Russian popular support for continuing the war in Ukraine is becoming increasingly fragile, according to a November opinion poll conducted by “Putin’s Praetorian Guard”, the Federal Protective Service, and leaked to Meduza. Overall, only 25% of respondents said they were in favour of continuing the war, versus 55% who were in favour of negotiations. This is in stark contrast to polling conducted in July, in which 57% were in favour of continuing the war, and only 32% in favour of peace talks. But this is roughly in line with the corresponding question asked by the Levada Center in October:
It’s important to put this into context. There is still overwhelming support in Russia for the military’s actions in Ukraine (73%), which might at first seem contradictory, but which merely suggests the desire for peace talks versus continued fighting arises from pragmatism and concern for an army they support.
The reasons for this concern aren’t hard to imagine. The “partial mobilisation”, which followed the disastrous rout from the Kharkiv region in September, is clearly one. Mobilisation, in Russia, turned out to be a euphemism for the shambolic rounding up of fighting-age men, who often had to provide much of their own food and equipment before being bussed off to Ukraine and told by drunken and inept commanders to advance on Ukrainian positions without adequate weaponry or clothing, or huddle in freezing and hastily-dug trenches to die of hypothermia. Advancing Russian troops have been easy targets for Ukrainian indirect fire and drone-dropped grenades, and at Bakhmut in particular (where Wagner PMC and its cadre of ex-convicts has also been heavily involved), the treatment of Russian soldiers as “single use” weapons has been horrific but also pitiful to the point where – paraphrasing Ovid – even the goddess Hera might have thought it a bit rough.
Yet, despite much heavy fighting and repeated attacks in some areas, there has been no Russian breakthrough. The retreat from Kherson and the widespread failure to make any gains, combined with the dawning realisation that Russia is losing, is likely the second reason for this shift in public opinion.
In an attempt to shore up support for the war, Putin recently put on a charade where he met some hand-picked stooges acting the part of mothers of Russian soldiers (who have traditionally been held in special regard by Russian society). During the meeting, Putin made a strange remark – but one that I think probably struck home. He reflected on the hopelessness of many Russian men, implying that it was better to be killed in Ukraine than succumbing to alcoholism inside Russia. And while in some societies alcoholism might fuel the caustic wit of a Christopher Hitchens or even make Country music appealing, the sheer pointlessness and misery of life in many of Russia’s remote towns and villages has produced nothing more than a few Darwin Awards. At least those killed in Ukraine died for a cause, Putin can say. Although, contrary to the earlier claim that the parents of fallen soldiers would be rewarded with enough money to buy a Lada, recent reporting suggests the winnings from this particularly deadly form of Russian roulette might now amount to just three towels and a card.
A recent focus group study, also conducted by the Kremlin in secret and leaked to Meduza, revealed that the tone of many respondents has changed to one of sullen withdrawal. “Leave us alone,” they seemed to be saying – we’re sick of hearing about it. As before, this suggests to me a genuine and deep dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war – which as patriots they would like to support, but which is becoming increasingly difficult.
However one slices it, little is likely to change as a result of these studies. Russians may be coming to the conclusion that the war isn’t going well (and also that things are getting worse inside Russia), and may wish for negotiations, but Ukraine knows full well that while Russian troops are on its soil, any kind of cease-fire – Putin’s aim in seeking negotiations – would only allow Russian forces to fix their gains and give them time to regroup before resuming hostilities at a time of their choosing.
And while it may be notable that it’s the Russian equivalent of the U.S. Secret Service doing this polling, indicating that the Kremlin at least pays some attention to public opinion, nevertheless Putin won’t be voted out of office, and no-one in a position to challenge him has any desire to embark on an exciting but brief career as a window quality control inspector. So as before, the West needs to continue to provide support for Ukraine and its valiant armed forces, but this half-hearted support – which balks at providing Western tanks and aircraft – needs to turn into total support, so as to help Ukraine bring this to an end as soon as possible. For this to happen, the myth that Russia would escalate to the use of battlefield nuclear weapons – which supposedly alarmed China, leading to the U.S. preventing the supply of aircraft to Ukraine – needs to be understood as such. Until then, the very real consequences of this increasingly desperate act of Russian aggression – at times reminiscent of both Stalingrad and the trenches of World War I – will continue to mount up, in terms of completely unnecessary deaths on both sides.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Amazing published on the same day as Labour announce their energy policy.
The BBC might as well be the media arm of the Labour Party
Propaganda Arm of the Liberal Elite. Which is why we junked our TV 20 years ago. Gets worse with every passing year.
“Ah yes science, one gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact” ——-Mark Twain. —-Jeez I really wish Mark Twain was around these days to humiliate this crowd of climate doomsters and their manipulated and adjusted data. Their phony graphs and their cherry picked facts. Their harassing of scientific journals that dare to publish anything remotely indicating there isn’t much in the way of a climate crisis at all, and their blaming of every single thing that happens as “likely due to the burning of fossil fuels”. ——-Who pays the piper calls the tune and it is sad to see that “science” has just become another government department.
Ah yes.
Our old chum Bob “fast fingers” Ward, with his super “Scientific” qualification of PhD in “Paleopiezometry” (failed).
His level of mendacity, incompetence and sheer malice makes even scum like Michael E (hockey-stick) Mann seem fractionally less egregious.
Some of us have been on to Bob Ward and his sinister employer for some time. Indeed, using libel laws has been a tactic of Grantham/Ward for some time, but it has long been the case that only the Guardian has much sympathy for Bob’s activities. He pops up on Sky News’ from time to time but he isn’t the most appealing of advocates.
Grantham is more interesting. His interest is very much in Biomass (destroying plants and trees in the fight against CO2), and that his wife is something of a green zealot and, er, photographer.
Indeed it has long been the case that it isn’t so much the billionaires that are so dangerous when it comes to the damage done by the promotion of eco-lunacy but their idiot wives, worse, ex-wives. After all it was Laurie David, ex-wife of Larry, who ‘produced’ Al Gore’s now risible ‘An Inconvenient Truth’…
Maybe DS should do an expose into ‘billionaires’ wives’
I guess she no longer photographs trees.
The BBC hails making the poor poorer. The true purpose of collectivism, socialism, communism is to hand more power to the state and create dependency.
“A similar ‘scientists’ stunt was pulled last month by Damian Carrington in the Guardian, who polled 400 so-called scientists and in an ocean of emotional guff concluded the world is heading towards a “semi dystopian” future.”
Well this Carrington quack was right on the last bit but he needs to be more assertive; he can drop the “semi.”
I hate these people.
Carrington etc are inadequate ppl who couldn’t repair a puncture on their bike but think they can reorder the energy grid/world. The true purpose of their actions is to offload their self hated and loathing on to everyone else.
If you are a scientist and don’t subscribe to any kind of alarmism you will never have the distinction of being classed as “distinguished”. You will be a “maverick”. A bit of an odd old chap due to retire to his bungalow looking over the Sussex County Cricket Ground where the sooner he gets the white hanky on his balding dome the better and let the “distinguished scientists” deal with the impending climate catastrophe that somehow requires no evidence but SSSSSHHHHHH. You don’t need evidence in Post Normal Science, all you need is a show of hands from a bunch of government funded data adjusters.
1,931 signatures of more qualified people saying “There is No Climate Emergency” at the World Climate Declaration
https://clintel.org
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WCD-240529.pdf
We control things on many levels that most aren’t aware of. The forces of human mood and mind do have a profound effect on the level of moisture in the atmosphere. But these people know nothing about this. Their postulates are essentially the opposite of the truth because they are ultimately predicated on human misery.
If Blairites (such as Cameron – Clegg) can run government policy on the basis of The End of History (Fukuyama) it is a small jump to running public policy on the basis all science has been done and nothing is left to learn.
Looks like I should have gone to
Barnard CastleSpecsavers before reading the names of the ‘climate scientists’. I could have sworn ‘Karen’ was the middle name of every one of them.The notion and audacity of subjecting the nation with such BS is reprehensible & who could have exposed these charlatans better then themselves
I work (aged 79) for a company that benefits from the EV push. Therefore I benefit. Exactly the same principle applies to the signatories.
As a trained scientist/engineer and with some experience IMHO there is no scince associated with climate change, particularly the forecasts for the next 75 years. However there are a lot of politics so an pushback against the climate narrative must be a political one, hence the letter pushing one way
If I push the other way, I may lose the benefit I receive. People vote with their pocket.
The green idiots who support this nonsense are best represented by this comment (on one anti comment that the BBC had removed):
“I agree they shouldn’t open comments on this topic. All you get are right wing science deniers shouting slogans and facile misconceptions. Reform are swimming in oil money. But you wouldn’t think that matters, I’m guessing?”
I bet Nigel wishes that Reform were swimming in oil money.
It’s funny how when you quote scientific research at these people they claim you are shouting slogans.
Ha ha ha hilarious. The BBC are the biggest comedy show these days.