(POLL) US should do more to help Ukraine

Forty-five percent (45%) of likely U.S. voters say the US isn’t doing enough to help Ukraine fight the Russian invasion.

That’s according to Rasmussen Reports.

Thirty-three percent (33%) say the amount of U.S. support to Ukraine is about right, while 15% say the US is doing too much.

To read survey questions, click here.

The Lemonade Mermaid Store

Unique gifts for Land or Sea Mermaids, Mer-pets and Little Mermaids!

Left: Pastel Beach Necklace $16


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 thoughts on “(POLL) US should do more to help Ukraine”

  1. Giving weapons to the Ukrainians is like giving weapons to the Palestinians. It just prolongs the entire war. Lindsay Graham and John McCain have gone to Ukraine and they promised support to those fighting the “Separatists.” And with arms the US has provided to Ukraine, some 14,000 of so Ukrainians died in the conflict. “Help” would best be to give the Ukrainians the advice Jesus gave to Peter (who chopped of the ear of a person in the group that came to arrest Jesus). Jesus rebuked Peter and told him to put away his sword. Jesus also told him “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” As it was, seeing they couldn’t fight to protect Jesus, they all fled. Only Jesus was arrested and crucified. But Peter later went on to lead the what became the church (under the risen Jesus) and it grew and now at least a billion people today consider themselves to be followers of Jesus.

    John Mearsheimer and Henry Kissenger think the best thing to do for the Ukrainians is to help them get along with both Europe and Russia.

    At least one of more of the experts (including a former advisor late in the Trump administration) has as I remember saying, That the “US wants to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.”

    If anyone has not listened to an entire speech by Putin, but tries to figure out what Putin is like by listening to “the usual suspects” … the people in the media … that polls show we don’t trust… or listen to others that similarly they don’t trust … it might be that due diligence hasn’t been followed. What the US is trying to do to Russia is apply the “death penalty” (I am not quoting anyone… just seems to be what is happening, from my perspective.) And in such cases people need to consider the facts listen to both sides. As it is, the efforts the US is taking to isolate Russia have boomerang affects. Europe will get stuck paying higher energy prices and/or growing cold. China, India and Saudi Arabia and others see what happened to the billions of Dollars Russia had in international reserve currency. (Is stolen the right word?) They won’t leave their money where the US and Europe can grab it. Same with gold reserves.

    Russia has basically ran a balanced budget for a while. Most of their debt is paid off. US is carrying about $90,000 in debt per US person. And our military establishment wants more. Congress wants to give them more. Taxes may go up… we will sacrifice too in the US with higher food and energy prices. In Russia, if they can’t export their food and gas, they will just have more for their people.

    As the dollar becomes less trusted as a reserve currency, it will get dropped by foreign countries and peoples and corporations. More dollars will then be chasing fewer goods. Inflation will kick in more.

    Quick draw McGraw (to use a phrase) might have just shot himself in the foot. Quick draw being the entire mindset of the US to meddle in and create more problems. One expert noted how we got involved in World War 1. Ultimately that led to the defeat of Germany, which led to tough sanctions on Germany “reparations” which led to Hitler throwing them off and thus bringing World War II. Also the expert said World War I led to the Bolshevik revolution as well. US also armed Afghanistan Mujaheddin, when Russia invaded there. Then of course they became more radical and powerful (thanks to the CIA carrying out US government policies) and that led to them becoming powerful and later attacking the US on 9/11. Daniel Patrick Moynihan looked at the efforts to expand NATO at the conclusion of the Cold War and remarked “We have no idea what we are getting into.”

    That is even worse today. People in the US have no idea what is going on. I listened to a debate on the current situation on an MIT website. In favor of more interaction was a lobbyist who formerly worked in the Bush administration and also worked for “The Podesta Group.” Currently works for a law firm and advises on such things as helping companies and people manage rules regarding dealing or not dealing with complexities of sanction rules.

    People have all kinds of interests and schemes to profit off a war and sanctions. Another top debater in favor of a tougher approach on Russia, concluded his interview with a conservative podcaster saying we need to spend a lot more money on defense. (He worked for a think tank that has Dick Cheney as the ranking or best known boardmember.)

    Making money on war … nothing new. People following others into wars that aren’t good for them… nothing new there either. What is new, is the stakes are so high that the rich will be effected when/if this turns nuclear. The aim of destroying Russia, brings up MAD. Even the elites will die or have a reduced standard of living… I suppose.

    The time to have helped Ukraine, was to have ensured that Ukraine kept the Minkst (sp?) Accords. Instead our congresspeople seemed to have wanted a proxy war with Russia. The media “the usual suspects” are typically less than useless when it comes to humanitarian concerns around the world. Has the media been co-opted by the CIA (Mockingbird?)? Why with a certain laptop (I’m not concerned with the contents of the laptop) what is weird or most tragic is the CIA controlled the narrative, controlled the media, controlled the tech companies that control the narrative, blocked the news. While this specific concern, had some relevance to the election results… of even greater concern is that the yet unseen results is that the American people are now being led by people whose once leader said something like we lie, we steal and we murder.

    And so how can we learn to be kind? Dr. Tony Evans, A Christian Pastor in Texas said a few months ago that he wanted to try and start a movement towards more kindness. This too might be needed in international relations.

    1. Hi Andrew,
      I understand your stated concern for technical accuracy and I see your point.
      But do notice that Sharyl did not use the word “most” in her title.

      In other instances where there is a clear plurality (I mean majority) Sharyl has used titles like the following to introduce her poll results. “(POLL) Most Americans: ‘I pay more than my fair share in taxes'” Also another recent poll that had a clear majority she introduced like this. “(POLL) Gas prices are affecting decisions for most.”

      And if you want to better understand the position of the American people you could start to pressure people who answered that “the amount of U.S. support to Ukraine is about right” to assert further whether they thought the amount of support to Ukraine is “exactly right” rather than “about right.” If the question was worded that way some of the 33% of the people that voted “about right” would have shifted over to the category of “isn’t doing enough to help Ukraine fight the Russian invasion.” At that point we could see enough of a plurality of concern.

      It isn’t infrequent that I find a misleading article or click bait in the mainstream media. However, I haven’t found that Sharyl engages in that. Instead it is the mainstream media that frequently engages in smears and attempts to cloud the waters with irrelevant drivel. If you want to see real media malfeasance read Sharyl’s book “Smear”.

      But sometimes exact numbers in polls are hard to come by. In the last two presidential elections, many or most published polls (from my recollection) wildly underestimated or underpredicted what the election results would be in terms of how many votes Donald Trump would get. I won’t even get into the more controversial issues that may indicate a higher level of voting irregularities than most elections.

      Of course, back to this poll, several questions may be more important. If, in the historical scenario of the Titanic steaming through or towards an area of iceburgs, we asked the question and took a survey of people on the boat whether the speed of the titanic was going too fast, or too slow or at just the right speed, We might get a variety of answers. But do the people asking the question and those answering the questions even understand the situation adequately? That is a real problem. Similarly regarding Ukraine there were many experts going back to the time of the Clinton administration who were pleading with Congress and with the President not to go down the dangerous route of Nato expansion. We would have avoided the iceburg field altogether if the US people and leadership gave more attention to the best and brilliant minds who then foresaw the current catastrophe. Instead, military manufacturers helped swing the vote to enable expanding NATO. These issues and thoughts might have more merit than any temporary confusion that beset Andrew. This was immediately cleared up since the information was clearly indicated in the text and enough information was presented that Andrew’s understanding was able to self-rectify. Yet, the important issue is how to de-escalate international tension. How to avoid escalating into a nuclear war.

      Other issues might involve whether sanctions and sending armaments are productive or unproductive. If so, for who? Arms manufacturers? LNG shipping facility producers? The average person in Eastern Ukraine or in other areas of Ukraine like Kyiv? What is best for nationalist militias? Best for Germany who may have to pay more or lose gas? Will Ukraine be planting crops this spring and will people in Egypt and elsewhere get enough food to eat? Was the media telling the truth that Russia’s invasion was “unprovoked?” Do the people in the media even listen to the concerns expressed by Putin, or by Medyedev or by Gorbachev? Even Duck Duck Go now censors in their search results (I think it was claimed) information giving the Russian perspective. Information like the ability to hear or read some perspectives of current or former leaders of Russia is subject to algorithmic downgrading. Aaron Mate of the Grayzone has pointed out that when a certain leader of an intelligence agency lied before congress, which provoked Snowdon to go public to expose his lies, that official got hired by a prominent cable news outlet. And so US news outlets have on as experts, people that have a limited track record for honesty and accuracy. Aaron Mate even pointed out an instance that a certain reporter who repeatedly peddled false stories kept getting promotions and better jobs after every one of her mistakes. Some people aren’t paid to tell the truth but rather something else. Reminds me of Pontius Pilate who was so jaded that when Jesus used the word “truth” Pilate said “What is truth?” Glenn Greenwald pointed out that most in the media, jettisoned truth, if it would help keep Donald Truth from being elected. He even cited how the journalistic outlet he helped fund, blocked him from doing a story on the LAPTOP from hell, because, he assessed, it would have been to Trump’s benefit.

      Far more important than trying to accurately gauge the opinion the American people on intervention is finding out what a good policy is. I just got an email that I signed up for from Foreign Policy. I read one article and the first paragraph of a couple other articles. They didn’t really know what to do… or rather it seemed to me the three different articles were arguing for three different approaches to Russia. One urging to stay the course with sanctions. Another article arguing to settle quickly. (I couldn’t get beyond the paywall so I can’t say much and there was yet a third perspective.

      Yet above is an attempt a while back from Henry Kissinger to come up with a reasonable result. Kissinger though was savaged by one of the guests on the John Bachelor radio show.

      I do respect Kissinger’s viewpoint and wisdom on this more than the guy on John Bachelor’s program who was trying to de-Ukrainianfy Khrushchev. Khrushchev was born near Ukraine then moved to Ukraine as 14 year old and started his career there, living there, working there, organizing Soviet stuff there and later rebuilding there after WWII. It was Khrushchev who identified strongly with Ukraine who ceded Crimea to Ukraine when he was head of the Soviet Union. Yet John Bachelor’s guest took an inordinate amount of time to try and discredit Kissinger.

      In order to help we must UNDERSTAND. In the Bible, Solomon was noted as having great understanding. Kissinger kept writing about things we need to understand, that both sides need to understand. It is a news piece very worth reading. (Posting the same link again here.)

      The NIV bible lists the word “understanding” 112 times. The usage of “understanding” in the Bible, a trait valued by earlier cultures, (not just modern diplomats like Kissinger) is something people need to wrap their heads around. I thought of a scripture that I just looked up from Isaiah 59. “The way of peace they do not know.”

      People’s minds are filled with drivel. Love for others is rare, especially from major news outlets characterizing people of different demographics or different political opinions than those of the demographic they are aiming for. Major tech companies are capitalizing on spreading hate. They use algorithms to give information that fits into someone’s biases and increases MISUNDERSTANDING and anger. Love for our enemies is even rarer. A book called ZUCKED explained how media tries to get results by pushing people’s buttons especially negative ones like anger. However, then the author goes on trying to link Facebook and Russia perhaps aiming for stirring up hate to Russia. Or it was part of a larger operation to push Mark Zuckerburg toward a position on Russia that better fit the viewpoint of the intelligence establishment at that time. I did not finish reading Zucked, for I feared it was written as an intelligence operation to control Facebook and control Zuckerburg.

      I don’t think my comment here is perfect, but maybe someone will find it helpful.

      But if we are trying to avoid a nuclear war we should also read what Kissinger wrote.
      ***For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.”***

      Sharyl, if you’ve had the time to read this, it might also be good to read that manageable size (almost short) recap of Kissinger’s views. He got to be a highly respected diplomat by explaining things well and so the article does a good job in a short amount of space of laying out a lot of good information. I put the identical link up twice above in this comment.

  2. Since you have embraced Ukraine I will no longer support you in any form, it is sad you chose this stance if you would have done a little research you would have known you are on the wrong side of this fight.

    1. Thank you for your comment. This is not a personal position statement – it is merely the reporting of poll numbers from a recent Rasmussen Reports.

Scroll to Top