Suchergebnisse

Americans give higher priority to countering the power and influence of Russia and China and finding a solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians than they did six years ago, according to a new survey released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.Conversely, policies aimed at promoting human rights, protecting refugees, and strengthening the United Nations are not as compelling to many citizens as they were in 2018, according to the survey, which was conducted during the first week of April.At the same time, the survey of 3,600 adults found big differences of opinion between respondents who identified as Democrats and Republicans or as leaning toward either party, and between younger and older respondents of what they consider to be "top priorities" for long-term U.S. foreign policy aims.Democrats and younger participants in the survey were far more likely to rate climate change, defending human rights, and reducing U.S. military commitments overseas as "top priorities." Republicans and older voters, by contrast, were far more likely to rate containing China and Iran, supporting Israel, and "maintaining the U.S. military advantage over all other countries" as "top priorities."At the same time, the survey found that foreign policy did not appear to be as important to the general public this year as it appeared five years ago. Asked which is "more important for President Biden to focus on," 83% of respondents identified "domestic policy" over "foreign policy" (14% ). Asked the same question with respect to former President Trump in July 2019, respondents favored "domestic policy" by a narrower margin – 74% to 23%. A second poll of the same respondents released by Pew Tuesday found that views of the United Nations have become somewhat more negative over the past year, with only a slight majority (52%) voicing an overall "favorable" opinion of the world body, down from 57% one year ago. As in the "priorities" survey, the poll found major differences in political and age differences in opinions about the U.N., with Democrats and Democratic-leaning and younger respondents having significantly more favorable views than their Republican and older counterparts. The poll also found that respondents with more education were also more likely to have a favorable opinion of the U.N. than less educated respondents, although the differences were not nearly as great as the partisan and age gaps.In the first survey, respondents were asked to rate a total of 22 long-range foreign policy goals by whether they should be considered "top priority," "some priority," and "no priority." Of the 22 goals listed this year, six had not been listed in previous surveys by Pew, so comparisons with past sentiment could not be made. Three of the new goals – "strengthening NATO," "supporting Israel," and "supporting Ukraine" – were directly relevant to ongoing conflicts that have dominated headlines but were far less salient three years ago when Pew last conducted a "priorities" poll.As in previous surveys of this kind, particularly since 9/11, two of the three goals that were rated "top priority" the most respondents were "taking measures to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks" (73%) and "preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction" (63%). "Reducing the flow of illegal drugs into our country" – a new goal not previously listed – was rated as a "top priority" by 64% of respondents (although only 34% of the youngest respondents (18-29 years old) agreed with that assessment).Other goals that were rated by a majority as a "top priority" included "maintaining the U.S. military advantage over all other countries" (53%), "reducing the spread of infectious diseases"(52%), "limiting the power and influence" of Russia (50%) and China (49%). The biggest differences between the latest "top priority" goals and those that Pew found in 2018 included containing China's influence and power, which rose from 32% six years ago to 49% ; finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict (from 18% to 29%); and containing Russia (from 42% to 50%). Support for maintaining U.S. military primacy also rose by a more modest 4% over the six years, although the goal of "getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order," also rose two points to 42%.The survey also bolstered the notion that younger Americans are significantly more idealistic than their older counterparts. Besides the goal of staunching the flow of illegal drugs, differences of 40 percentage points or more between the pool of respondents aged 18-29 and the oldest group (65 and older) were found with respect to containing China (28% versus 72%), "limiting the power and influence of Iran" (17% versus 61%), and maintaining U.S. military primacy (31% versus 71%). The youngest respondents were also considerably less concerned about containing Russia and North Korea, and "supporting Israel" was rated a "top priority" by only 7% of the youngest group.Partisan differences were often almost as great, although the 55-percentage point gap between Democrat- and Republican-inclined respondents over "dealing with climate change" as a "top priority" (70% versus 15%) was particularly dramatic. Gaps of 20% or more were found on "supporting Israel" (8% Democratic versus 39% Republican), reducing illegal drugs (51% versus 79%), maintaining military primacy (41% versus 68%, "supporting Ukraine" (37% versus 12%), aiding refugees (30% versus 7%), fighting diseases (63% versus 41%), defending human rights (36% versus 15%), getting other countries to bear costs of maintain world order (54% versus 33%), strengthening the UN (40% versus 20%), and containing Iran (29% versus 49%).

Total military spending by nations reached a record high of $2.443 trillion in 2023, according to a new report released Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, or SIPRI.Across the globe, military expenditures increased by 6.8% in real terms over 2022, the steepest rise since 2009, according to the Swedish think tank which has tracked the military spending by countries based on open sources since the 1960s. Every region saw an increase, but Europe, Asia and Oceania, and the Middle East saw the greatest growth.."The unprecedented rise in military spending is a direct response to the global deterioration in peace and security," according to Nan Tian, the report's senior author. "States are prioritizing military strength but they risk an action-reaction spiral in the increasingly volatile geopolitical and security landscape," he added.As in the recent past, the United States topped the list of military spenders at $916 billion. It was followed by China with an estimated $296 billion, Russia at an estimated $109 billion, and India at $83.6 billion. A perennial major arms buyer, Saudi Arabia, at an estimated $75.8 billion, came in fifth, with the United Kingdom ($74.9 billion), Germany ($66.8 billion), Ukraine ($64.8 billion, not including an additional $35 billion in military aid from the U.S. and its NATO partners), and France ($61.3 billion), close behind.As a percentage of global gross domestic product, or GDP, military spending rose by 2.3% in 2023, and world military spending per person was the highest since 1990, as the Cold War was coming to an end, at $306.The total of nearly $2.5 trillion was roughly double the amount that the world committed to dealing with climate change which many governments in the Global South, in particular, consider the greatest threat to their security. Global climate-related financing reached a record high in 2021-2022, surpassing $1 trillion for the first time to nearly $1.3 trillion, according to a report issued by the Climate Policy Initiative late last year. The report, however, noted that increases fall far short of what will be needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.Military spending by NATO's 31 member states, according to the new SIPRI report, accounted for a total of $1.31 trillion dollars, or 55% of global military expenditures. The United States made up more than two-thirds (68%) of NATO's total military budget, while European NATO members accounted for an additional 28%, the highest percentage in the past decade. Turkey and Canada made up the remaining 4% A decade after NATO members committed themselves to spending at least 2% of their GDP on their militaries, 11 had met or surpassed that target in 2023, according to the report. "For European NATO states, the past two years of war in Ukraine have fundamentally changed their security outlook," according to one of the researchers, Lorenzo Scarazzato. "This shift in threat perception is reflected in growing shares of GDRP being directed toward military spending, with the NATO target of two percent increasingly being seen as a baseline rather than a threshold to reach."In 2023, Russian military spending increased by 24%, according to the report, capping a 57% increase since 2014, when Moscow annexed Crimea. The military budget accounted for 5.9% of GDP in 2023, a fraction of the 37% of GDP that Ukraine spent on its military, not including the external aid it received. If that aid is taken into account, the total amount devoted to Ukraine's military reached around $100 billion, or 91% of Moscow's military budget.With an estimated nearly $300 billion military budget, China accounted for half of total military spending across the Asia and Oceania region in 2023, according to the report. That amount marked a 6% increase over 2022 and the 29th successive year of increases in Beijing's military budget.The report noted that several of China's neighbors appear to be linking their own military spending to China's. The world's tenth biggest military spender in 2023, Japan increased its budget by 11% to $50.2 billion over 2022. Taiwan increased its military spending to $16.6 billion, also an 11% increase. As for the Middle East, total military spending in 2023 increased by 9% overall, to $200 billion, the region's highest annual growth rate of the past decade.Israel increased its budget by 24% , to $27.5 billion, as a result of the war in Gaza, making it the world's 15th largest military spender, just ahead of Canada, and well ahead of region's third biggest spender, Turkey, which also increased its military budget, to nearly $16 billion. Iran's spending increased only marginally (0.6%) to an estimated $10.3 billion, of which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was allocated 37%.Military spending, according to the report, has also increased in the Americas, particularly as in Central America and Mexico whose governments have tried to beef up their security forces against organized crime over the past decade. The report stated that military budgets have grown by about 55% in those countries since 2014. Brazil increased its military spending last year by 3.1% to nearly $23 billion, as its Congress has submitted a constitutional amendment that would increase the military budget to an annual minimum of 2% of GDP.

Despite serious concerns about possible Israeli war crimes and even "plausible" allegations of genocidal acts in its war in the Gaza Strip, the former chief of U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, has accepted a fellowship from one of Washington's most hawkish pro-Israel organizations.The Jewish Institute for National Security of America, or JINSA, announced last week that Gen. Frank McKenzie, who led CENTCOM from 2019 to April 2022, would become the Hertog Distinguished Fellow at JINSA's Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy.JINSA, which was a major promoter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq 21 years ago (when its name was the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), has also long championed more confrontational military policies toward Iran, including providing Israel with the means to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and supporting it if it chooses to do so."We are thrilled and honored to have Gen [sic] McKenzie join JINSA," said Michael Makovsky, the group's president and CEO. "As a former CENTCOM commander and J-5, he will be an invaluable source and contributor to JINSA's work on U.S. strategic challenges and opportunities in the Mideast, and how to bolster the U.S.-Israel security relationship."JINSA's press release also highlighted McKenzie's oversight as CENTCOM commander of the "killing of Iran's Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani" in January 2020.Aside from promoting pro-Israel policy positions, JINSA's main work has consisted of conducting educational programs and exchanges between U.S. and Israeli military officers since its founding nearly 50 years ago. "JINSA believes that Israel is the most capable and critical U.S. security partner in the 21st century and that a strong America is the best guarantor of Western civilization," according to its current mission statement.During the current Gaza war, JINSA has produced a steady stream of webinars featuring, among others, senior Israeli retired military officers, and near-daily email updates on "Operation Swords of Iron," virtually all of which echo the Israeli government's version of its campaign. JINSA also defend Israel against growing charges by international human rights groups and U.N. experts that its armed forces are guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide evidence for which was deemed "plausible" in January by the International Court of Justice.McKenzie is the first former CENTCOM commander to associate himself formally with JINSA, although the group's roster of "experts," includes several other former regional commanders, including Adm. James Stavridis who served as commanders of both SOUTHCOM and EUCOM, and the former AFRICOM commander, Gen. David Rodriguez. Among other experts are former deputy EUCOM commander Air Force Gen. Charles "Chuck" Wald, who has published a number of op-eds in prominent newspapers over the past dozen years urging U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear program.Aside from retired senior military officers, JINSA's experts feature well-known neoconservatives, a number of whom served in various capacities in the George W. Bush administration and played important roles in promoting the 2003 Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. They include Elliott Abrams, who oversaw U.S. policy in the Middle East on the National Security Council, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who served as former Vice President Dick Cheney's national security adviser until his indictment for perjury, John Hannah, who succeeded Libby in Cheney's office, Eric Edelman, who served as Cheney's deputy national security adviser and then as under secretary of defense policy under then-Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.Makovsky, JINSA's director, moved to Israel as a young man and subsequently worked on Iraq in the Pentagon under Rumsfeld before becoming foreign policy director at the Bipartisan Policy Center where he headed a task force that produced a series of extraordinarily hawkish reports on Iran beginning in 2008. He moved most of the BPC task force staff and advisers to JINSA when he took it over in 2013.For JINSA, McKenzie's acceptance of a fellowship amounts to a real catch, given his recent service as chief of CENTCOM, whose domain stretches from Egypt to Pakistan and Central Asia. Under his command, Israel, which had come under EUCOM's jurisdiction for decades (due to the hostility of most of the region's Arab states), was integrated into CENTCOM — a major priority for both Israel and JINSA and one made possible by the 2020 Abraham Accords under which the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain normalized relations with Israel. As one JINSA report put it, Israel's inclusion "will enable strategic and operational coordination among the United States, Israel and our Arab partners throughout the region against Iran and other serious shared threats."As noted in Makovsky's announcement, McKenzie also oversaw the assassination of Soleimani, a particularly effective organizer and coordinator of Shi'a militias in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, in an operation reportedly aided by Israeli intelligence. And, of course, McKenzie's direct work with the IDF and the military brass of "our Arab partners," authoritarian regimes of the kind long favored by Israel, can only serve to enhance JINSA's work and that of its Israeli Distinguished Fellows, such as Major Gen. Amikam Norkin, a former commander of the Israeli Air Force and member of the IDF General Staff, and Major Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror, a 36-year IDF veteran who also served as Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu's national security adviser and who is regularly featured on JINSA's webinars as a commentator on the IDF's Gaza war.While McKenzie was always careful not to publicly question or contradict U.S. policy while CENTCOM commander, he has been more vocal during retirement. Between the outset of Israel's Gaza war and early February, he was particularly critical of what he described as the Biden administration's "mush" response to attacks on U.S. outposts by pro-Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq and by Houthi rebels in Yemen on shipping in the Red Sea. Recalling what he characterized as Iran's "back[ing] down" after Soleimani's assassination — others would question that characterization — McKenzie argued in the ultra-hawkish opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal that "[t]o reset deterrence, we must apply violence that Tehran understands. …Iranians understand steel." While that no doubt sounds like music to the ears of JINSA's neoconservative funders and experts, McKenzie has also sung somewhat more dissonant notes. On CBS News' "Face the Nation" last month, he clarified that he was "not advocating for striking Iran," but rather not to entirely rule that out that possibility. Even more discordant with JINSA's approach to the Gaza war, he implicitly criticized Israel's ongoing campaign — not, notably because of the appalling civilian toll and destruction it has created — but rather for its leaders' failure to conceive a "vision of an end-state when you begin a military campaign.""And I would argue that needs to be something like a two-state solution. You're going to need help from the Arab nations in the region to go in there and …do something in Gaza. I think Israeli occupation would be the least desirable of all outcomes," he said.Conversely, JINSA and Abrams' similarly hawkish Vandenberg Coalition have been hyping their recent joint plan for an "end-state." While they agreed that Arab states, notably Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, should indeed oversee (and fund) Gaza's relief, reconstruction, and "deradicalization," security, in their opinion, should be provided by "capable national forces from outside the Middle East and/or private security contractors" in close coordination with Israel which, however, would retain its "freedom of military action throughout the Strip." Or occupation by another name.As for a two-state solution, the report agrees that endorsement of a "long-term political horizon for two states" should be recognized by all concerned. But "rushing ahead with glossy and cosmetic quick fixes, high-level diplomatic gambits, elections, and reunification of the West Bank and Gaza will almost certainly backfire across the board," according to the report, which envisions "an arduous and lengthy process" even before "a revived peace process."Meanwhile, whatever "coalition of the willing" that can be cobbled together to oversee Gaza should focus even more importantly on "strengthening shared U.S.-Israel-Arab interests in resisting Iran-led hegemony," according to the report, an approach that clearly plays to McKenzie's CENTCOM strengths.

Several key architects of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq 21 years ago are presenting a plan for rebuilding and "de-radicalizing" the surviving population of Gaza, while ensuring that Israel retains "freedom of action" to continue operations against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.The plan, which was published as a report Thursday by the hard-line neo-conservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, or JINSA, and the Vandenberg Coalition, is calling for the creation of a private entity, the "International Trust for Gaza Relief and Reconstruction" to be led by "a group of Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates" and "supported by the United States and other nations."With regard to Palestinian participation, the report by the "Gaza Futures Task Force," envisages an advisory board "composed primarily of non-Hamas Gazans from Gaza, the West Bank, and diaspora." In addition, the Palestinian Authority, which is based on the West Bank, "should be consulted in, and publicly bless," the creation of the Trust while itself undergoing a process of "revamping."In addition to granting Israel license to intervene against Hamas and Islamic Jihad within Gaza, the plan calls for security to be provided by the Trust's leaders and "capable forces from non-regional states with close ties to Israel," as well as "vetted Gazans." The Trust should also be empowered to "hire private security contractors with good reputations among Western militaries" in "close coordination with Israeli security forces," according to the report.The task force that produced the report consists of nine members, four of whom played key roles as Middle East policymakers under former President George W. Bush and in the run-up to and aftermath of the disastrous Iraq invasion in 2003. The group is chaired by John Hannah, who served as deputy national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney from 2001 to 2005 and then as Cheney's national security advisor (2005-2009), replacing Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who resigned his position after being indicted for perjury. Libby, who was later given a full pardon by former President Donald Trump, is also a member of the Gaza task force. Another prominent member of the task force is the founder and chairman of the hawkish Vandenberg Coalition, Elliott Abrams, who served as the senior director for Near East and North African Affairs in the National Security Council under Bush from 2002 to 2009 and more recently as the Special Envoy for Venezuela and Iran under Trump. Ironically, Abrams, who also served as the NSC's Senior Director for Democracy under Bush, played a key role in supporting an attempted armed coup by Hamas's chief rival, Fatah, in 2007 after Hamas swept the 2006 Palestinian elections. The coup attempt sparked a brief but bloody civil war in Gaza, which eventually resulted in Hamas' consolidation of power in the Strip.Amb. Eric Edelman (ret.), a fourth member of the task force, served as Cheney's principal deputy national security adviser from 2001 to 2003 and then as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the number three position at the Pentagon, under Rumsfeld and his successor, Robert Gates, from 2005 to 2009, as U.S. troops struggled to contain the mainly Sunni resistance to the U.S. occupation in Iraq.In addition to their collaboration during the Bush administration, the four men have long been associated with strongly pro-Israel neoconservative groups, having served on the boards or in advisory positions for such organizations and think tanks as the Hudson Institute, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the ultra-hawkish Center for Security Policy, as well as the Vandenberg Coalition and JINSA. Indeed, such groups have promoted policies that have been generally aligned with those of the Likud Party led by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.Thus, the report's "key findings" prioritize as considerations: [these are quotes]restoring the deterrence and security needs of Israel, both for its own people and its standing as a powerful regional ally and essential component of resisting Iran's ambitions; and dismantling Hamas as a military and governing force and protecting against its reconstitution through Israel's continued freedom of action against it and against Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and by de-militarizing, de-radicalizing, and improving conditions in Gaza such that major terrorist attacks like October 7 can't and won't happen again…Its proposed Trust, according to the report, should involve the United States and concerned states that accept Israel's role in the region" and "should provide the humanitarian assistance and help to restore essential services and rebuild civil society in Gaza as intense combat and over subsequent months. Its activities should be governed by an international board composed of 3 to 7 representatives from the key states supporting the Trust, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others. At least one notable omission from the list is Qatar, which has provided tens billions of dollars in assistance to Gaza over the last decade.In an echo of Washington's disastrous de-Baathification campaign in occupied Iraq, the report puts special stress on "deradicalization" efforts. "The Trust, recognizing that years of radicalization by Hamas has complicated the task of reforming and restoring Gaza, should focus on a long-term program for deradicalizing the media, schools and mosques," according to the report which adds that "Gazans and the Gazan diaspora should play an active role in developing and implementing these plans, alongside the Trust's Arab members who have hands-on experience in successful deradicalization efforts in their own societies." Such efforts in Gaza, it goes on, could "serve as a model to encourage a similar program there that will be essential if a credible two-state solution is to be revived."The task force urges the Trust to coordinate with other states' efforts and with those of NGOs and international organizations, including the United Nations. But, in an echo of a key Likud talking point, "it should recognize that the activities of UNRWA serve to perpetuate and deepen the Palestinian crisis." The report said UNRWA's immediate assistance in providing relief may be necessary, but "plans to replace it with local Palestinian institutions or other international organizations committed to peace should be developed and implemented."All of these efforts should be pursued within the more general context of countering "Iran's aggressive campaign to derail regional peace efforts, including by constraining the threat posed by Hezbollah and resuming progress toward normalizing Israel and Saudi Arabia," according to the report.

Europeans have become increasingly pessimistic about the chances that Ukraine can recover territories that it has lost since the Russian invasion two years ago, according to a new poll of 12 EU member states.And an aggregate average of 41 percent of respondents in the 12 countries said they would prefer that Europe "push Ukraine towards negotiating a peace with Russia" compared to 31 percent who said Europe "should support Ukraine in taking back the territories occupied by Russia."The poll, which was released by the European Council on Foreign Relations Wednesday, was conducted during the first half of January, before the latest advances by Russian forces in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine, notably in their takeover of the town of Avdiivka, which is likely to add to the impression that Kyiv is increasingly on the defensive.The survey interviewed a total of more than 17,000 adults in the 12 countries, which included Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden.It found that continued support for Ukraine's war aims was strongest in Sweden, Portugal, and Poland where pluralities of respondents said Europe should support Kyiv's efforts to take back its territory. Support was weakest in Austria, Romania, Italy, Greece, and Hungary, where significant pluralities or large majorities in the five countries said Europe should focus on achieving a negotiated settlement. In France, Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany, opinion was more divided between the two alternatives.The poll's results offered a marked contrast to previous polling by ECFR, according to Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard, co-authors of a report released with the survey. In June 2022, ECFR found that many Europeans favored a quick resolution to the war, even if that meant Ukraine would have to give up territory. But buoyed by Ukraine's battlefield successes in regaining territory one year later, a subsequent poll in 2023 found that a plurality of respondents in nine EU countries that were surveyed at the time wanted to support Ukraine's war aims and believed they were achievable."Now, in the aftermath of Ukraine's disappointing counteroffensive and amid flagging support in Western capitals, some of that optimism seems to have dissipated," according to the two co-authors.Indeed, an aggregate average of only ten percent of respondents in the new poll now believe that Ukraine will defeat Russia, while twice as many, or 20 percent, believe that Moscow will prevail. Across all countries, a plurality of respondents (37 percent on average) believes that a compromise settlement between the two countries will be the most likely outcome.The survey also queried respondents on the impact of a possible victory by former president Donald Trump in November's U.S. elections on the Ukraine war. An aggregate average of 43 percent of respondents said a new Trump presidency would make a Ukrainian victory "less likely." Asked what Europe should do if Trump were to end U.S. aid to Ukraine, an aggregate average of 41 percent respondents said they would favor maintaining (21 percent) or increasing (20 percent) aid to Kyiv, while a third of respondents said they would prefer to follow the U.S. in limiting assistance.

A major survey of 11 European countries, the United States, Russia, and eight emerging regional powers has found that majorities or pluralities in most countries prefer to work with the United States over China on a broad range of issues. But China remains particularly attractive as a trade and economic partner, especially among publics in non-European middle powers.The poll, which was conducted in September and early October, found that geopolitical alliances have become "more fractured and complex" in that national publics generally reject previous "bipolar framings" of the world order."The poll shows that Europe and America are perceived, globally, as more attractive and having more admirable values than both China and Russia, but that this perception does not necessarily translate into political alignment," according to an analysis that accompanied the results."The findings suggest that we have entered an 'a la carte' world, where states mix and match their partners on different issues, rather than committing to a simple allegiance to one side or the other," according to the report, entitled "Living in an a la carte world: What European policymakers should learn from global public opinion."The survey, which was sponsored by the European Council on Foreign Relations in cooperation with Oxford University's Europe in a Changing World Project, polled at least 1,000 respondents in each of the countries that was covered. European countries surveyed included Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and Great Britain.Besides Russia and the U.S., the "non-European" countries included China, India, Turkey, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, South Korean, and Brazil. Altogether, more than 25,000 respondents took part.The survey found a significant difference between the Western and non-Western countries regarding prospects for their respective futures. Majorities or pluralities in Western countries (and South Korea) were generally pessimistic about their countries' futures, while majorities of respondents in India (86%), Indonesia (74%), China (69%), and Russia (54%) and a plurality in Brazil (40%) expressed confidence in their own country's prospects.At the same time, however, significant majorities of respondents in five of the non-Western countries — South Korea (75%), Turkey (71%), Brazil (68%) South Africa (65%) and Saudi Arabia (62%) said they would prefer to live in the U.S. or an EU country rather than Russia or China if they were forced to choose.Majorities in the same countries plus India (80%), ranging from 50% in Saudi Arabia to 82% in South Korea, also said they would prefer their countries being part of an American bloc rather than aligned with China and its partners. A majority of Russian respondents, on the other hand, said they would choose China, while respondents in Indonesia were divided on the question.Similarly, on human rights, strong majorities of respondents in South Korea, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey, as well as a plurality (38%) in Saudi Arabia, said they prefer that their country be closer to the U.S. and its allies than to China and its partners on this issue. And similar majorities or pluralities, including Indonesia (38%,) indicated a desire to be closer to the U.S. than China with respect to security cooperation.At the same time, however, Beijing's attraction as a trading partner was greater than Washington's in Russia (75%), Saudi Arabia (60%), Indonesia (53%), and Turkey (50%), while respondents in South Korea were roughly equally divided. Only respondents in India and Brazil said they leaned towards the U.S. on the question.Despite the generally pro-Western responses by non-European respondents, they appeared to share the views of Western respondents that the West was in a state of general decline. Thus, outside Europe, 41% of respondents said they believed the European Union may "fall apart" in the next 20 years — a view most strongly held in China (67%), Saudi Arabia (62%), and Russia (54%). Majorities or pluralities in the non-Western states also said they believed that democracy in the U.S. could be lost within the same time period.Views about the EU's decline appeared to be partly correlate with the view that Russia could eventually prevail in the war in Ukraine. Nearly three quarters of non-Europeans who said they believe the EU could fall apart also anticipate Moscow's victory in the war.The survey found a significant gap between U.S. and European respondents regarding Ukraine. On average, one third of European respondents and 42% of U.S. respondents said they believe Ukraine needs to regain all its territory even if it means a longer war and its attendant costs, percentages that were greater than those Western respondents who said the war should end as soon as possible, even at the cost of Kyiv giving up territory.But the dominant view in the non-Western countries is precisely that the war should end as soon as possible. Significantly, majorities in Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey and pluralities in South Africa and Indonesia believe the U.S. is "already at war" with Russia.Moreover, large majorities in China (82%), Russia (71%), and Saudi Arabia (57%), and pluralities in Indonesia (46%), South Africa (59%), Turkey (49%), and India (39%) see the U.S., EU, or Ukraine as the greatest obstacle to peace in the war.

An open letter released Wednesday signed by more than 100 veterans of the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, ex-military officers, and former Republican lawmakers and activists called for fellow conservatives and congressional Republicans to support increased military aid to Ukraine and criticized President Biden for "seem[ing] more concerned about the prospects of a Russian defeat than of a Russian victory."The letter, initiated by the "nonpartisan" Vandenberg Coalition, a "network" of hawkish foreign policy think tankers and former officials convened by long-time neo-conservative Elliott Abrams, was directed primarily at "conservative" lawmakers and their constituents who have appeared increasingly resistant to providing more aid to Kyiv."Abandoning America's friends while they are falling victim to aggression is a pattern associated with the American left, from Vietnam to Afghanistan," according to the letter."Conservatives should not be rushing to lock arms with progressive isolationists. The security of Asia and of Europe are linked, which is why the elected leaders of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia have all sent aid to Ukraine. We support urgent, robust additional American aid to Ukraine," it concluded.Published in The National Review, the letter comes in the immediate aftermath of "the House GOP's decision not to include further funding to support Kyiv and its war effort" in the stopgap government funding bill that was passed last weekend and the ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who had allegedly quietly agreed with the Biden administration to push for additional funding for Ukraine in the coming weeks.According to a September 7-18 poll released Tuesday by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll, about 50% of self-identified Republicans nationwide support continued military aid to Ukraine, while 45% or Republican respondents said the aid to date "has not been worth the cost." Overall, Republican respondents were significantly more skeptical of U.S. support for Ukraine than self-identified Democrats or independents.The Vandenberg Coalition was created by Abrams — who served as "special representative" for both Venezuela and Iran under Trump and deputy national security adviser with particular responsibility for Middle East policy under Bush — in April, 2021 with the evident intention of reuniting predominantly neoconservative "Never Trumpers" with other hawkish Republicans who had served under or otherwise supported the former president behind a policy of confrontation with Russia, China, Iran, and other perceived U.S. adversaries. The initiative took its name from Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a conservative Michigan Republican who, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, worked with the Truman administration to gain congressional backing for the Marshall Plan and NATO after World War II.The Coalition appears to model itself in part on the Project for the New American Century (1997-2006) and its successor, the Foreign Policy Initiative (2009-2017), as a mainly neoconservative network for hawks of various ideological backgrounds, including primacists, aggressive nationalists, such as Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton and prominent leaders of the Christian Right, to exchange information and analysis and publish "open letters" signed by dozens of former senior national security officials, retired military brass, Republican lawmakers, and analysts from various think tanks.In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, PNAC's letters and their signatories based in key think tanks — notably the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Hudson Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Foundation for Defending of Democracies (FDD), and the Center for Security Policy — played key roles in building public and elite support for the Bush administration's "war on terror," especially in the Middle East.The new Vandenberg letter appears to follow that playbook, although it is directed more at "conservatives" and Republicans rather than a more general audience.Among the more than 100 signatories, many of whom were identified by their former official positions in the Bush and Trump administrations rather than their past or current non-governmental affiliations, a number of individuals based at several of the same think tanks that played such a prominent role in promoting the Iraq war, including Danielle Pletka, Gary Schmitt, and Michael Rubin at AEI; Clifford May and at FDD, and Kenneth Weinstein at Hudson, not to mention Abrams himself, who is currently based at the Council on Foreign Relations, stood out.Remarkably, the list also included Randy Scheunemann, who directed the high-powered White House-sponsored Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in the run-up to the war at the same time that he headed a public relations and lobbying firm that promoted Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, a major source of fabricated intelligence and disinformation that the Bush administration used to rally public opinion in favor of the invasion.In the letter, its signatories stressed the likelihood of disastrous outcomes across the world if Ukraine did not receive more U.S. military assistance and stressed that Kyiv is "not asking for American troops, only American weapons and equipment.""Efforts to stop our aid to Ukraine could lead to a Russian battlefield victory, with catastrophic effects for American security," it warned. "Putin would eye the next stage of the Russian empire's restoration, and China would have a green light to take Taiwan."The Coalition has published two other letters signed by multiple individuals. In February 2022, it published an open letter signed by more than three dozen mainly neoconservative former Bush administration officials and think tankers that called a major Amnesty International report that concluded that Israel was practicing a form of apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians "untruthful, deceptive, and antisemitic."In January, it published a letter directed to the "editors, authors, and contributors to major scientific, medical and journalistic publications worldwide" that called for "accountability for those scientific and news publications that actively sought to censor voices investigating the origins of COVID-19."The Coalition's most recent letter and its focus on "conservative" reservations about supporting Ukraine recalls to some extent a 1996 Foreign Affairs article, "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," by leading neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan who were concerned that conservatives would be unable to "resist the combined assault of [then-presidential candidate Pat] Buchanan's 'isolationism of the heart" and the Republican budget hawks on Capitol Hill." The article argued in favor of a U.S. foreign policy designed to maintain a "benevolent global hegemony."One year later, the two authors jointly founded PNAC with a Statement of Principles signed by, among others, key architects of the Iraq invasion and its aftermath, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Abrams.