Not long after Russian tanks rolled across the border into Ukraine, pollsters reported the ‘surprising’ result that most Russians supported the ‘special military operation’. I say ‘surprising’ because some commentators assumed Russians would share the views of Westerners.
But that was before the withdrawal from Kiev; the assassination of Darya Dugin; the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines; the Ukrainian counter-offensive in Kharkiv; and most importantly, the announcement of partial mobilisation.
Faced with the prospect that they or their loved ones might be sent to the frontlines, do Russians still support the war? According to two respected pollsters, the answer appears to be ‘yes’.
The Levada Center is an independent polling organisation, which provides the “most reputable public opinion data available in Russia”. Each month since March, they have asked a representative sample of Russians whether they “personally support the action of the Russian military forces in Ukraine”. Results are shown below.
The top bar is for March; the bottom bar is for September. As you can see, there was a slight drop-off in support in April. But since then, support has remained steady at 70–75% of the population.
Notably, the fall in support after the announcement of partial mobilisation – i.e., from August to September – was only 4 percentage points. So this event barely dented public opinion. (The latest poll was carried out between 22nd and 28th September, whereas mobilisation was announced on 21st September.)
Another respected pollster, Russia Watcher, has found the same thing. Every day since 19th May, a group of Princeton academics has been asking Russians whether they support the ‘special military operation’. Results are shown below.
Remarkably, support has fallen only 1 percentage since the announcement of partial mobilisation, and currently stands at 73%. Recall that the bigger drop seen in Levada’s figures came in April, before Russia Watcher’s survey began.
The fact that Levada and Russia Watcher’s results are almost identical is particularly noteworthy given that the pollsters rely on quite different methods. Levada’s survey involves being interviewed in one’s home. Russia Watcher’s involves clicking an ad and then filling out a survey online.
As I noted back in April, however, it’s possible that support for the war is overstated. After all, respondents might be scared to reveal their true beliefs, even in ostensibly ‘anonymous’ surveys.
In my earlier article, I cited a list experiment (a technique designed to elicit respondents’ true beliefs) that found support for the war was overstated by about 15 percentage points. On the other hand, the academics behind Russia Watcher say they’ve done their own list experiments, and “have not been able to find evidence” that respondents are lying.
It’s unclear what accounts for this difference. Suffice it to say that opinion polls may overstate support, though not by a huge amount.
Despite everything that’s happened since February, more than 70% of Russians still say they support the war. This change could change, of course, if or when large numbers of mobilised troops come home in body bags.
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.
ESG is a contrived subject that belongs firmly within the Sociology field and therefore should be added to the curriculums of those places of “learning” within the tertiary sector that feel the need to peddle this crap.
If your business is dealing with interest rates, or making cars, or building homes or whatever then ESG is none of your workload and would certainly eat in to expensive management time whilst providing sweet F A in return for god knows what cost.
Those companies that feel the need to jump on the ESG bandwagon are simply proclaiming that they are badly managed. In these cases “go woke, go broke,” is just reward for management incompetence.
ESG, another disease of the age. A virus which kills poorly businesses.
You gotta laugh.
Curricula – but apart from that,yes.
Indeed. My apologies.
No need to apologise, huxleypiggles:
https://www.grammar-monster.com/plurals/plural_of_curriculum.htm
‘The plural of “curriculum” is “curricula” or “curriculums.”’
‘Both “curricula” and “curriculums” are accepted plurals of “curriculum.”’
The noun “curriculum” has a Latin root, which is the derivation of the plural “curricula.” “Curriculums” (which adheres to the standard rules for forming plurals) is also an accepted plural.’
I prefer “curriculums”. Some people don’t care which is used:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/dr-wordsmith-makes-a-house-call-at-the-tower-of-babel-1099283.html
Wordsmith writes: When it comes to the behaviour of foreign plurals in English, there are two schools of thought. One maintains that you should stick to foreign rules – that the plural of “poltergeist” is “poltergeister” and the plural of “curriculum vitae” is “curricula vitae”. And the other – the Jack Straw school of thought, perhaps – thinks that immigrant words should obey English rules while they are here, and that the plural of “stadium” should be “stadiums” and not “stadia”.
Dear Dr Wordsmith, And which school of thought do you belong to?
Dr Wordsmith writes: I belong to a third school, the A-Plague-On-Both- Your-Schools School, whose motto is: I couldn’t give a monkey’s.’
Many thanks. I too prefer the proper use of words, punctuation and grammar and in this instance I should have used “curricula” but as usual I was posting in haste (
).
On the topic of laughing, I did enjoy this mini clip. Let’s hope they’re verbalizing the general consensus, haha..
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/celtic-fans-sing-you-can-shove-your-coronation-up-your-a-347611/
That’s wonderful. Thanks Mogs.
Consolidation of a diverse banking market into a select few big players. Guess it will make CBDC’s easier to roll out.
Here in the UK we have seen similar consolidation with the energy market with a reversion to more or less the same old ‘big six’.
Net Zero appears to be concentrating the power and the wealth away from smaller players and into the hands of the elites.
“Net Zero appears to be concentrating the power and the wealth away from smaller players and into the hands of the elites.”
So for the Davos Deviants it’s all coming together nicely.
BlackRock does not permit anything that does not support ESG and DIE – they pull the strings
Well, it sure didn’t help.
But that bank now folded so quickly because the Feds signalled through their ridiculous SVB actions that your deposits are only safe with JPM and some other too big too fail banks and that at a ridiculous 100% regardless of deposit size: a bailout of the ultra-rich.
That’s why large deposits now flee regional banks and go the the biggies.
And the biggies then get to pick them up for free, as is custom for a fascist large company oligarchy.
The Bear, Stearns&co. takeunder actually served as the blueprint for these steals and the ones to come.
I doubt they have the self-awareness to understand, but highly paid executives charged with managing woke programs should probably be feeling nervous right about now.
Took most of my savings out of the bank and bought some property. Savings are just numbers on a spreadsheet and can be devalued at the whim of the market. I don’t want to be a victim of contagion and offered 60p in the pound. Like with the hoax pandemic, I don’t trust the authorities