to slowly take over each country, leading to a new wave and era of sovereignty, economic autarky, anti-globalism, etc. But the shockwaves of such a thing would take time to ripple through and we likely wouldn’t see noticeable results until the 2030s.
The above bears thoughtful consideration..
INDY
Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Aug 5 2023 12:38 utc | 203
@ malenkov | Aug 5 2023 17:01 utc
I’m not a regular barfly; just drop in once and awhile.
But I understand the rules of the establishment are not to attack other barflies, so I won’t react to your dismissive comment with the epithet that springs to mind (rhymes with Condescending Stick].
But this must be said:
Your opening remark was merely the repetition of a taboo-word. No evidence, not factual support, just hurl the word out there and let it stick to any innocent bystander to whom it may be expected to apply [hint: probably not Irishmen]
My response offered an official document stating that the Allies did, indeed, plan, rehearse, perfect, and commit war crimes.
Your words: “Crimes is Crimes.”
The taboo “Nazi” is attached to certain (not Irish) people on the strength of merely uttering the word.
Putatively, the Nuremberg trials “proved” that it was just to conjoin “Nazi” and “evil,” but the bare minimum of research reveals that the trials themselves were a kangaroo court — Rabbi Stephen Wise wrote to his children a few days after Japan’s surrender, that he had just had lunch with Justice Jackson; that the trial
“was to become the greatest trial in history. . . with Weizmann, Goldman and SSW [Stephen S. Wise] as Jewish witnesses to present the Jewish case;”** that Jackson called it “a broad departure from Anglo-Saxon legal tradition . . .Retroactively, “aggressive war-making” becomes criminally punishable, with membership in the Gestapo prima facie proof of criminal participation;” [The Personal Letters of Stephen Wise, p. 258]
that Defendants were tortured and/or threatened; that documents were falsified and prosecution testimony perjured — in short, a shame and a sham.
**It should be noted that Henry Morgenthau, Jr., recorded in his diary that Wise appeared in Morgenthau’s US Treasury office one day and told the secretary that “Nazis were making soap and lampshades of Jewish flesh.”
On the other hand, the persons named in the HAER document linked earlier, who participated in war crimes and crimes against humanity, were not only never called to account for their “crimes is crimes” but are actually fêted and memorialized at numerous institutions To This Day.
What place does this “argument that is not an argument since it is beyond this barfly’s capability to make an argument” have in a posting about poll results concerning support for war in Ukraine?
Recently, Ron Unz posted several written (and spoken) essays and podcasts making the case that parallels exist between the false narratives relentlessly purveyed about “Hitler, Churchill and the Holocaust” and Ukraine: https://www.unz.com/runz/hitler-churchill-the-holocaust-and-the-war-in-ukraine/
In an interview with Michael Rechtenwald Unz said:
“America really played a major role in provoking the second world war, provoking Hitler to invade Poland in exactly the same way that America, more recently, provoked Putin to invade Ukraine.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEuKRcT59sY
In summary, malenkov, the argument that is “beyond my capabilities to make” is a corollary of the warning, “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.”
That is what you appear to be doing — repeating a propagandized, demonizing version of history without engaging W. H. Auden’s injunction:
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence . . .
Posted by: ChasMark | Aug 5 2023 19:45 utc | 224
|
