What Europeans think about this War

[sayak83]

People in Europe (including Italy) were expecting this Russian aggression and majority (including in Italy) wanted EU and NATO to play a proactive role in defending Ukraine against Russian aggression. Here is survey.
Major points:-
62% of Europeans think NATO should come to defend Ukraine. The number is near 70% in Italy.
60% of Europeans think EU should come to defend Ukraine. The number is near 66% in Italy.
The number is least in Germany (ever the pacifist country) where still the number is 50%.
The trust in EU and NATO to protect their defense interests in case Russia invades Ukraine also hovers on the high levels (65% in Italy and lowest 50% in France).

Further highlights

But, even in Poland, more respondents see the main defenders of Ukraine as being the EU (80 per cent) and NATO (79 per cent) than see their own country in this way. This could indicate that, for most Europeans, defending Ukraine means defending the post-cold war European security order rather than simply taking a side in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Therefore, they expect both NATO and the EU to act.

The poll also makes clear that, while most Europeans still trust NATO to defend Europe, “NATO” is no longer just another name for “the United States”. Europeans trust NATO to protect their interests more than they trust the US to do so. This may reflect the fact that they increasingly view the US as only a part-time European power, as these authors observed in a previous ECFR paper. In all surveyed countries aside from Poland and Romania, more respondents believe that Germany is in a better position than the US to protect EU citizens’ interests if Russia invades Ukraine again.
The crisis of European security: What Europeans think about the war in Ukraine

Of course all of these surveys are part of Soros sponsored grand international conspiracy to muffle the voice of the real European people.....

 

[RestlessSoul]

This European thinks the same about this war as he does about every other; that after several millennia of increasingly industrialised, ever more destructive warfare, humanity is faced with a simple choice; either find another way to resolve differences between tribes, cultures, nations and neighbours, or watch the lights go out for ever. The only way to win a war, is for both sides to stop fighting.

 

[exchemist]

People in Europe (including Italy) were expecting this Russian aggression and majority (including in Italy) wanted EU and NATO to play a proactive role in defending Ukraine against Russian aggression. Here is survey.
Major points:-
62% of Europeans think NATO should come to defend Ukraine. The number is near 70% in Italy.
60% of Europeans think EU should come to defend Ukraine. The number is near 66% in Italy.
The number is least in Germany (ever the pacifist country) where still the number is 50%.
The trust in EU and NATO to protect their defense interests in case Russia invades Ukraine also hovers on the high levels (65% in Italy and lowest 50% in France).

Further highlights

But, even in Poland, more respondents see the main defenders of Ukraine as being the EU (80 per cent) and NATO (79 per cent) than see their own country in this way. This could indicate that, for most Europeans, defending Ukraine means defending the post-cold war European security order rather than simply taking a side in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Therefore, they expect both NATO and the EU to act.

The poll also makes clear that, while most Europeans still trust NATO to defend Europe, “NATO” is no longer just another name for “the United States”. Europeans trust NATO to protect their interests more than they trust the US to do so. This may reflect the fact that they increasingly view the US as only a part-time European power, as these authors observed in a previous ECFR paper. In all surveyed countries aside from Poland and Romania, more respondents believe that Germany is in a better position than the US to protect EU citizens’ interests if Russia invades Ukraine again.
The crisis of European security: What Europeans think about the war in Ukraine

Of course all of these surveys are part of Soros sponsored grand international conspiracy to muffle the voice of the real European people.....

Haha, yes. Even in Italy.

Indeed, I think the most significant effect of this invasion for Europe is that EU countries (the people, not just their leaders) have quickly realised the need for them to take responsibility for their own collective security. The volte-face by Germany on defence spending is a landmark. Ironically, Putin probably thought that a new Chancellor, with his feet barely under the desk, would indicate a weakened Germany, whereas in fact it turns out that, not being bound by the policies of his predecessor, Scholz is far more free to review defence policy and set a new course.

European public opinion is in one sense wrong, if it imagines the EU can offer much in the way of collective defence. It never has been a military alliance: that has been NATO's job. This may now change, though. France has been pushing for it for a long time but now Germany is on board and there is a visible and urgent threat to galvanise the others. (And of course there remains the threat of the US becoming unreliable if there is another Republican administration in the near future.)

But it is interesting that the public psychology is to look as much to the EU as to NATO, at such a time. So much for the notion of the free nations of Europe yearning to be free of the oppressive yoke of "Brussels".

 

[Twilight Hue]

This European thinks the same about this war as he does about every other; that after several millennia of increasingly industrialised, ever more destructive warfare, humanity is faced with a simple choice; either find another way to resolve differences between tribes, cultures, nations and neighbours, or watch the lights go out for ever. The only way to win a war, is for both sides to stop fighting.

That's all good and well for the civilized side.

How about the uncivilized side?

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's all good and well for the civilized side.

How about the uncivilized side?

There are no civilised sides in war. You can say that in Ukraine Russia is the aggressor, but once you meet aggression with aggression, there is no civility left. War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy, and in every case, both sides have failed.

Advocates of the “just war” philosophy tend to cite WWII as their best example. But even this seemingly existential struggle between good and evil, was a direct result of the failure of diplomacy in 1918, when excessively punitive terms were imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles.

 

[Nimos]

People in Europe (including Italy) were expecting this Russian aggression and majority (including in Italy) wanted EU and NATO to play a proactive role in defending Ukraine against Russian aggression.

I personally think that NATO should stay as a defensive alliance.

I do know that in certain conflicts it has made no fly zones such as in Libya in order to protect the civilians etc.

But if NATO were to do this in Ukraine, it would basically mean going to war with Russia. Heard a military expert talking about what such operation would require, and it is far more than simply sending in a few planes etc. But would require sending in radar planes (AWACs) given that Ukraine doesn't really have the NATO cover that is needed, these planes would also need to be escorted or defended by fighters. And then finally you would need fighters to actually carry out the no fly zone and obviously shoot down Russian planes. In which case we would obviously be at war and potentially WW3, because I don't think Putin would respect a no fly zone.

So despite what is going on in Ukraine and it being terrible etc. I think one have to remember that NATO is not a world security force, especially not if that could potentially start WW3.

Also I do think that it would be far more important if countries like China, India and whoever "support" or are considering to support Putin, would step up and help prevent the war, rather than fueling them and their war effort. I do think they ought to have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth if doing so. because they could help stop the war fairly easy I think, especially China.

But to me, it also shows where countries political interests are. And personally I think without the western world and NATO, that we would live in a much more violent world, where no one would care to help each other or speak up for peace, imagine if the west were like China and India and completely passive. I think the world would be ablaze to be honest.

 

[Audie]

There are no civilised sides in war. You can say that in Ukraine Russia is the aggressor, but once you meet aggression with aggression, there is no civility left. War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy, and in every case, both sides have failed.

Advocates of the “just war” philosophy tend to cite WWII as their best example. But even this seemingly existential struggle between good and evil, was a direct result of the failure of diplomacy in 1918, when excessively punitive terms were imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles.

Right, Versailles made Japan start on its
empire building.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I personally think that NATO should stay as a defensive alliance.

I do know that in certain conflicts it has made no fly zones such as in Libya in order to protect the civilians etc.

But if NATO were to do this in Ukraine, it would basically mean going to war with Russia. Heard a military expert talking about what such operation would require, and it is far more than simply sending in a few planes etc. But would require sending in radar planes (AWACs) given that Ukraine doesn't really have the NATO cover that is needed, these planes would also need to be escorted or defended by fighters. And then finally you would need fighters to actually carry out the no fly zone and obviously shoot down Russian planes. In which case we would obviously be at war and potentially WW3, because I don't think Putin would respect a no fly zone.

So despite what is going on in Ukraine and it being terrible etc. I think one have to remember that NATO is not a world security force, especially not if that could potentially start WW3.

Also I do think that it would be far more important if countries like China, India and whoever "support" or are considering to support Putin, would step up and help prevent the war, rather than fueling them and their war effort. I do think they ought to have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth if doing so. because they could help stop the war fairly easy I think, especially China.

But to me, it also shows where countries political interests are. And personally I think without the western world and NATO, that we would live in a much more violent world, where no one would care to help each other or speak up for peace, imagine if the west were like China and India and completely passive. I think the world would be ablaze to be honest.

So. Should Russia be allowed to proceed with impunity to circumvent fears of escalation?

 

[sayak83]

I personally think that NATO should stay as a defensive alliance.

I do know that in certain conflicts it has made no fly zones such as in Libya in order to protect the civilians etc.

But if NATO were to do this in Ukraine, it would basically mean going to war with Russia. Heard a military expert talking about what such operation would require, and it is far more than simply sending in a few planes etc. But would require sending in radar planes (AWACs) given that Ukraine doesn't really have the NATO cover that is needed, these planes would also need to be escorted or defended by fighters. And then finally you would need fighters to actually carry out the no fly zone and obviously shoot down Russian planes. In which case we would obviously be at war and potentially WW3, because I don't think Putin would respect a no fly zone.

So despite what is going on in Ukraine and it being terrible etc. I think one have to remember that NATO is not a world security force, especially not if that could potentially start WW3.

Also I do think that it would be far more important if countries like China, India and whoever "support" or are considering to support Putin, would step up and help prevent the war, rather than fueling them and their war effort. I do think they ought to have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth if doing so. because they could help stop the war fairly easy I think, especially China.

But to me, it also shows where countries political interests are. And personally I think without the western world and NATO, that we would live in a much more violent world, where no one would care to help each other or speak up for peace, imagine if the west were like China and India and completely passive. I think the world would be ablaze to be honest.

But it is an European and NATO issue. Why would India or China involve themselves in it? India will probably abide by any sanctions imposed on Russia, just as it has done for Iran etc. But India cannot afford to offend Russia because then every mainland Asian nation close to it (Pakistan, China and Russia and their friendly nations in Central Asia) then become hostile to it. If China and Pakistan go for a simultaneous two-front war against India, India cannot defend against such an invasion without military aid from Russia as things stand. So without significant military technology transfer and defense guarantees from the West (like Japan or South Korea), India cannot overtly take any stand in this.
China may want to help Russia, hoping it would get guarantees from Russia to support her when China invades Taiwan.

 

[Nimos]

So. Should Russia be allowed to proceed with impunity to circumvent fears of escalation?

I hope not, but this is not just the EU and NATO problem and those other countries that support Ukraine. We have openly stated what we think and acted on it. But China is a huge economic power with huge impact as well, India likewise obviously not as big as China. But the West and NATO is always pointed out as being the bad guys for interfering everywhere. Why not yell at China, India, the Arabic world, south America etc. for either supporting the war indirectly or not raising their voice?

 

[Nimos]

But it is an European and NATO issue. Why would India or China involve themselves in it? India will probably abide by any sanctions imposed on Russia, just as it has done for Iran etc. But India cannot afford to offend Russia because then every mainland Asian nation close to it (Pakistan, China and Russia and their friendly nations in Central Asia) then become hostile to it. If China and Pakistan go for a simultaneous two-front war against India, India cannot defend against such an invasion without military aid from Russia as things stand. So without significant military technology transfer and defense guarantees from the West (like Japan or South Korea), India cannot overtly take any stand in this.
China may want to help Russia, hoping it would get guarantees from Russia to support her when China invades Taiwan.

If you think Russia would support India against China, I think you are greatly mistaken. Russia would either stay neutral or backup China. China is on the border to Russia and have much more benefits of each other than Russia and India have in my opinion. Should anything like that happen, I think India would have to rely on the West and the US. However I don't think China is going to attack India, because in general I don't think China is interested in war with anyone to be honest.

Saying that it is an European and NATO issue I don't think is true, because what happens in Ukraine now, will be used in the future to figure out what can be done and what can't be done. If NATO and the west is not going to interfere in Ukraine, why do you think they would interfere in India or any of the other Arabic countries, should Russia make a move there or support another country doing something similar in the future? China and India's standpoint on the war, will clearly play a role in the future as well as to whether the West believe they can trust them or not and on the relationship in general.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, Versailles made Japan start on its
empire building.

And inspired Russia to conspire with Hitler
to divide up ownership of all of Europe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Right, Versailles made Japan start on its
empire building.

Clearly not, no. I was answering from a European perspective; my knowledge of the history of Sino-Japanese relations is very limited, I confess.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And inspired Russia to conspire with Hitler
to divide up ownership of all of Europe.

Thanks for illustrating my point. The Russian revolution occurred during WWI, due in large part to conditions created by Tsar Nicholas dragging his people into an unpopular war. So the causal link between WWI and the Nazi Soviet pact is not difficult to identify.

 

[Audie]

Clearly not, no. I was answering from a European perspective; my knowledge of the history of Sino-Japanese relations is very limited, I confess.

Sino? They attacked indonesia, Philiipines,
numerous island, Britain, Holland and the USA.
Thailand, Burma...forced the
French to surrender territory.

Italy didnt get a raw deal in WW1.

Russia attacked Finland and Poland.

 

[sayak83]

If you think Russia would support India against China, I think you are greatly mistaken. Russia would either stay neutral or backup China. China is on the border to Russia and have much more benefits of each other than Russia and India have in my opinion. Should anything like that happen, I think India would have to rely on the West and the US. However I don't think China is going to attack India, because in general I don't think China is interested in war with anyone to be honest.

Saying that it is an European and NATO issue I don't think is true, because what happens in Ukraine now, will be used in the future to figure out what can be done and what can't be done. If NATO and the west is not going to interfere in Ukraine, why do you think they would interfere in India or any of the other Arabic countries, should Russia make a move there or support another country doing something similar in the future? China and India's standpoint on the war, will clearly play a role in the future as well as to whether the West believe they can trust them or not and on the relationship in general.

85% of Indian armaments is Russian. Indian Army has always been supported by Russian weapons systems to counter the Chinese and Pakistan's armies. So the West has to propose something radical indeed for India to switch support against a trusted partner.

For Russia, India is the largest importer, and for India, Russia the largest exporter when it comes to arms transfer. Between 2000 and 2020, Russia accounted for 66.5 per cent of India’s arms imports. Of the $53.85 billion spent by India during the period on arms imports, $35.82 billion went to Russia. During the same period imports from the US were worth $4.4 billion, and from Israel it was worth US$ 4.1 billion.

Explained: How dependent is India on Russia’s weapons?

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for illustrating my point. The Russian revolution occurred during WWI, due in large part to conditions created by Tsar Nicholas dragging his people into an unpopular war. So the causal link between WWI and the Nazi Soviet pact is not difficult to identify.

Perhaps. But Hitler rose independently of WW1 & Russia.
He could've worked the same duplicitous deal with the Czar.

 

[Nimos]

85% of Indian armaments is Russian. Indian Army has always been supported by Russian weapons systems to counter the Chinese and Pakistan's armies. So the West has to propose something radical indeed for India to switch support against a trusted partner.

For Russia, India is the largest importer, and for India, Russia the largest exporter when it comes to arms transfer. Between 2000 and 2020, Russia accounted for 66.5 per cent of India’s arms imports. Of the $53.85 billion spent by India during the period on arms imports, $35.82 billion went to Russia. During the same period imports from the US were worth $4.4 billion, and from Israel it was worth US$ 4.1 billion.

Explained: How dependent is India on Russia’s weapons?

I understand that, but supplying India with weapons, is not the same as if China were invading India. I doubt China would react any different were the Russian to supply India with weapons as the west are with Ukraine during a conflict.

In 2019, Russia exported $58.1B to China. The main products exported from Russia to China were Crude Petroleum ($33.7B), Refined Petroleum ($3.34B), and Sawn Wood ($2.52B). During the last 24 years the exports of Russia to China have increased at an annualized rate of 12.8%, from $3.21B in 1995 to $58.1B in 2019

So long scale I think Russia would be better off on good terms with China than India, purely based on economics. China is a huge market we all know that and it matters. Obviously Russia wouldn't like to ruin their relationship with India, which is why I think they would be neutral, should it ever come to a war. But if China put pressure on Russia, im not so sure what they would do.

 

[Kooky]

So. Should Russia be allowed to proceed with impunity to circumvent fears of escalation?

That is literally how nuclear deterrence works, yes.
See also: American wars in the Middle East and Southern Europe.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is literally how nuclear deterrence works, yes.
See also: American wars in the Middle East and Southern Europe.

That's exactly how wars are won by the bad guy too.