Late last month, the Free Thought Project reported on a survey which found that most Americans did not support the US playing a large role in the Russian Ukrainian conflict. Unfortunately, however, since then, the country has been subjected to nearly three weeks of 24/7 pro-war propaganda from the mainstream, up to and including entirely false stories coming out of Ukraine specifically designed to bolster support for NATO through deception.
Because this propaganda machine is so good at what they do — convincing Americans they need to support wars on the other side of the planet — the anti-intervention sentiment has shifted from "stay out" to "get in." Sadly, Americans have a history of being duped into these wars and lies and propaganda have started nearly every single one of them.
Thanks to the short memories of most Americans, we now find ourselves on the precipice of yet another global conflict — which is entirely preventable. Instead of solutions that will actually carry some success, like Ukraine agreeing to remain neutral and recognizing the Donbass region's independence, which Russia says will end the occupation immediately, sanctions and acts of war are the only "solutions" proposed by the corporate press.
As these are the only solutions being presented to Americans, they are the only solutions being discussed by Americans. The mainstream media has actually taken to calling these solutions "peaceful," and claiming that the ones supporting them are "peace activists." You cannot make this up.
On March 6, activists marched in front of the White House. Reuters referred to these people as "peace activists." The ostensible "peace activists" were holding up signs that said "Weapons for Ukraine," "Kill Putin," "No fly zone now," and other signs which echoed the false stories mentioned above. Absolutely no one at this rally was calling for actual peace.
Because of the entirely false narrative being pushed by Reuters and others that these were "peace activists," many Americans think that "peace" will come through things like a "no fly zone" over Ukraine. Unfortunately, all critical thought stops at that phrase and most people do not think past what a no fly zone actually means.
Simply put, a no-fly zone is designed to stop aircraft from entering banned airspace through military enforcement. As the mainstream pushes a no fly zone, they conveniently leave off the part about enforcement through military means so uninformed Americans think that if the US simply tells Russia not to fly, they won't. This is dangerously ignorant.
Right now, Russia is solely involved in Ukraine. They have promised, and so far stuck to that promise, that their military action will remain in Ukraine — unless another country attacks them.
If the US and NATO forces were to establish and enforce a no fly zone over Ukraine, Russia would not stop their assault and therefore provoke a reaction from those enforcing the no fly zone. If a US jet engaged a Russian jet over Ukraine, this would be considered an "act of war" by the Russians and would set off a chain reaction that could lead to global nuclear annihilation.
Recommended for You
If a US jet attacks Russia, Russia has already promised to strike back, including with the use of nuclear weapons, which would drag the US and its allies in NATO into a literal world war. If this global conflict unfolded, China would be forced to pick sides and nuclear war would be likely on multiple continents.
Does that sound like something that a "peace activist" should be supporting?
Unfortunately, they are. CBS News held a poll over the weekend in which they asked their viewers if they supported a "no fly zone" over Ukraine. The majority, nearly 60% of Americans did support it.
But then something rather telling happened with a follow up question. When those same people were told about the consequences of a no fly zone, as mentioned above, the support for such an action fell dramatically.
What this poll and shift in sentiment illustrates is that support for military action is largely based in ignorance. It's easy to throw a Ukraine flag emoji in your social media profile and claim you #StandWithUkraine. What's not easy, however, is actually researching and understanding the history which has led to this conflict and the implications of US involvement.
This is why we have people like Jack Walsh giving his 380,000 followers a 2nd grader's perspective on war instead of critically analyzing the situation and providing some much needed nuance. Walsh represents the problem in America with this tweet. He reduces decades of complex history, political discourse, and culture between Ukraine and Russia into a single ignorant thought, "Russia bad. Ukraine good."
While many Americans wish to remain willingly ignorant, this poll shows us that when they are given a nuanced view of military engagement — which encompasses the potential consequences — then support for said engagement plummets.
This is why independent media is so important as most mainstream sources do not provide any nuance at all and instead parrot establishment talking points designed to bolster support for military action.
In order to avoid potential catastrophic consequences, we must do better by seeking a lesser ignorance and question the motives of everyone providing information. Yes, that means us too.