World War Update: Ukraine Polling, Niger Debate

Moon of Alabama points to some interesting new polling results that deal with support for the war on Russia—or lack of support. Regarding the state of opinion in the US there are two polls—one in Newsweek and one commissioned by CNN/Time. Of the two polls, the second is by far the most informative. If you read down into the details of the polls what you come up with as the big picture is something like this:

Americans are largely comfortable with projecting military force around the world, and specifically in Ukraine, except …

• They want to support war only from a distance;

• Their prefered mode of support is provision of intel, training, and weapons—in that order;

• They are adamant in opposing ‘boots on the ground’';

• They by and large don’t want to spend money doing this.

Which simply illustrates the kind of la-la land many people live in. I was listening to Doug Macgregor this morning and he recounted that a Spanish officer once said to him, ‘Doug, America isn’t just another country, it’s another world!’ So it seems. Or maybe this says something about how many people are smoking dope. Obviously these people are still living in the world of the past where the US can send weapons to Ukraine and provide intel for targeting Russians for killing, without any consequences. This suggests to me that a lot of the ‘support’ for war is more like support for virtue signalling and that these people have little understanding of what providing “intel” actually means—guiding US provided weapons to the targets chosen by US ISR assets to kill Russians. I strongly suspect that the high level of support recorded for provision of “intelligence” is based on the view that such support is relatively innocuous.

Not surprisingly, the liberal Dem base was overwhelmingly the most supportive of the war, which translates into Blacks being easily the demographic that is most pro-war. I take that to be a reflexive expression of support for anything Dems support officially. More interestingly, the demographic that was easily the least in favor of war was Hispanics. From an ideological standpoint, the group that is most opposed to the war is "conservatives”.

As for the overall results, I’ll quote from MoA’s Three Polls On Support For The War In Ukraine, who quotes from the originals.

First, Newsweek:

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.

Now CNN. MoA notes that this poll contrasts—sometimes quite sharply—with the Newsweek poll:

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.

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%).

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%).

Overall, I think it’s fair to characterize support for the war as ‘lukewarm.’ If you’re interested in the internals, which are rather interesting but frustrating to interpret, the details are here.

The third poll is from Poland and focuses on younger Poles. There, support for the war is much higher than in the US, but also much lower than in the past. That’s probably an indication that support in much of Western Europe is flagging, and is probably quite a bit lower than in Poland:

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.

I highlight that last paragraph because Poland will have elections toward the end of the year. The two major parties are war enthusiasts, but will the large shift in public opinion have an effect?

---

Today there’s a bit of a debate going on between two guys I follow: Big Serge and Will Schryver. The topic is Niger, and how portenteous the looming conflict there may prove to be. The debate was sparked by a tweet from Big Serge, in which he wrote dismissively about “collapse posting”, the idea that every next international event would surely bring about the collapse of the US dollar or the end of the American Empire:

Big Serge

@witte_sergei

"Burkina Faso and Niger are going to overthrow the western order" is roughly as rational and realistic as "Prigozhin is going to depose Putin" was.

Folks need to tap the brakes on collapse-posting.

3:13 PM · Aug 4, 2023

"Russia can't manufacture tanks"

"Bolivia joining BRICS will bring down the dollar"

It's all so tiresome

I can’t really tell who he was responding to, but Will Schryver took offense at the dismissive tone—as it seemed to me—and advocated for a more balanced assessment. His basic idea can be summarized in this way: If the collective West is taking this coup in Niger very seriously—and they are—then anyone interested in geopolitics should be doing so as well:

Will Schryver

@imetatronink

The context of "collapse-posting" is not clear from your post. That said, as I've pondered what you wrote, it occurs to me that, although it is certainly the logical take, it may overlook many relevant considerations:

1) Why is the empire making such a big deal out of a run-of-the-mill coup d'etat in one of the most volatile regions of Africa?

2) Why are there already over a thousand US troops already stationed in Niger?

3) What are the potential derivative consequences of this seemingly innocuous coup — especially in the context of the rapidly burgeoning support of its aims from not only the weaker states such as Burkina Faso and Mali, but much more significantly, from Algeria?

4) What if PMC Wagner joins the fray?

I submit there may be a very meaningful domino effect catalyzed if an intervention by the empire and its African vassals were to fail. It would instantly embolden many other African states to likewise seek to eradicate latent western imperial influence from their countries.

There are already rumblings in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic.

The geostrategic and macroeconomic importance of this region of Africa cannot be overstated. In conjunction with the HUGE loss to the west of Russian commodity production, the loss or severe degradation of imperial influence in these countries of Africa, and the concurrent expansion of Russian and Chinese influence into these same places ... well, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can well understand why the empire is so worked up over this.

There is MUCH more at stake than readily meets the eye.

5:38 PM · Aug 4, 2023

Will Schryver

@imetatronink

This is a non-trivial reality of the escalating tensions in Niger. Bottom line: BOTH China and Russia have significant national interests in Africa — interests they are very unlikely to passively relinquish or permit to be threatened by the standard imperial machinations.

Quote TweetThe

Francesco Sassi

@Frank_Stones

A reality many are missing in the Niger crisis is the role of China in the country. Essentially, Niger became an oil producer and exporter because of Chinese support through the Agadem oilfield development and the construction of the Nigerien-Beninese Agadem-Cotonou pipeline

7:37 PM · Aug 4, 2023

The debate ends with this exchange:

Big Serge

@witte_sergei

War in the Sahel would be significant, yes, purely on the basis that war is self correlated and contagious, but the idea that Niger or Burkina Faso are in themselves linchpins of the Atlanticist system is pretty far fetched.

Will Schryver

@imetatronink

Non sequitur. The question is not about "War in the Sahel". It's about whether or not "the Atlanticist system" ("The Empire") can reverse the escalating rebellion against imperial influence (and economic exploitation) in Europe's former African colonies. Because if they can't overturn this coup d'etat in Niger, it will be a big deal. A VERY big deal. Burkina Faso and Mali are mere bit players in this drama, but they have, by all indications, set in motion a movement — one with much higher stakes than appear at first glance. It is increasingly evident that both the Russians and the Chinese are substantially involved in this developing series of events. Both the interpretation and the potential geostrategic ramifications of these events in Niger must take these factors into account.

8:01 PM · Aug 4, 2023

Overall, my view is that Will Schryver wins this. The mere fact—not mentioned in these tweets—that Putin hosted a Russian - African summit is an indication that Russia takes this region very seriously. The US sends military forces there—the base in Niger cost us $100 million—but do we host US - Africa summits? No.