Reuters (3/4/22): “It was not clear if respondents who supported a no-fly zone were fully aware of the risk of conflict.”
Last week, Reuters/Ipsos (3/4/22) reported on a poll that found
some 74% of Americans―including solid majorities of Republicans and Democrats―said the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should impose a no-fly zone in Ukraine.
This was a surprising result, because there was strong bipartisan opposition in Congress to such an action. Typically, public opinion―especially on foreign policy―tends to reflect the prevailing political consensus.
That poll announcement was followed this week from a report from YouGov (3/9/22) about three polls it had recently conducted―two for the Economist (2/6/22–3/1/22 and 3/5–8/22), and one for US News (3/7–9/22). The earliest poll found 45% of Americans saying it was a “good idea” for the US to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine, with 20% saying it was a “bad idea.” The second poll showed a smaller margin of support, 40% to 30%.
In its third poll for US News, YouGov ran a split-sample experiment, with half the sample asking respondents if they would “support or oppose the US enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine,” and the other half asking the same question with the additional comment: “which would mean the US military would shoot down Russian military planes flying over Ukraine.” The purpose was to determine if an explanation of what a no-fly zone means would affect support.
Both questions elicited plurality support for the no-fly zone―42% to 28% when no explanation was provided, 42% to 33% when an explanation was provided. The explanation seemed to have little effect.
But when YouGov rephrased the no-fly question in terms of the action required, it got a markedly different response. The second Economist poll asked, “Should the US military shoot down Russian military planes flying over Ukraine?” A 46% plurality said no—16 percentage points more than said a no-fly zone was a bad idea.
And as the report indicated, large segments of the respondents gave self-contradictory answers:
Nearly three in 10 of those who say that enforcing a no-fly zone is a good idea also say that they oppose the US shooting down Russian military planes flying over Ukraine; 13% of those who call enforcing a no-fly zone a bad idea support the US shooting down Russian planes.
Making sense of polls
The Reuters poll can be dismissed as a representation of actual public opinion. Typically, Reuters/Ipsos does not measure, or ignores, “don’t know” or “unsure” responses. As I noted in a previous post (FAIR.org, 2/11/22), using that “forced-choice” format creates the illusion of public opinion, but does not give a plausible picture of reality.
The YouGov polls, by contrast, all included measures of “no opinion.” The poll for US News also included a measure of intensity, which provides even more insight into what the public is thinking.
| US News/YouGov Poll on US Enforcing a ‘No-Fly Zone’ in Ukraine | ||
| No Explanation % | “No-Fly” Explained % | |
| Strongly support | 22 | 18 |
| Somewhat support | 20 | 24 |
| Not sure | 30 | 25 |
| Somewhat oppose | 13 | 15 |
| Strongly oppose | 15 | 18 |
Typically, news media combine the “strong” and “somewhat” categories when reporting the results—as I did above (42% to 28% in the first group; 42% to 33% in the second group). But that format suggests a more solidly opinionated public than is warranted.
Note the highlighted numbers. For both groups, only just over a third of respondents felt “strongly” about their views (37% strongly support or oppose in the first group; 36% in the second group). The rest are either “unsure” or hold views that are loosely held (“somewhat” support or oppose).
The weakly held or “top of mind” views explain how many people can provide self-contradictory responses. They simply haven’t given the issue much thought. New questions elicit new opinions, some of which contradict previous responses.
Those weakly held views also explain why “public opinion” can seem to fluctuate so greatly, as new information comes to light.
The key conclusion here is that most Americans have not firmly decided about the merits of a US-enforced no-fly zone. That conclusion no doubt holds true for most, if not all, of the other policy proposals included in the poll.
As censorship in the corporate and social media increases, we can expect the public lust for blood to intensify. Obediently regurgitating government propaganda, they shape public opinion in ways Goebbels only could have dreamed about. The oligarchy’s media reduce all the world to football, and the American masses respond with, “Hooray for our side!” The difference in public opinion on NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan (barely but tendentiously reported) and on Russian aggression against Ukraine (reported as a rabid frenzy of hate propaganda) is the difference in what the oligarchy’s media tell the gullible public to think.
Great comment…factual and clear.
‘Yeah, but… the TV tells me I have to hate Russia & China!’
Maybe take a break from mainstream media coverage… and exercise your brain.
What I keep thinking is why is there not more focus on Surface to Air Missals and missal interceptor technology, as compared to a No Fly Zone. All the talk is about No Fly Zone, as if there is no alternative, when there is, and one that is arguably both less risky and more effective, as well as being something Ukrainians can operate themselves. It makes me wonder what might the political motive be for that omission. When people don’t have enough information, and they are offered only one choice, yay or nay, their response is not meaningful. It is an inadequate survey.
Yeah, I wonder where Azov & Sektor nazis sold all those Stingers this time? Going to be exciting to fly everywhere, MASKLESS now? I notice, even my formerly beloved ProPublica & CounterPunch have jumped on the Atlantic Council, CFR, Bell¿ngcat, WaPo, CNN, Amy Goodman war wagon?
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/03/challenge-response-how-russia-is-countering-western-moves-against-it.html#more
https://www.propublica.org/article/infamous-russian-troll-farm-appears-to-be-source-of-anti-ukraine-propaganda#1276418
https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/reliving-the-nightmare-of-1914/
https://readsludge.com/2022/03/10/omnibus-bill-contains-dark-money-riders/
https://mronline.org/2022/03/12/nuland-u-s-working-with-ukraine-to-keep-u-s-biological-research-facilities-out-of-russias-hands/
These polls are badly structured since the explanation (“which would mean the US military would shoot down Russian military planes flying over Ukraine” needs to include that this action is an undeniable act of war by the United States. Assuming that those polled would clearly understand that with out it being stated results in irrelevant data and, I would say, resulting in an obvious bias.
This just shows how stupid people really are. Setting up a no-fly zone over Ukraine means WW3 with nuclear weapons. WW3 means that potentially up to 97% of the population dies in the the war and the ensuing nuclear winter.
Yours is the correct answer. People do not realize that a direct military confrontation will almost inevitably lead to World War III. This is a link to a Princeton University simulation called “Plan A” showing how a conventional war between NATO and Russia becomes a nuclear holocaust
I think the realpolitik answer here is China tells Russia that the war is over. Putin needs their trade in order to get through the sanctions.
This would be similar to the 1973 Israel/Egypt war where the US said you have to stop and Israel pulled back.
The issue of separatism is also important. Ukraine couldn’t establish a strong enough national identity and people regressed to an ethnic one. Part of this is the IMF coming in to the country and slashing wages. Hungary was another country where this happened, but in a general sense it already has happened in parts of the US. I believe overall some kind of national identity is more democratic than a purely ethnic one but the state has to actually be worthy of respect, before opportunists can claim to be leading the resistance to it. And if you look, Putin literally is saying he’s attacking neoliberalism in Ukraine. Although Trump says he’s against the war, that he doesn’t recognize Putin anymore after these atrocities, calling it a “Holocaust,” he also is preparing to call Ukraine’s government “woke,” therefore feeding into the kind of sectarianism that broke Ukraine in the first place. He notably refuses to talk about the international monetary fund, probably because he prefers to punch down.
Of course, in the most bizarre action–world peace is finally reached when the military of everyone’s nation is offed all at once.
These polls don’t reflect the general public there not in the public domain for a start and iv lived in UK all my life and have never been asked to do one
I suspect the response would be quite different had the questionnaire explained that shooting down Russian war planes would escalate the conflict and could lead to a 3rd WW. As I see it, a very large percentage of the public are woefully misinformed and as a result misguided.
Putin is the aggressor. He is a war criminal. A No-Fly Zone is a MUST! Putin will not hit that red nuke button! He would be shot by his own people around him IF he would get ready to do it.
The West is super weak, and afraid of Putin’s red button rhetoric. Putin knows that this scares the West.
We are not at war with the Russian people, but with ‘little Stalin/Hitler’ Putin! DO NOT GIVE IN ON HIM. The West (NATO, US, UK and EU) need to give him a STRONG ultimatum: STOP and RETREAT all military from sovereign Ukraine, and we mean ALL of Ukraine back to 1991 borders by 20/03/22 noon Greenwich time GMT ! Else we introduce strict No-Fly Zone and send voluntary NATO troops to assist Ukraine military inclusive missive military equipment!!!!
Calm down Alex
Tell us what looking glass you’re using or what time machine you have so that we can confirm for ourselves that Putin will not launch if attacked by NATO.
Alex:
The world was fine with the Reagan /Gorbachev agreement NOT to have NATO come up to Russia’s border. Bill Clinton decided to change the equation and brought NATO to Russia’s border. Things went down hill from there.
However, it seems that giving more and more money to the military has become America’s cash cow for a certain part of the population—none of that, however, helps We the People, who after all, do not need 700 plus bases around the world.
OK, so where do you want the first Nuclear missile to land, New York or Washington?
Are you suffering from some mental deficiency?
Russia has said that they would immediately use Nuclear strikes and would attack the USA if a war with NATO started.
The USA has hidden behind the Atlantic and Pacific for two hundred years, thus they have never suffered a war except the Civil war.
Look at pictures of Fallujah and the refugees from Mosul and then understand that that is what will happen to the towns of America if you are stupid enough to start another war.
“They simply haven’t given the issue much thought” Thinking is too much for most people, they want to be fed and told what to believe
I am definitely NOT a Pre-Chew Charlie’s fan, how about you?
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3tthe2
Why the silence from fair about hte unprecedented censorship and biased coverage of this war? You may as well disband if you aren’t going to speak up about it.
“Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions are all based upon that large defect in your race — the individual’s distrust of his neighbor, and his desire, for safety’s or comfort’s sake, to stand well in his neighbor’s eye. These institutions will always remain, and always flourish, and always oppress you, affront you, and degrade you, because you will always be and remain slaves of minorities. There was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions.”
I did not like to hear our race called sheep, and said I did not think they were.
“Still, it is true, lamb,” said Satan. “Look at you in war — what mutton you are, and how ridiculous!”
“In war? How?”
“There has never been a just one, never an honorable one — on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful — as usual — will shout for the war. The pulpit will — warily and cautiously — object — at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, “It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.” Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers — as earlier — but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation — pulpit and all — will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”
Mark Twain