Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Americans back the US's defense commitment to other members of NATO (Poll)
YouGov ^ | Tue April 1, 2014 | Peter Moore

Posted on 04/01/2014 5:24:56 PM PDT by Matt_DZ_PL

Public backs continued NATO commitment (Poll)

Most Americans still back the US's defense commitment to other members of NATO, though doubts creep in when asked about specific countries

The Russian annexation of Crimea, which is still a part of Ukraine in the eyes of the international community, has raised fears in other former Soviet states that they may soon lose parts of their territory. Most of these countries don't have an alliance with the United States, but three - Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia - are members of NATO. As members of NATO the United States, along with Britain, France, Germany and other countries, would be bound to intervene and protect them against any outside threat. NATO has already begun to deploy extra forces in the three Baltic states. 

The latest research from YouGov shows that most Americans (60%) still support the American commitment to defend NATO allies if they are under attack, while 17% say that it is no longer necessary. Support is highest among Republicans (65%) and lowest among Independents (56%), while 60% of Democrats support the NATO commitment.

Ask about specific scenarios where the US might have to use military force to defend allies, and Americans become less willing to step in. 56% of Americans think that the US should use military force to defend Britain if they are attacked by Russia. Americans also tend to support stepping in to protect France (48%) and Poland (40%), but tend to oppose protecting Turkey and Latvia, both of which are NATO members. In fact, support for protecting Ukraine (22%), which is not a NATO member, is effectively at the same level as support for protecting NATO-member, and US ally, Latvia (21%).

   

 

 

 

 

 

Full poll results can be found here.

 


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: america; crimea; europeanunion; nato; poland; putinsbuttboys; russia; ukraine
Still, regardless of Mr. "Neville Chamberlain" in the White House, this poll gives me, me, a middle-aged Polish, some hope that if it comes to the crunch we won't be left alone as my grandparents were in 1939.

Anyway, hope dies last.

1 posted on 04/01/2014 5:24:56 PM PDT by Matt_DZ_PL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Matt_DZ_PL

Obama and Jimmy Carter are libertarian on foreign policy.


2 posted on 04/01/2014 5:33:01 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matt_DZ_PL

Interesting, the poll shows there is a big gap between maintaining the commitment to Europe and using force against Russia that needs to be addressed before the next election.


3 posted on 04/01/2014 5:47:39 PM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Matt_DZ_PL.


4 posted on 04/01/2014 6:00:53 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Obama is now making Jimmy Carter look like Attila the Hun. /focus/news/3138768/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Matt_DZ_PL

the VERY LAST THING the US needs is to get into a war with anybody with this fraud American destroying jackass in the WH. Guaranteed, it will not bode well for the US, in fact, the fraud may use it to further his distruction of this country


5 posted on 04/01/2014 6:02:24 PM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matt_DZ_PL

If we are expected to go to war on their behalf, then we should have a say in how their nations are run, especially their foreign policy.
Otherwise, they can drag us into a war we have no real say in preventing.

This is why alliances suck. Alliances only benefit the little nations by giving them access to a giant military to bail them out.


6 posted on 04/01/2014 7:11:13 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

“If we are expected to go to war on their behalf, then we should have a say in how their nations are run, especially their foreign policy”.

Well, you do actually.
What do you think - what kind of “strategic interests” did Poland have in Iraq or in Afghanistan - to send its troops out there?
From Poland’s perspective - wasn’t that “going to war on their behalf”? (”their” meaning “U.S.” in those cases).


7 posted on 04/02/2014 3:40:49 AM PDT by lizol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson