Corrupt Media Pollsters Are Using Dishonest Tactics To Drag America Into War

You may have heard over the weekend that Americans now “broadly support” imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine. “A broad bipartisan majority of Americans think the United States should … work with NATO to set up ‘no-fly zones’ to protect Ukraine from Russian air strikes,” insisted a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Friday, noting that 74 percent of respondents supported the aggressive move.

The same poll, however, showed that only 39 percent of Americans want to see American troops sent to Ukraine, with fully 61 percent opposed — a statistic that was conveniently left out of the Reuters write-up (the report only mentioned vague “majorities” opposing boots on the ground). That gaping disconnect indicates two things: Most Americans cheering a no-fly zone don’t know what that would entail, and the warmongering media is using that ignorance to the advantage of its agenda.

Pollsters asking Americans if they support a no-fly zone aren’t explaining to them what the consequences of such an action would be. NATO has so far refused to enact a no-fly zone precisely because it would almost certainly lead to war, and Russia has made it clear it would interpret such a move as an act of war.

As my colleague John Daniel Davidson noted last week: “Of course a no-fly zone would mean just that: The U.S. would have to shoot down Russian warplanes, and Russian warplanes would very likely do the same to us. We would be in a shooting war with Russia before the no-fly zone was even established.” Florida Republican Rep. Marco Rubio agreed, saying a no-fly zone “would mean World War III.”

Reuters even admitted, four paragraphs into its report, that “It was not clear if respondents who supported a no-fly zone were fully aware of the risk of conflict.” Of course they weren’t, as evidenced by the 35-point difference between support for a no-fly zone and support for American troop involvement.

The poll also found 57 percent of Americans agreed that “Given the current economic climate, the United States cannot afford to be taking military action in Ukraine.” Six in 10 Americans also didn’t want to see the U.S. conduct airstrikes against Russia.

Pollsters didn’t even ask how many respondents would oppose a full-scale war with Russia, a number which would surely be even higher. In fact, look through the toplines of the survey and you won’t even find the word “war.”

There’s a real chance that if the United States and the rest of NATO are dragged into a full conflict with Russia over Ukraine, we could see a devastating nuclear war. That’s not a possibility our politicians and media should take lightly, but nevertheless, they continue to recklessly bandy about unserious responses to Russia’s aggression.

While Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., implores his Twitter followers to assassinate Vladimir Putin, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., urges a no-fly zone (while also peddling disproven propaganda), the censors who preach about fighting misinformation at home have happily allowed false stories about Ukraine that fit their pro-war agenda to propagate.

Meanwhile, another recent poll from Rasmussen Reports shows the broad divide between elites who are pushing for war and the actual people who would fight it. Overall, 49 percent of American voters answered “yes” to the question, “If a wider war breaks out in Europe, should the U.S. military be involved?”

But that belief is held by only 37 percent of respondents with an income below $30,000, compared to 66 percent of respondents making more than $200,000. The majority of U.S. military recruits come from middle-class backgrounds, a demographic that supports shedding American blood in Europe far less than the ruling class does.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases