nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Opposed to Netanyahu, two-thirds of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas

Voltairenet.org, by Thierry Meyssan 13 Sept 24

The recent general strike in Israel is not just a demonstration against the rhetoric that we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists and that the IDF will release the hostages held in Gaza. It marks the beginning of a realization that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is not defending Jews. While Jewish Israelis are not yet aware of the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, they are becoming aware of the anti-Arab pogroms in the West Bank. Gradually, they are beginning to admit that their enemies are not their neighbours, but are among them. These are the revisionist Zionists.

Voltaire Network | Paris (France) | 12 September 2024

Israeli public opinion is changing. After having turned away from Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, ineffective during the October 7 attack, some Israelis rallied behind him again after the Iranian retaliation on April 11. About a third of them now support him. They are both settlers, illegally implanted in the West Bank, and citizens who perceive Arabs, Turks and Persians as enemies.

The remaining two-thirds are slowly opening their eyes. The execution of six hostages by Hamas on August 31, just as the “Defense Forces” (IDF) were about to free them, showed them that, far from allowing their release, the presence of soldiers in Gaza condemns them to death. They now see the Prime Minister’s obstinacy in invading not only Gaza, but also the West Bank, to the detriment of the hostages’ lives, as proof that he serves the interests of the settlers alone, and not those of all Israeli Jews. Yet they fail to see the suffering of Israeli Arabs, the pogroms in the West Bank and the ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

It was against this backdrop that Israel’s historic trade union, the Histadrut, which was the main Yichuv organization between the wars, called a general strike. ……………………………………………………the strike was well attended. It inscribed in the minds of Israelis that Benyamin Netanyahu did not defend Jews, that he had never defended them.

At the same time, one of the government’s 32 members, Defense Minister General Yoav Gallant, declared in cabinet that the Prime Minister’s new objective of occupying the Philadelphia Corridor (i.e., the small Egyptian-Gazawi border strip) violates the Camp David Accords without bringing the slightest strategic advantage. When the cabinet discussion turned to invective, General Gallant took the matter public……………………………………………………………………………..

At the time, no one understood the connection between the unionists and the general. However, we later learned that he had been dismissed for having exploded in the Council of Ministers and demanded an explanation for the Prime Minister’s lack of reaction to reports from the Shin Bet (counter-intelligence) and the IDF. Four months before the October 7 attack, all Israeli intelligence services were drafting report after report announcing the “Perfect Storm” (code name for the October 7 “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation) that the Palestinian Resistance was preparing. The Prime Minister refused to listen. He remained deaf to General Gallant’s outburst. He did not defend his country during the October 7 attack, but used it to ethnically cleanse Gaza and allowed anti-Arab pogroms to multiply in the West Bank.

As a result, the question we’ve been asking since mid-November [1] is also starting to resonate with Israelis: what if Benyamin Netanyahu wasn’t incompetent, but an accomplice in the attack?

This question is on the minds of many Israelis, who have called for a state commission of inquiry into all aspects of the October 7 attack, its preparation and response. Israel’s Attorney General, Gali Baharav Miara, who considers the issue relevant, has also called for this. However, Benjamin Netanyahu and his accomplices opposed it.

This question has been on everyone’s lips ever since the Israeli press revealed that the counter-espionage Shin Bet/Shabak had warned the Prime Minister of the imminent attack 10 weeks earlier [2]. This time, we’re no longer talking about foreign sources, but about one of Israel’s security agencies.

Gradually, the story of the current coalition government resurfaces. Jewish supremacists (the Kahanists) are not just another Jewish sect. Certainly, they militate for the destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the rebuilding in its place of Solomon’s temple, whereas the Haredi rabbis, both Ashkenazi and Sephardic, in addition to the leading Israeli rabbis, consider such acts impure and forbid all Jews to enter the courtyards of the Al-Aqsa mosque. They thus seem to distinguish themselves from the revisionist Zionists of Volodymyr Jabotinski and Benzion Netanhayou, who campaigned for a Jewish state from the Nile to the Euphrates. In reality, Rabbi Meïr Kahane was an agent of Yitzhak Shamir (Jabotinky’s successor) in the United States, who financed him through Mossad, of which he was then one of the leaders. In fact, during his first term as Prime Minister, in 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu had a tunnel dug under the Al-Aqsa mosque.

No one in Israel would fail to recall that Volodymyr Jabotinsky and Benzion Netanhayou (the Prime Minister’s father) were allies of Benito Mussolini, who hosted their militia, the Betar, in Rome [3]. A fortiori, no Israeli dares question the links between these historic fascists and Nazism. It’s true that Jabotinsky died at the start of the war, on August 4, 1940, in New York, without having to comment on the latter’s racial ideology. But during the inter-war period, as a director of the (World) Zionist Organization, he had allied himself with the Ukrainian integral nationalists of Symon Petlioura and Dmytro Dontsov against the Soviets. Their men massacred Jews without eliciting the slightest reaction from him. When the Zionist Organization demanded an explanation, he resigned without reply.

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Allied Prime Minister, said that Jabotinsky was surely a fascist and possibly a Nazi, which is why he opposed the transfer of his ashes to Jerusalem.

The question arises for two reasons: firstly, revisionist Zionists conducted negotiations with the Nazis throughout the Second World War against the Allies. It was the Germans who refused to go any further in their collaboration, whereas the Jewish followers of Jabotinsky were for continuing……………………. more https://www.voltairenet.org/article221242.html

September 16, 2024 Posted by | history, Israel, public opinion | Leave a comment

Radioactive Waste Management – Public Attitudes Survey for Scotland

5 August 2024, Director-General Net Zero Directorate, Environment and Forestry Directorate  https://www.gov.scot/publications/radioactive-waste-management-public-attitudes-survey-scotland/

This report summarises findings from a representative survey of the Scottish public that provides new insights into the perceptions and views towards radioactive waste management in Scotland.

Research Context

The Scottish Government commissioned independent researchers, Diffley Partnership, to conduct a public attitudes survey for Scotland exploring attitudes towards radioactive waste management. The primary aim of this study was to design and deliver research that will help develop a deeper understanding of the views of the Scottish public on a range of radioactive waste management issues, including safety and trust in government and industry.

Approach

An online survey was used to measure public attitudes to radioactive waste management. The survey was conducted between 8th and 11th January 2024 and received 2,160 responses. The questionnaire contained both closed questions (analysed quantitatively) and open response questions (analysed qualitatively).

Key Findings

Knowledge of Radioactive Waste Management

Self-reported levels of knowledge of radioactive waste management among respondents were limited. The vast majority (89%) of respondents reported that they were either not very well informed or not at all informed about radioactive waste management in Scotland.

There was a mixed appetite for more information, with just over half of respondents (55%) indicating they would like to know more about radioactive waste management.

Respondents placed the most trust in scientists/academics to provide information on radioactive waste management over other bodies and institutions such as the nuclear industry, the Scottish Government and the media.

The majority of respondents believed that the regulators of the Scottish Nuclear Industry (82%), the Scottish Nuclear Industry itself (81%) and the Scottish Government (79%) should do more to educate the public about radioactive waste management.

Attitudes towards Radioactive Waste Management

Most respondents agreed that public education is important in the management of radioactive waste (70%).

Overall, there was clear recognition that it is vital for Scotland to have a robust strategy for radioactive waste management (84%). This was linked with concerns about the impact of radioactive waste management on the environment (72%), future generations (68%) and health (55%).

Priorities in Radioactive Waste Management

The protection of human health was the biggest priority in radioactive waste management among the respondents, followed closely by the protection of the environment and the security of radioactive waste management facilities.

Safe containment of radioactive waste (64%) and the protection of the environment (67%) were the highest perceived benefits in the creation of new facilities for managing radioactive waste.

Potential for radioactive leaks (72%) was one of the main concerns about the development of new facilities, along with the possible environmental effects (73%) and health impacts (71%).

Decision-Making in Radioactive Waste Management

Most respondents felt that they have no influence over decision making processes relating to radioactive waste management, either locally (75%) or nationally (67%).

Respondents who stated that they have no influence over decision making felt this way because they felt decisions are made without talking to people (61%), that they have no opportunity to have an influence (48%) and they don’t know how to influence decision making (39%).

There was a mixed appetite for wanting to be involved in decision making with just under half of respondents (47%) wanting to be involved.

 

August 9, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, UK | Leave a comment

Majority of Americans support more nuclear power, but future of large-scale nuclear is uncertain

 A majority of U.S. adults remain supportive of expanding nuclear power in
the country, according to a Pew Research Center survey from May. Overall,
56% say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity. This
share is statistically unchanged from last year. A line chart showing that
a majority of Americans continue to support more nuclear power in the U.S.


But the future of large-scale nuclear power in America is uncertain. While
Congress recently passed a bipartisan act intended to ease the nuclear
energy industry’s financial and regulatory challenges, reactor shutdowns
continue to gradually outpace new construction.

Americans remain more
likely to favor expanding solar power (78%) and wind power (72%) than
nuclear power. Yet while support for solar and wind power has declined by
double digits since 2020 – largely driven by drops in Republican support
– the share who favour nuclear power has grown by 13 percentage points
over that span.

 Pew Research 5th Aug 2024

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/05/majority-of-americans-support-more-nuclear-power-in-the-country/

August 8, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

What do Americans really think about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Bulletin, By Scott D. Sagan, Gina Sinclair | August 5, 2024

In mid-August 1945, within weeks of the end of World War II, Americans were polled on whether they approved of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  An overwhelmingly high percentage of Americans—85 percent—answered “yes.” That level of approval has gone down over the years, with (depending on the precise wording of the question) only a slim majority (57 percent in 2005) or a large minority (46 percent in 2015) voicing approval in more recent polls.

This reduction in atomic bombing approval over time has been cited as evidence of a gradual normative change in public ethical consciousness, the acceptance of a “nuclear taboo” or what Brown University scholar Nina Tannenwald has called “the general delegitimation of nuclear weapons.” 

This common interpretation of US public opinion, however, is too simplistic. Disapproval has indeed grown over time, but most Americans remain supportive of the 1945 attacks, albeit wishing that alternative strategies had been explored. These conclusions can be clearly seen in the results of a new, more complex public opinion survey, conducted for this article, that asked a representative sample of Americans about their views on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, examined alternative strategies for ending the war, and provided follow-on questions to determine how the public weighs the costs and benefits of different strategies. 

Scratch beneath the surface, and the American public today, as in 1945, does not display an ethically based taboo against using nuclear weapons or killing enemy civilians, but rather has a preference for doing whatever was necessary to win the war and save American lives…………………………………………………………………………………………….

US public opinion in 2015 and 2024. A 2015 replication of the 1945 Roper poll found that 14.4 percent of Americans felt the United States should not have used atomic bombs at all, that 31.6 percent thought a bomb should have been dropped in a demonstration strike on an unpopulated area, but that almost no one (less than 3 percent) wanted to use more bombs before Japan had a chance to surrender.

For this article, we replicated the 1945 Roper poll again with a representative sample of 2,000 Americans on June 21, 2024, but then asked follow-on questions to help us determine what the public really meant when answering the survey. Such follow-on questions are necessary to understand the public’s deeper set of commitments and preferences. Did those opposing any use of the atomic bombs really support such a policy even if it meant ending the war without a Japanese government surrender? Or would they support dropping the bomb if Japan did not surrender? Would those who favor a demonstration strike today support bombing cities if the demonstration strike failed to compel Tokyo to surrender, or did they oppose atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki under all circumstances? In short, what do Americans really think, now, about using nuclear weapons in 1945?

Options and alternatives. The percentage of respondents who said that the United States shouldn’t have used any atomic bombs at all increased from 4.3 percent in 1945, to 14.4 percent in 2015, to 36.7 percent in 2024. The percentage of respondents who preferred the demonstration strike option decreased from 31.6 percent to 20.9 percent. Public support for use of the two bombs, as the United States did in 1945, followed the same general trend, decreasing to 19.4 percent.  But what do these trends reveal about US opinion? Our follow-on questions were designed to measure the public’s true willingness to use nuclear weapons and kill enemy civilians…………………………………………………

In short, when reminded of the Japanese refusal to surrender, the strong majority (82.33 percent) of those who originally favored the demonstration strike then accepted nuclear or conventional attacks on Japanese cities.

Why these preferences? The basic finding that over 36 percent of Americans said today that the United States should not have used any atomic bombs cannot reasonably be interpreted as an indication of a widespread nuclear taboo. It may be a positive trend, but it is not a robust opinion. Indeed, less than half of those respondents maintained that position after they were reminded (as was the case in 1945) that Japan had not accepted unconditional surrender prior to the atomic bomb attacks.

Instead, our 2024 Roper Poll replication provides three valuable insights about American public opinion. First, much of US public is, in fact, still supportive of the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Adding the answers from the different follow-on questions, reveals that 41.3 percent of all respondents were ultimately willing to use a nuclear bomb on one or more cities, and many more Americans (over 25% of all respondents) reported that they didn’t know what their preferences were in this wartime scenario. These findings are inconsistent with the existence of a nuclear taboo and underscore that large hawkish instincts lurk within the U.S. public.

A second novel finding relates to the public’s willingness to attack cities and thereby violate the basic law of armed conflict and the just war principle of non-combatant immunity. While only 41.3 percent of respondents were ultimately willing to use nuclear weapons against cities, many other respondents favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan. Reasons given by respondents who had at first stated that they opposed nuclear attacks, but then favored continued conventional bombing once reminded that Japan had not accepted unconditional surrender included: “Because if humane tactics don’t work, then you gotta do what you Gotta do;” “Since they refuse to heed to the warning, then they deserve war;” and “If Japan doesn’t surrender than it’s time to show them what we can do.”

Altogether, adding advocates of conventional bombing with advocates of nuclear attacks, 51.25 percent of all respondents chose to attack Japanese cities and kills civilians on a massive scale. This shows that the non-combatant immunity principle, contrary to the claims of some experts, does not have strong “stopping power” at least among the public. These findings challenge the theories of scholars such as Charli Carpenter, Alexander Montgomery, Steven Pinker, Neta Crawford, and Ward Thomas, who posit that a decrease in willingness to use nuclear weapons is a result of broader acceptance of the just war principle of non-combatant immunity.

………………………………………………….. many responses in the 2024 Roper Poll revealed something else: a notable percentage of respondents (15.92 percent) cited their beliefs on the importance of US isolationism and avoiding any engagement in foreign affairs.

……………………………………………These findings about contemporary views of the 1945 atomic bombing are consistent with previous research demonstrating that large segments of the American public are willing to contemplate the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran, in order to avoid US military fatalities, or against a terrorist organization planning chemical weapons attacks on the United States. …………………………………

The American public does not hold a strong nuclear taboo and indeed, may be more of a goad than a constraint on any future president who is contemplating the use of nuclear weapons in trying wartime conditions. While the laws of armed conflict and just war doctrine may still be a constraint on nuclear use, their powers are more likely to exercised by the moral compass of individual political leaders or the legal training of senior military officers, not through the deeply problematic instincts of the American public. https://thebulletin.org/2024/08/what-do-americans-really-think-about-the-bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=DayNewsletter08052024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_WhatAmericansReallyThink_08052024

August 7, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

94% of Americans want to end Ukraine war, but US rejects China peace deal, opposes talks with Russia

Polling shows 94% of people in the US and 88% in Western Europe want a negotiated settlement to end the war in Ukraine, but NATO opposes a peace proposal made by China and Brazil, and refuses to invite Russia to talks in Switzerland.

By Ben Norton, 9 June 24,  https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2024/06/08/end-ukraine-war-us-china-peace-deal-russia/

Polling shows that the vast majority of people in the United States and Western Europe want negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

Despite this, NATO opposes a peace proposal made by China and Brazil, and refuses to invite Russia to a so-called “peace conference” that the Western powers are holding in Switzerland from June 15-16.

The Institute for Global Affairs of Eurasia Group, an avowedly pro-NATO and anti-Russia consulting firm that has worked extensively with Western governments, published a study this June titled “The New Atlanticism”.

The survey found that the 94% of people in the US and 88% in Western Europe want a negotiated settlement to end the war in Ukraine.

Just 17% of North Americans and Western Europeans say that the war must continue in order to weaken Russia.

(The poll allowed participants to choose two answers, which explains why the total is larger than 100%).

In May, China and Brazil introduced a joint proposal for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

In their six-point plan, Beijing and Brasilia called for “an international peace conference held at a proper time that is recognized by both Russia and Ukraine, with equal participation of all parties as well as fair discussion of all peace plans”.

This contrasted with a so-called “peace conference” that the Western powers are holding in Switzerland from June 15-16. Russia was not invited to this NATO-backed “peace summit”, meaning there will not be any actual negotiations between the warring parties to try to end the war.

The Chinese government said it will not participate in the one-sided Switzerland conference, stating that it would only join if Russia was invited as well.

Beijing has made numerous peace proposals to try to end the war in Ukraine. These have been consistently opposed by the US and its NATO allies.

This comes at a very dangerous moment, when the US government is considering deploying more strategic nuclear weapons, aimed at China and Russia, Reuters reported.

Politico revealed in May that the Joe Biden administration had authorized Ukraine to use US weapons to launch attacks inside Russian territory.

French President Emmanuel Macron announced this June that Paris and Western allies had made an agreement to send military trainers to Ukraine. The Washington Post noted that this “is the latest sign that France and other allies may now be willing to put NATO country troops on Ukrainian soil”.

The US and its European allies have already had special operations forces and spies on the ground in Ukraine since the beginning of the conflict. The New York Times admitted this in June 2022. But the number of Western forces was quite small. NATO member states now plan to send even more.

June 14, 2024 Posted by | public opinion | Leave a comment

Ukraine fatigue: Kiev and the West are tiring of war and each other

The idea of some form of compromise solution to Kiev-Moscow conflict is creeping up on foreign hawks and on more and more locals

 Tarik Cyril Amar,  https://www.sott.net/article/490581-Ukraine-fatigue-Kiev-and-the-West-are-tiring-of-war-and-each-other 12 Apr 24

What a small band of objective-though-long-disparaged observers in the West have long warned about is now happening: Ukraine and the West are losing their war against Russia. The strategy of using Ukraine to either isolate and slowly suffocate Russia or to defeat and degrade it in a proxy war is coming to its predictable catastrophic end.

This reality is now being acknowledged even by key media and high officials that used to be uncompromising about pursuing the extremely ill-advised aim of military victory over Russia. A Washington Post article has explained that with ”no way out of a worsening war,”

Ukrainian President Zelensky’s options ”look bad or worse.” NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has discovered the option of ending wars by concessions – Ukraine’s concessions, that is. The sturdy old hardliner Edward Luttwak warns of a ”catastrophic defeat” – for the West and Ukraine. True, Luttwak is still spreading desperate illusions about a direct NATO deployment to avert the worst. In reality, it would, of course, only make things much, much worse again, as in World War III worse. But his fear, not to say panic, is palpable.

The fast-approaching outcome will be a disaster for Ukraine, even if Moscow should be generous regarding the terms of a postwar settlement (not a given, after the costs that Russia has incurred). Ukraine has already been ruined in terms of its demography, territory, economy, and, last but not least, political future. The damage incurred cannot simply be undone and will have long-lasting consequences.

For the West, this war will also mark a dismal turning point, in four main ways that can only be sketched here:

First, the US will have to absorb its worst defeat since Vietnam. Arguably, this latest fiasco is even worse because, even during the Vietnam War, America did not try to attack Russia (then, of course, leading the Soviet Union) as head-on as it does now. Washington’s most over-confident attempt ever to take Moscow off the “grand chessboard” once and for all has backfired perfectly. In general, that will diminish America’s capacity to impress and cajole globally. In particular, the goal of preventing the rise of regional hegemons in Eurasia, the holy grail of US geopolitics, is even farther out of reach than before. The “unipolar” moment and its illusions were passing anyhow, but the US leadership has added a textbook illustration of the West’s limits.

Second, the EU and its individual members – especially myopic warmongers such as Germany, Poland, and France – are far worse off again: Their foolish abandoning of geopolitically imperative caution and balancing (remember: location, location, location) will cost them dearly.

Third, in their own, different ways, cases such as Britain (not even an EU member anymore) and the Baltics (very exposed and very bellicose, a shortsighted combination) are in a class of their own: damage there will be galore. Damage control? The options are paltry.

And, finally, there is, of course, NATO: Over-extended, self-depleted, and having gratuitously exposed itself as much weaker than it would like to seem. Its defeat by Russia in Ukraine will trigger centrifugal tendencies and blame games. Not to speak of the special potential for tension between the US and its clients/vassals in Europe, especially if Donald Trump wins the presidency again, as is likely. And, by the way, he can only thank NATO for proving his point about what a dubious proposition it has become. If you believe that having added more territory on the map (Sweden and Finland) was a “win,” just remember what has happened to the mistaken celebrations of Ukraine’s territorial advances in 2022. Territory may be a price; it is not a reliable indicator of strength.

Yet what about Ukrainians? They have been used as pawns by their Western friends from hell. They are still living under a regime that has just decided to mobilize even more of them for a hopeless meatgrinder, while Zelensky is admitting that Ukraine is on the verge of defeat.

Some Western media are still telling a simplistic and false story about Ukrainians’ unflagging and united will to hold out for victory, as if every single one owed the West to play a Marvel hero to the bitter end. But in reality Ukraine is a normal, if badly misled country. Many of its citizens have long shown what they really think about dying for a toxic combination of Western geopolitics and the narcissism of a megalomanic comedian: by evading the draft, either by hiding in Ukraine or fleeing abroad. In addition, a recent poll shows that almost 54 percent of Ukrainians find the motives of the draft dodgers at least understandable. Kiev’s push for increased mobilization will not go smoothly.

But there is more evidence of the fact that Ukraine’s society is not united behind a Kamikaze strategy of “no compromise.” Indeed, under the title “The Line of Compromise,” Strana.ua, one of Ukraine’s most important and popular news sites, has just published a long, detailed article about three recent and methodologically sound polls.

They all bear on Ukrainians’ evolving attitudes to the war and in particular the question of seeking a compromise peace. In addition, Strana offers a rich sample of comments by Ukrainian sociologists and political scientists. It is no exaggeration to say that the mere appearance of this article is a sign that the times are changing: Under the subtitle “How and why attitudes to the war differ in the East and the West of Ukraine,” it even highlights “substantial” regional differences and, really, suppressed divisions. If you know anything about the extreme political – even historical – sensitivity of such divergences in Ukraine, then you will agree that this framing alone is a small sensation.

But that is not all. The article, in effect, dwells on ending the war by concessions – because that is what any compromise necessarily will take. Readers learn, for instance, that, according to the ‘Reiting’ agency polling on commission of Ukraine’s Veterans’ Affairs Ministry, in Ukraine’s West, farthest removed from the current front lines, 50% of poll respondents are against any compromise, while no less than 42% are in favor of compromise solutions as long as other countries (other than Ukraine and Russia, that is) are involved in finding them. For a region that, traditionally, has been the center of Ukrainian nationalism, that is, actually, a remarkably high share of those siding with compromise.

If you move east and south over the map, the compromise faction gets stronger. In the East, the proportions are almost exactly reversed: 41% against compromise and 51% in favor. In the South, it’s a perfect tie: 47% for both sides.

On the whole, Ukrainian sociologists are finding a “gradual increase” of those supporting a “compromise peace” in “one form or the other.” Even if, as one researcher plausibly cautions, this increase displays different rates in different regions, it still adds up to the national trend. One of its causes is “disappointment,” the loss of faith in victory, as the political scientist Ruslan Bortnik observes. In other words, the Zelensky regime is losing the information war on the home front. Notwithstanding its mix of censorship and showmanship.

The compromises imagined by Ukrainians include all conceivable solutions that do not foresee a return to the 1991 borders. In other words, there are ever more Ukrainians who are ready to trade territory for peace. How much territory, that is, of course, a different question. But it is clear that the maximalist and counter-productive aim of “getting everything back,” the all-or-nothing delusion, imposed for so long on Ukrainian society, is losing its grip.

The agency Socis, for instance, counts a total of almost 45% of respondents ready for compromise, while only 33% want to continue the war until the 1991 borders are re-established. But there are also 11% who still favor fighting on until all territories lost after February 2022 are recovered. That, as well, is now an unrealistic aim. It may have been closer to reality when Kiev dismissed an almost finished peace deal in the spring of 2022, on awful Western advice. That ship has sailed.

Polling results, it is important to note, do not all point in the same direction. The KMIS agency has produced results that show 58% of respondents who want to continue the war “under any circumstances” and only 32% who would prefer a “freeze,” if Western security guarantees are given. Such a freeze, while a favorite pipedream of some Western commentators, is unlikely to be an option now, if it ever was. Why should Moscow agree? But that is less relevant here than the fact that KMIS, for one, seems to have found a massive bedrock of pro-war sentiment.

And yet, even here, the picture is more complicated once we look closer. For one thing, the KMIS poll is comparatively old, conducted in November and December of last year. Given how quickly things have been developing on the battlefield since then – the key town and fortress of Avdeevka, for instance, finally fell only in February 2024 – that makes its data very dated.

KMIS also had interesting comments to offer: The agency notes that respondents’ proximity to the front lines plays an “important role” in shaping their opinions about the war. In other words, when the fighting gets close enough to hear the artillery boom, it concentrates the mind on finding a way to end it, even by concessions. As one Ukrainian sociologist has put it, “in the East and South … one of people’s main concerns is that the war must not reach their own home, their own home town.”

In addition, the executive director of KMIS has observed that the number of compromise advocates also grows when Western aid declines.

It remains difficult to draw robust conclusions from these trends, for several reasons: First, as some Ukrainian observers point out, the number of compromise supporters may be even higher – personally, I am sure it is – because the Zelensky regime has stigmatized any appeal to diplomacy and negotiations as “treason” for so long. Many Ukrainians are virtually certain to be afraid to speak their mind on this issue.

Second, what exactly the compromise camp understands by compromise is bound to be diverse. This camp may still include quite a few citizens who harbor illusions about what kind of compromise is available at this point.

Third, the current regime – which is de-facto authoritarian – is not answerable to society, at least not in a way that would make it easy to predict how shifts in the national mood translate into regime policies, or not.

And yet: There is no doubt that there is a groundswell in favor of ending the war even at the cost of concessions. Add the clear evidence of Western Ukraine fatigue – even a growing readiness to cut Ukraine loose – and the facts that the Russian military is creating on the ground, and it becomes hard to see how this basal shift in the Ukrainian mood could not become an important factor of Ukrainian – and international – politics

April 13, 2024 Posted by | politics international, public opinion, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Most Americans now disapprove of Israel’s military action in Gaza new poll reveals as tensions rise between allies.

By Ryan King, March 27, 2024,  https://nypost.com/2024/03/27/us-news/most-americans-now-disapprove-of-israels-military-action-in-gaza-poll/

A majority of Americans disapprove of Israel’s military operations against the Hamas terror group in the Gaza Strip.

A Gallup survey released Wednesday found that 55% of US adults disapprove of the Jewish state’s actions in Gaza while just 36% approve — a dramatic turnaround from November, when 50% approved of Israeli action in Gaza while 45% disapproved in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack.

The poll was published as relations between the Biden administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hit a new low over the conduct of the nearly six-month-old war — including plans for the Israel Defense Forces to conduct operations in the densely populated southern Gaza city of Rafah.

Wednesday’s poll found that just 18% of self-identified Democrats approved of Israeli action in Gaza, down from 36% in November, while 75% disapproved.

Pro-Israel feeling has also waned among self-identified Republicans, with 64% approving of the military response (down from 71% in November) and 30% disapproving.

Fewer than three in 10 self-described independents approve of Israel’s actions, while 60% say they disapprove.

Support for Israel was higher among respondents who said they were following the war in the Middle East “very closely.”

Among that group, 43% said they approved of Israel’s action, compared with 37% approval among those tracking events “somewhat closely” and 27% who said they were “not following closely.”

Last week, Gallup revealed that Biden’s approval rating for his handling of the Middle East conflict stood at just 27%, his lowest for any major issue.

On Monday, the US allowed the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution calling for an “immediate” cease-fire in Gaza by abstaining rather than exercising its veto. The measure notably did not condition a cease-fire on the release of an estimated 100 hostages held in Gaza since Oct. 7, along with the remains of around 30 prisoners believed to have died in captivity.

Top Israeli officials publicly lashed out at the Biden administration over the move and Netanyahu scrapped plans to dispatch a delegation to Washington to discuss the Rafah situation.

Still, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant met with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and national security adviser Jake Sullivan this week.

Negotiations taking place in Qatar meant to secure the release of hostages also quickly broke down after Hamas demanded Israel withdraw its troops from Gaza and approve an exchange of Palestinian prisoners.

The Gallup poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points and was taken from March 1 to 20 among 1,016 adults.

March 29, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

‘Don’t hold your breath’ – people living in Wylfa’s shadow have say on development plans

The UK Government recently announced it had bought the Anglesey site from Hitachi

North Wales Live, David Powell, Court reporter, 17 Mar 24

People living near the Wylfa power station on Anglesey have greeted the prospect of a fresh development at the site with excitement, anxiety and pessimism. Last week the UK Government announced that a £160m deal had been reached with Hitachi to buy sites at Wylfa and Oldbury in Gloucestershire – with a final sign off expected this summer.

The minister for nuclear Andrew Bowie says this is not another “false dawn” for Wylfa and that he was “supremely confident” that new nuclear would be developed at the site. North Wales Live this week visited nearby Cemaes to gauge opinions from people in the village on the proposals.

Cemaes resident William Huw Edwards, 80, used to work as a contractor atRio Tinto

, which ran Anglesey Aluminium, and on the runway at RAF Valley. He remembers disruption during construction work for the current Wylfa power station.

“There used to be two or three lorries at a time in convoys,” he recalled. As for the prospect of a new nuclear development, he said: “A lot of people are against it because of the traffic and the noise.”

He added: “It’s going to cost a lot and they will have to find the money.” He doubts it will be in the near future, saying: “It won’t be soon. Don’t hold your breath.”

But another resident Julie Clemence, 63, would support a new nuclear operation if it were smaller than its predecessor. “The American ones are really huge but I would support it if it’s smaller and less of a blot on the landscape than now,” she said.

………………………………………………………… Dylan Morgan, of Pobl Atal Wylfa B (PAWB), a campaign group against the proposal, said: “This government and anyone following it will face the same challenges regarding attracting any large new private investment to develop reactors at Wylfa or any other site in the global context of a shrinking nuclear industry.  

“At the same time, renewable technologies are galloping ahead every year to take an increasing share of the worldwide electricity market.” He claimed 20 years has been “wasted” when money and resources could have been spent developing renewable energy…………………………………….

Meanwhile Katie Hayward, of Felin Honeybees, has said she is “completely broken” after learning the site might be redeveloped after she battled the proposed Wylfa B site for years.

 https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/dont-hold-your-breath-people-28797236—

March 19, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, UK | Leave a comment

Half of Americans think Israel going ‘too far’ in Gaza.

https://www.rt.com/news/591733-israel-gaza-too-far-poll/  5 Feb 24

Democrats were almost twice as likely as Republicans to find Israel’s bombardment of the Palestinian enclave excessive

Half of Americans think Israel’s military response to the October 7 Hamas raid has “gone too far,” according to an AP-NORC poll published on Friday. The figure represents a ten-point increase since the pollster asked the same question in November. 

Less than a third (31%) of the 1,152 poll respondents said West Jerusalem’s military actions had “been about right,” while 15% said it had not gone far enough. Both figures represent a significant decrease from November, when 38% of those polled approved of the response, and 18% said it should go further.

Democrats were almost twice as likely as Republicans to say Israel had gone too far in its bombardment of Gaza – 62%, compared to 33%. 

However, more Democrats also said the campaign had not gone far enough compared to November’s polling (9% vs 7%). Over a third (37%) of respondents said the US was too supportive of Israel. However, the majority (61%) of those who answered the survey said Hamas held “a lot” of responsibility for the war compared to just 35% who said the same about the Israeli government. A third also thought the Iranian government was significantly responsible, but just one in ten thought Washington had played a major role.

Two-thirds (67%) disapproved of President Joe Biden’s handling of the conflict, with a growing portion of Democrats speaking out against their leader (53% compared to just 39% in December).

Despite Washington’s unqualified support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza, only a little over a third (35%) of those surveyed described the nation as “an ally that shares US interests and values.” A plurality (44%) instead viewed it as “a partner that the US should cooperate with, but doesn’t share its interests and values,” while another 9% called it “a rival that the US should compete with, but that it’s not in conflict with.” Just 7% described Israel as an adversary.

Israel has killed over 27,000 Palestinians in Gaza since the war began nearly four months ago, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry, leading South Africa to accuse it of genocide in a case filed with the International Court of Justice in December. The court has since ordered West Jerusalem to prevent genocide in the territory and preserve evidence of any crimes classifiable as such. 

Israel was also ordered to alleviate the humanitarian situation for Palestinians, most of whom are considered in danger of starvation or malnutrition. Over 85% of Gaza residents have been displaced by Israeli bombardment since October.

Instead of allowing more aid into the besieged territory, Israel accused the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency, UNRWA, of aiding and abetting Hamas. This led the US and over a dozen other countries to pull funding from the already-overstretched organization.

an si

February 7, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, USA | 1 Comment

Renewable or nuclear? What your energy preference says about you – public opinion

 The main low-carbon energy sources available in the UK in the battle
against climate change are solar, wind, biomass and nuclear energy, but
what sorts of people prefer these different options? That’s the topic of
a new study in the December issue of the journal Energy authored at the
Energy Policy Research Group at Cambridge Judge Business School, which
finds that people’s preferred energy source is related to respondents’
views on the anticipated impact of climate change.

Specifically: people who
believe that climate change will be catastrophic tend to prefer renewable
energy sources such as solar and wind, while those less concerned about
climate change are more favourable towards nuclear power. The study also
finds that people prefer energy sources about which they are more
knowledgeable or familiar.

 Cambridge University 28th Nov 2023

https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2023/renewable-or-nuclear-what-your-energy-preference-says-about-you/

December 1, 2023 Posted by | public opinion | Leave a comment

Poll: Majority of Americans Support a Ceasefire in Gaza

The poll from Reuters/Ipsos is the second to show that most Americans want a ceasefire.

By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com  https://scheerpost.com/2023/11/16/poll-majority-of-americans-support-a-ceasefire-in-gaza/

A new poll from Reuters/Ipsos found that the majority of Americans support the idea of a ceasefire in Gaza, a position that has been rejected by the Biden administration.

About 68% of respondents agreed with the statement “Israel should call a ceasefire and try to negotiate,” including three-quarters of Democrats and half of Republicans.

The poll is the second in recent weeks to show the majority of Americans support a Gaza ceasefire. A poll published by Data for Progress on October 20 found that 66% of respondents agreed with the idea of the US calling for a ceasefire and using its leverage to prevent further violence.

The Biden administration has called for “pauses” in the fighting but has refused to use the term ceasefire as it’s determined to continue backing Israel’s brutal assault, which is currently focused on Gaza’s biggest hospital.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll also showed a general decline in US public support for Israel. Just 31% of poll respondents said they supported sending Israel weapons, while 43% opposed the idea.

Only 32% of respondents said the US should support Israel, compared with 41% in a poll that was conducted in October. The plurality of Americans, 39%, support the idea of the US being a neutral mediator in the conflict.

November 18, 2023 Posted by | public opinion, USA | Leave a comment

US Congress wildly out of sync with voters on Gaza ceasefire.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 5 Nov 23

A recent Data For Progress poll showed the following voter support for immediate ceasefire to end civilian deaths in Gaza

ALL VOTERS      66%

DEMOCRATS     80%

INDEENDENTS  57%

REPUBLICANS   56% #Israel #Palestine #USA

November 6, 2023 Posted by | public opinion | Leave a comment

Half of China’s people are worried about Fukushima water release: poll

Japan Today Oct. 11 TOKYO

About half of Chinese respondents to a recent survey expressed concern about the release of treated radioactive water from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea, according to the results released Tuesday, amid a row between the two Asian neighbors over the issue.

According to an annual joint poll by Japanese nonprofit think tank Genron NPO and the China International Communications Group on public views in both countries on bilateral ties, 22.1 percent of 1,506 Chinese surveyed said they are “very worried” and 25.5 percent are “worried to some extent” about the water discharge.

In the poll, conducted in China in 10 cities from Aug. 18 to Sept. 1, 8.0 percent answered they are “not worried at all” about the water release and 18.7 percent said they are “not very worried,” with 25.0 percent replying they “currently cannot judge.”………………………………………………………………….. https://japantoday.com/category/national/about-half-of-chinese-worried-about-fukushima-water-release-poll #nuclear #antinuclear #NuclearFree #NoNukes #NuclearPlants

October 13, 2023 Posted by | China, public opinion | Leave a comment

Ukrainians joining Americans in supporting negotiated end to Russo Ukraine war

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition , Glen Ellyn IL   – 11 Oct 23

Ukrainians are increasingly opposing the Kyiv government’s war goals of retaking Crimea and Donbas. Support for those goals has dropped from 70% to 60% according to a Gallop poll. Ukrainians seeking a diplomatic settlement has risen from 25% to 31% as well. This in spite of tight Kyiv control over media and targeting war dissenters. 

This mirrors dwindling support for more war weapons and no negotiations among American voters. The US also exercises tight, tho subtle control over its media. It doesn’t target war dissenters; just ignores them. 

Most distressing about dwindling support for a lost cause, squandering American treasure while hundreds of thousands in Ukraine die is this: The people are starting to get it; their leaders apparently, never will.

October 13, 2023 Posted by | public opinion, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Global South won’t back Kiev as West demands – WSJ

A push-back against Western influence is reportedly prompting countries to reject the pro-Ukraine agenda

https://www.rt.com/russia/582948-kiev-support-un-wsj/ 17 Sept 23

Western officials have overestimated the willingness of neutral nations to join anti-Russia policies in support of Ukraine, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“It’s clear that the West overall has been surprised by the pretty widespread reluctance by many of the countries in the so-called Global South… to come on board,” Jan Techau of the consulting firm Eurasia Group told the newspaper, as quoted on Thursday.

He cited “animosity toward the US and Europe” in some parts of the world and the desire of rising powers, such as Brazil and South Africa, to “assert their independence”, the article said.

The WSJ detailed purported successes and failures of Western diplomacy to rally the support of neutral nations for what it called “a fair peace settlement for Ukraine” ahead of next week’s gathering of world leaders at the UN General Assembly.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has been internationally promoting his “peace formula” with Western backing. It includes Ukraine regaining control over all former territories, war reparations from Russia, and a tribunal for the Russian leadership. Moscow has dismissed the Zelensky plan as being detached from reality.

The newspaper noted that many “emerging countries” have resisted demands for reparations and a tribunal, while “the international willingness to call out Russia publicly has diminished.” In particular, the final statement of the G20 leaders after the summit in India last week did not condemn Russia or even call the conflict a war “against Ukraine.”

The newspaper asserted that the G20 meeting was a “success for the West too,” because Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping did not attend the event in person.

“Factually, Russia is much more isolated than before,” a senior European official told The WSJ.

At the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting, non-Western participants are likely “to shift the global focus onto their priorities: global inequality and debt relief,” the report predicted.

Moscow has described the Ukraine crisis as part of a Western proxy war against Russia. It has also accused the US of mismanaging the global economy for selfish goals, while trying to preserve its dominance and resisting the emergence of a multipolar world.

September 19, 2023 Posted by | 2 WORLD, public opinion | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »