This article explores political idiosyncratic differences between the US and EU countries, including the political conduct of government elites, and which may determine a divergent decision-making (US vs EU) regarding Ukraine and recent threats of a military confrontation between NATO and Russia. It touches upon issues such as degrees of xenophobic behaviour towards Russia, and different degrees of democratic accountability and freedom of expression in the US vs the EU.
By Professor Emeritus Marcello Ferrada de Noli (Sweden), The Indicter chief-editor
Background – chronology of the events
Amidst US President Joe Biden’s statements that his government was “working on lifting the restrictions of the use of long-range missiles in Russia”,[1] US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy travelled to Kiev to held meetings with Zelensky on the same issue, all which was widely publisized. The day after (12 Sept 2024), British Prime Minister Starmer departed to Washington, expecting Biden to back his plan to at least allow British Storm Shadow missiles in Ukraine “to hit deeper inside Russia”.[2] Meanwhile, the New York Times headlines announced, “Biden Poised to Approve Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Western Weapons in Russia”.[3] The phrasing meaning was unequivocal: “Everything is set up for the approval to happen, Essentially, the approval is imminent…”
All the above caused an immediate response from the part of Russia. President Vladimir Putin declared from Saint Petersburg:[4]
“If this decision is made, it will mean nothing short of direct involvement — it will mean that NATO countries, the United States and European countries are parties to the war in Ukraine…This will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”
A day after, Russia announced the re-assumption of nuclear testing “at any moment”.[4]
Anti-war protests in the US…and in Europe?
Even if the terms are not exactly comparable to the present threat –of fear– about a nuclear confrontation, the statements exchange US/Russia of September 12 reminded me vividly what we experienced between October 16 and October 28, 1962, when the Cuban Missile Crisis took place. Then, it was Khrushchev that backed; now it seems being the White House. The question is, does this current “clinking of sabres” has the same positive echo in the American people as it currently is among European government elites?
Having lived in the US years ago while working at Harvard Med School in Boston, I also interacted with Americans well beyond the academic sphere, and in other latitudes. I found those people generally friendly, honest, educated and well mannered. Even considering that my range of social references was not large, it was though multifaceted, and my impression was that those people I related with were predominantly for peace and despise warmongering. For example, in present times, 61% of Americans said they were in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza (70% of Democrats).[5]
Experiences as the Vietnam war, Iraq war, or Afghanistan war, and now the NATO proxy war in Ukraine or the interventions on behalf of Israel in the Middle East, have routinely given birth in the US to some massive protests, beyond traditional university student movements. One example referred to the Ukraine conflict is the massive protest demanding end to US military support for Ukraine, of February 19, 2023, in Washington. [6]
By contrast, in the EU, 27 countries with a total population of 449.2 million (wich largely exceeds that of the US), only in Germany, [7] as well as in Hungary [8], and to a minor extent also in Italy, could we record massive anti-war demonstrations protesting the sending of weapons to Ukraine.
On the other hand, there have been protests almost all over EU country capitals Europe in support to the belligerent Ukrainian side in the war and “condemning Putin”.[9] I discuss this further below, in relation to the freedom of expression issue, why the EU folks, with rare exceptions, do not seem mobilized in truly anti-war efforts.
One exception: Budapest, June 24, 2024. AP Photos / Denes Erdos
As per July 29, 2024, according to a Pew Research Center report, more Americans overall think that the U.S. does not have “a responsibility to help Ukraine”.[10] Another finding in the Pew Research Center of December 2023 had already suggested that “the US public is tiring of the fight”,[11] establishing that only 18% of the Americans favoured an increase in the aid to Ukraine.[12]
Conversely, in the European Union a majority (55%) of its citizens “agree with providing weapons to Ukraine” (72% in Poland).[13] Exceptionally, only in Italy, 60% of Italians disagree with the idea of the EU offering weapons to Ukraine).[14]
Perhaps another indicator that would measure a population support or proneness to war events, is the recruitment situation. Military recruiting services in the US are progressively missing their programmed goals, and by June 2023 they faced a “deficit” of over 40,000 recruits.[15] Better “life options” amidst an increasing economy has in years before given as one explanation for this decline. But, as the economy issues stand now in the US, that explanation fails invalid for present times.
Amidst this panorama, this would be the first time that a main presidential candidate (Trump) bases his campaign –among other items– in the necessity to avert war, and hinting on the suspension of military aid to Ukraine.
In contrast, here below a vignette of EU official media headlines [“MEP” stands for “Members of the European Parliament]:[16]
- “Newly elected Parliament reaffirms its strong support for Ukraine”. 17 Jul 2024.
- “President Metsola’s visit in Kyiv on Europe Day demonstrated the European Parliament’s continued support and commitment to Ukraine…” 9 May 2024.
- “Parliament calls on the EU to give Ukraine whatever it needs to defeat Russia”. 29 Feb 2024.
- “President Iohannis: “We must stand by Ukraine and its people”. 7 Feb 2024.
- “EU Parliament wants tougher enforcement of EU sanctions against Russia”. 9 Nov 2023.
- “Czech President Pavel to MEPs: If Ukraine fails, so will we”. 4 Oct 2023.
- “MEPs approve plans to provide more ammunition for Ukraine”.13 Jul 2023.
- “Roberta Metsola: “Solidarity with Ukraine must remain at the top of our agenda”. 29 Jun 2023.
- “Lithuania’s President Nausėda: Ukraine’s fight is also our fight”. 14 Mar 2023.
- “Provide Ukraine with military aid for as long as necessary, MEPs say”. 14 Feb 2023.
- “MEP McAllister (Germany): We will support Ukraine for as long as it takes”. 30 Jan 2023.
- “MEPs call for massive increase of military assistance to Ukraine”. 6 Oct 2022.
Differences in accountability
I also found that, even considering the traditional deficits inherent to modern representative democracies, the relationship elected/electors in terms of accountability are relatively higher in the US compared with the EU countries. To the best of my knowledge, once MPs are elected, there is not a tradition in Europe (except perhaps in the UK), that the elected must inform and interact routinely with their constituencies. In my opinion, governments in Europe seem to care less about what their people would think regarding strategic matters.
I will illustrate with one case that took place in the EU-country Sweden. Sweden applied for NATO membership in May 2022, a short time after –and giving it as reason– the initiation of the Russian military operation in Ukraine. The decision was taken by the government after a rapid consultation with the Riksdag (the Swedish national parliament), and without calling a national referendum (as it had been the case with the entrance to the EU, the Euro Zone etc.).
At the occasion of the vote in the Riksdag (May 16, 2022) there were 349 members of the Swedish parliament. The MPs had been elected in the general elections of Sweden that took place on September 9, 2018. Of those 349 elected MPs, 144 candidates belonged to political parties (Social democrats, the Left party, and the Greens) known for their long-time public opposition to any NATO membership. Further, the stance against a NATO-membership for Sweden was prominent in their electoral campaigns. Meaning, they were elected by the Swedish people also, or precisely, because that political stance.
However, at the occasion of the vote at the Riksdag, many of those elected for their anti-NATO-membership stance voted for the government proposition.
The Swedish people could have had the possibility to correct that via a direct referendum. But the Swedish authorities refused to call such referendum implying the possibility of a “Russian interference” in the discussions.
For their part, the people remained silent. No demonstrations against that deed, no recusing of elected MPs, nothing. That is the way alienated masses perceive political correctness.
For my part, I sent to the press a critical op-ed about the referendum issue. Its publication was of course compact denied by the Swedish mainstream media. Finally, it was published in Consortium News (US) and in The Indicter. But not in Sweden.[17]
It is that what I mean with lack of necessary accountability, and transparency, in the relationships between the European people and their political authorities.
Schooling matters
I would say that average US politicians are generally university educated and well informed. Ergo, they ultimately are – or should be – more bound to grasp the full extent of the consequences of a nuclear war, and aware of the issue of survival of their constituencies. And, because possessing higher education has per se nothing to do with ethics, also the hawks lobbying on behalf of the profit of the war industry can avoid being well informed on the ultimate consequences of the use of the weaponry they advocate for. In my opinion, that would be one of main reasons why the Biden government finally backed on the issue of long-distant missiles for Ukraine. He was advised of the consequences. Meanwhile in Europe, the average position of those in power is to go ahead with such attacks –apparently without measuring the consequences. The record of “impulsive” (versus “rational”) geopolitical reactions from the part of those in power in the EU is well known.
A true awareness based in technical knowledge –not only on strategic or geopolitical issues- about the prospective consequences of a nuclear escalation for the American population, was surely behind the seeming cautiousness observed by the American side in the meeting Biden/Starmer of Friday 13 October in the White House. They must have well understood, technically, militarily and strategically, the lapidary meaning of the Russian ultimatum (i.e., Putin, Sept 12). As said by Kirby himself around that occasion, the US has taken Putin’s warnings “seriously”.[18]
Reading European media from different EU countries, one gets the impression that either our government elites do not understand the scope of a military confrontation NATO/Russia –which inherently conveys a severe risk of nuclear war and its deplorable, fatal consequences for all in our countries– or simply they are “playing tuff” in front the eyes of the EU cupola, to preserve their local positions of power.
So, one relevant question here is, do they really understand, fully, the geopolitical situation and its risks?
When Anna Lena Baerbock, Germany foreign minister says, “we are in war with Russia”, does she really realise what is she saying? Or the casus belli consequences of it if in the event she would be taken seriously? Does she know what casus belli means? Has she read or heard about German military classic Carl Philipp von Clausewitz’s main axioms about wars as consequences of politics?
Anna Lena Baerbock, “We are in war with Russia“ (Click on the image above for video)
Politicians in the EU do not generally exhibit similar academic standards or preparations for engaging in such analyses, as in their American or Russian counterparts. For instance, this is the panorama at the top level in the three main European nations: the German constitution (the “German Basic Law”) article 62 does not require any level of education for the position of Prime Minister, which is elected by the parliament. A further article of the Constitution states that the ministers in Germany are chosen by the PM. According to Politico, Foreign Minister Baerbok started long ago a dissertation at a German university that she never finished,[19] and PM Olaf Scholz’s ruling parti, the socialdemocrats, “was never an elitist project telling everyone they need to do an Abitur and go to university”(Abitur is an academic leaving certificate of completed secondary school), according to Michael Miebach, chair of the centre-left think tank Das Progressive Zentrum.[19 b] In Italy, PM Giorgia Meloni is reported not having a university education.[20] French President Macron was twice failed to get admission to the prestigious university École normale supérieure, and finally could obtain a two-years study diploma (with a thesis on Machiavelli) at Nanterre university.[21] Neither in Sweden is required any level of schooling In Sweden for an elected political post, or even at ministerial or PM level.[21 c] In Sweden the mayority of men members of the Parliament (54 percent) do not have university education or any other post high-school level schooling [21 b]. Added that another Swedish study found that the number of Swedish MPs with higher education has been increasingly diminshing since the last two decades of the past century.[21 d] Etc., etc.
Anti-Russian xenophobia
The anti-Russian sentiment that ostensibly prevails in figures of the current US government, and in almost all among the ruler elites in the EU countries, is not, in my opinion, congruent with what the folks think in general. It is worth to mention that the Russian American population (Americans of full or partial Russian ancestry) is estimated being 3.13 million.[22][23] Its percentual share in the total US population is about the same than Scotch-Irish, or Asian-Indians.[24] Inversely, the population of Russians in West Europe (including South and Northern Europe and excluded East Europe) is less than 2 million.[25] In Sweden there are currently only 22,774 Russian-born people (among a total population of 10 million). Interestingly, it is marked that Russian immigrant women in Sweden “were the most highly educated immigrants in Sweden as of 2009”. [26] My point being that beyond the discourse on human rights for all, civil liberties for all in West “democracies”, one the one hand it is more difficult for the Russian communities to have their voice heard in the EU countries in comparison with the US.
And I have never heard that the works of Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky or Pushkin are proscribed in the US. But they do are, if not directly forbidden, boycotted in countries of the EU. Russian president Putin “compared it to actions taken by Nazi Germany in the 1930s”, according to Reuters.[27]
Leaders’ statements on the war issue matter for their folks
The percent of people said to prefer Donald Trump as the next president oscillate around (a varying) near half of the total surveyed. The point being that Trump, as well as vice-president candidate Vance, have a clear stated agenda regarding Zelensky and the ending of the Ukraine war. They explicitly argue about the peril of an incoming WW3. During the last debate Trump/Harris, Donald Trump refused to state that he would prefer that Ukraine ends as victorious in the war with Russia. Conversely, he also warned that the Biden administration, and a potential Harris presidency, would with its policy eventually conduct the Americans to a 3rth world war.
It is no secret that Trump´s stances are in huge contrast with the EU countries leaders. For instance in Sweden, where the anti-Russian sentiment is widespread among the political elites and media, the commander in chief (Mikael Byden) stated in Jan 2024 that “Russia’s war against Ukraine is just a step, not an end game”.[28] Later he affirmed in a national broadcaster that all Swedes needed to prepare for war.[29] I must say, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been presented in Sweden any evidence of such preparations by Russia to attack Sweden. Or to any other country of the European Union, for that part.
What is the origin of the xenophobic sentiment against Russians in Sweden? I have previously essayed that it has much to do with the defeat in Poltava of 1713, which cancelled the Swedish aspirations of establish an empire around the Baltic, and other reasons. [30] But that sentiment is now melted amidst the anti-Russian xenophobia prevailing in the EU governments, with rare exceptions.
Freedom of expression role in forming the attitude of the public towards the issue of a prospective nuclear war
With all the prevailing criticism about insufficient freedom of expression in the US –criticism which I share– freedom of expression in the EU countries is significantly more constrained. One single example, RT has been forbidden for the EU populations since over two years. It is only now that the US is applying sanctions to that Russian network –a move which I mainly consider it as a last-resort measure to impact the presidential election in favour of Kamala Harris (by evoking the sentiments of the past Biden electoral campaign agitated through the “Russian interference” narrative for instance via Facebook and the earlier Twitter. The proof being that the level of information and comments given in RT, including the content or ideological profile of its narrative has not changed qualitatively during these years. What has changed is the attitude of the government with regard to the respect for freedom of speech).
Another example would be that mainstream media in the US would permit from time-to-time op-eds contravening the official narratives on Ukraine. That is not the case in the EU countries, generally considered.
The propaganda here in Europe for the proxy-war in Ukraine is compact. Academics, journalists (quite few), actors, who in the public forum express divergent opinions about the war in Ukraine are in general immediately publicly accused of being “Putin trolls” “Kremlin paid agents”, and the like. Without the slightest evidence for such accusations, I must add. Even the traditional peace-movement in Sweden has been silenced. Anna Sundström, the secretary general of the Olof Palme International Centre in Stockholm, declared in an interview with The Guardian: “It was perceived to be totally naive to talk about peace. That space was not there. We were called ‘naive’ or ‘Putinist’, making an argument that was only serving the interests of Russia.”[31]
For my part, I have several times reminded in The Indicter, and in Twitter (X), that such repressive and censoring policies from the part of Sweden and countries of the EU goes directly against article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meaning, we are entitled, being in Sweden, Italy or in the US, etc, to “receive (and impart) information and any ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”. [32]
Of course, that censorship is also behind the manipulated opinion of the people which respond the surveys and polls on the war situation in Ukraine, the sanctions, the “need to send more weapons”, the “inevitability” of an attack to Europe by Russia, etc. The public hysteria has been made rampant. Citizens of the EU appear more manipulated, and increasingly more alienated.
Besides, the EU political cupola (not directly elected by the people of Europe) has many times threatened social media platforms, such as Twitter (now X), to adjust censoring policies according to the draconian EU “legislation”. Moreover, a new proposition to the EU bodies by a Swedish EU political envoy is that all contents in the messages of social media platforms (Twitter X, WhatsApp, etc.), including encrypting – should be subject of monitoring (spying).[33]
I do not mean that freedom of expression currently in the US is not also experiencing serious threats. Using renewed fabrications about “Russian interference” and “disinformation campaigns”, the Biden administration and the Harris candidature supported by the Deep State ant its stream media are resorting to extreme measures to silence criticism and denouncing. The proscription of the RT news outlet is one of most recent examples (in the EU that measure was adopted about 3 years ago). And while social media platforms such as Meta (Facebook, Instagram) follow suit, other important platforms, such as Twitter X, continue denouncing the government´s breaches against freedom of speech.
The difference with the EU is that in the US there are still strong voices advocating for the preservation and safeguard of the 5th amendment and freedom of expression. In the EU those voices are scarce or not heard loudly. For instance, all candidates in the 2024 elections –and former candidates, except of those of the Democratic Party– are vividly campaigning for the preservation of such vital constitutional right. E.g., Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, Cornell West, and particularly the candidate of the Libertarian Party Chase Oliver.
Amidst an alienated social landscape, with practically no oppositional media, government elites in the EU, converted in socket puppets of local NATO military at the service of the global war industry, push irresponsibly for further confrontation with Russia. And the outcome could be fatal for all.
Having lived long over a half century in Europe, I have experienced an increasing distance between the peoples and their governments (which I already mentioned above) traduced in a poorer accountability practice. As mass-cybernetic entertainment increases, becoming the circus and cultural bread of the people, politicians become more and more alienated from their elective constituencies. MPs are elected, in most cases re-elected, after being socially promoted by the same media in charge of the mass alienation regarding information. As people generally do not deeply examine their electoral programs, neither they manifest interest in calling their politicians for accountability and responsibility.
These so-called elites in Europe – with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia, are nowadays, to a significant extent, people lined with NATO-associated think tanks and other governmental or non-governmental organizations.[34] Some of them, or their advisors, are ex generals or admirals –which are positions people may get rather by obeying all along their career, and not by being intelligently critical to any authority.
Nowadays those elites are the main chorus who irresponsibly echoes Zelensky’s (and the weapons industry´s) demands insisting in give the authorization to Ukraine to reach Russia with long-distance missiles. This, disregarding – or not understanding– the real situation in which we all are. Pay attention, for instance, to these statements of European high ranking military people:
Today14 September, Admiral Rob Bauer (Netherlands) and head of NATO’s military committee, said that “it is justified to allow Ukraine to target Russia with long-range missiles provided by the West”[35], and that Ukraine has the solid legal and “military right” to strike deep inside Russia.[36] While Lt. Gen. Karel Řehka, chief of the General Staff of the Czech Armed Forces, “made it clear his nation places no such weapons restrictions on Kyiv”.[36]
Sir Ben Wallace, himself ex-military and defence secretary under the Boris Johnson government, said being “disappointed” with “the wrangling over Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles in Russia”.37] Even US General (ret.) Petraeus intervened in favour of the potential lifting of restrictions over the use of long-range weapons inside Russia, calling the discussion “long overdue”.[38]
Did not Clemenceau say that “War is too important to be left to the generals”?
(He also said, “It is easier to make war than to make peace”)
Former defence minister Ben Wallace was rapidly followed by four other UK former defence secretaries (Grant Shapps, Gavin Williamson, Penny Mordaunt and Liam Fox, together with ex PM Boris Johnson), in calling on PM Starmer to allow Ukraine to use British Storm Shadow missiles to strike Russian territory, even without US support”, according to The Times.[39]
Meanwhile, European politicians continue misleading, ominously, on the origins of the Ukraine war. Latest, UK PM Sir Keir Starmer, in response to Putin’s statement quoted in the beginning of this article, said, “Russia started this conflict”. [40]. Facts on the table, however, Russia DID NOT star the war in Ukraine, as I evidence in my analysis “Origins of the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine”.[41]
Conclusion
Scenario 1.
In my analysis, however the proxy war in Ukraine will not end soon, the US will notably diminish – or completely cease– their military assistance to Ukraine in 2025. Left in situ will remain the US Intelligence apparatus and reinforced political presence. The proxy-war will continue with the solely assistance of the EU and the UK. The flow of weapons and other assistance to Ukraine will not stop as such. The production of weaponry will continue increasing in the USA, and these weapons will be purchased by the EU, which in its turn will deliver them to Ukraine.
If the compactness of the political decisions in the EU would suffer further fragmentation (i.e. Hungary, Slovakia, and later possibly Germany and others), other EU countries such as the Nordic and the Baltic countries will continue this assistance independently.
Eventually, Russia shall continue winning the war and with the addition of new military personnel, while, conversely, the manpower at disposal of Ukraine will continue diminishing. Further drastic reforms in the Ukraine conscription law are not likely prosper in the Rada because of popular opposition. In the negotiated peace, or cease fire, after the Russian strategic military victory, the Donbass territories will not return to Ukraine. Neither will be Odessa, in case it will be annexed by Russia in the course of the war,
Scenario 2.
Any European country, independently of NATO “official“ policies, decides to land troops in Ukraine, in a fashion impossibly to conceal. The presence of these troops became for Russia, legally and de facto, casus belly (jump to the last paragraph of this Conclusion chapter)
Scenario 3.
Independently of an ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
In view of a) the political idiosyncratic behaviour of EU leaders, their fanatic xenophobia against Russia, b) the pressure of military commanders, c) the severe and continuing worsening of the economic stance of countries of the EU, after the sanctions-trap in which they indulged themselves against Russia from February 2022, d) The aggravation of the social domestic situation principally in countries targeted by uncontrolled immigration, all which may convey social and racial polarization, with the repressive policies against the antagonising populations (“nationals” VS. “foreigners”), etc. d) Added that the governments’ breaches to the freedom of expression, the right to demonstrate and other civil rights, will continue unabated (following the current tendency regarding censorship on one hand, and drastic police repression on the other). And that those political behaviours will not leave social space for criticism, calling for accountability, transparency in government, or to any other possibility of influencing the decisions of those in power.
(In other words, fascism. Open or concealed).
All those issues accounted, EU governments will essay an overtly warmongering behaviour against the “enemy” Russia, consisting in provocations, hostile declarations, military mobilizations, hybrid warfare, etc., with the aim of tackle the internal conflicts and deviate attention.
Parallel, in that period the cohesion inside NATO countries and its allies will be (it has started to be) quite fragile. Disputes between Poland and Ukraine, Germany and Poland, Ukraine and Hungary, Turkey and the US, etc.
In the above scenario, sooner than later, purposely or accidentally, one EU-country missile will target deep in Russia. Territory, possibly after some Russian embassy has been attacked with the complacency of the authorities of that country…
Russia will respond. See President Putting statement at the beginning of this text. The attacking country will call NATO’s article 5.
We are then in (nuclear) WW3.
—
I hope that common sense will finally prevail. I have since long ago upheld that the primary human right is the right to live. Ensuing, for those few able to survive the nuclear WW3, I postulate that the primary human duty will be the revolution of minds towards free, de-alienated thinking, towards an unprecedented plan able to whip those wicked politicians out of the social temple of Europe.
References
1 “Ukraine’s allies are split on whether to allow their missiles to strike deep into Russia.” Le Monde, 12 Sept 2024. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/09/12/ukraine-s-allies-are-split-on-whether-to-allow-their-missiles-to-strike-deep-into-russia_6725781_4.html
2 “Biden, Starmer discuss Ukraine missiles as Russia tensions mount”. Le Monde, 14 Sept 2024. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/09/14/biden-starmer-discuss-ukraine-missiles-as-russia-tensions-mount_6725977_4.html
3 “Biden Poised to Approve Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Western Weapons in Russia”. The New York Times, 12 Sept 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/12/us/politics/biden-ukraine-weapons.html
4 “Read Putin’s Warning to NATO on Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Weapons”. The New York Times, 12 Sept 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/13/world/europe/putin-warning-nato-missiles.html
5 “Over 70% of Democrats support a ceasefire in Gaza: Poll”. Responsible Statecraft https://responsiblestatecraft.org/gaza-ceasefire/
6 “Protesters demand end to US military support for Ukraine”. CCTV, 20 Feb 2023. https://www.cctvplus.com/news/20230220/8312647.shtml#!language=1
7 “Thousands protest in Berlin against giving weapons to Ukraine. The Guardian, 25 Feb 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/25/thousands-protest-in-berlin-against-giving-weapons-to-ukraine
8 “Orbán stages a ‘peace march’ in Hungary in a show of strength before European Parliament election”. AP, 1 June 2024. https://apnews.com/article/hungary-orban-peace-march-ukraine-6f3bf3ba7e776182dbcbb62b6b8eaa22
9 “Europeans rally for Ukraine to mark two years of Russia’s war. Aljazeera, 24 Feb 2024. https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2024/2/24/europeans-rally-for-ukraine-to-mark-two-years-of-russias-war
10 “War in Ukraine: Wide Partisan Differences on U.S. Responsibility and Support. Pew Review Center, 29 Jul 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/07/29/war-in-ukraine-wide-partisan-differences-on-u-s-responsibility-and-support
11 Jenkins, Simon, “Keir Starmer’s missile bravado could jeopardise Nato’s careful balancing act in Ukraine”. The Guardian, 16 Sept 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/16/keir-starmer-nato-ukraine-british-long-range-missiles-russia
12 Cerda, Andy, “About half of Republicans now say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine”. Pew Review Center, 8 Dec 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/08/about-half-of-republicans-now-say-the-us-is-providing-too-much-aid-to-ukraine/
13 “Public opinions on Russia’s war agaisnt Ukraine”, 25 Feb 2024. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/files/be-heard/eurobarometer/2022/public-opinion-on-the-war-in-ukraine/en-public-opinion-on-the-war-against-ukraine-20240223.pdf
14 “Opinions, moods and preferences of European people” https://eupinions.eu/de/text/the-war-and-the-vote
15 “DOD Addresses Recruiting Shortfall Challenges”, U.S. Department of Defence, 13 Dec 2023. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/3616786/dod-addresses-recruiting-shortfall-challenges/
16 European Union: “Stand with Ukraine”. https://ukraine.europarl.europa.eu/en/news
17 Ferrada de Noli, M., “NATO: Sweden navigates dangerous waters”. Consortium News, 2 May, 2022. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/02/nato-sweden-navigates-dangerous-waters/
18 “‘Ukraine must defend itself’: Washington leaders dismiss Putin’s war talk”. The Guardian, 2 May 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/13/ukraine-must-defend-itself-washington-leaders-dismiss-putins-war-talk
19 Gerkhe, L., “German Greens’ Annalena Baerbock: 5 things to know. Fast facts about the party’s candidate for chancellor.” 19 Apr 2019. https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-greens-annalena-baerbock-5-things-to-know/
19-b Cliffe, J., “Who is Olaf Scholz? A profile of the pragmatic Social Democrat”. The New Statesman, 3 Sept 2021. https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2021/09/how-olaf-scholz-and-the-spd-could-lead-germanys-next-government
20 Nuzzo, A., “Che scuola ha fatto Giorgia Meloni: cosa sappiamo sul curriculum della leader di FdI”. Money.it, 1 Sep 2022. https://www.money.it/che-scuola-ha-fatto-giorgia-meloni-cosa-sappiamo-curriculum-leader-fdi
21 De Jaeger, J-M, “L’université de Nanterre félicite Emmanuel Macron, son ancien étudiant en philosophie”. Le Figaro étudiant, 15 May 2017. https://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/article/l-universite-de-nanterre-felicite-emmanuel-macron-son-ancien-etudiant-en-philosophie_9bda5ad4-3942-11e7-b5b5-21a5cdc791d1/
21-b “Sveriges politiker högre utbildade än sina väljare”, Statistics Sweden, 2021. https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/artiklar/2021/sveriges-politiker-hogre-utbildade-an-sina-valjare/
21-c Person, S. “Skrämmande att det inte krävs utbildning för politiker“. Blekinge Läns Tidningen, 12 Feb 2024. https://www.blt.se/debatt/skrammande-att-det-inte-kravs-utbildning-for-politiker/
21-d Villert, F. “Utbildningsnivå i riksdagen”. Högskolan på Gotland. http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:441445/fulltext01.pdf
22 “Russian Americans”. Wikipedia, (15 Sept 2024). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Americans
23 https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2019.B05006 (Russia as place of birth, N= 407,564)
25 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1088610/russia-international-migrant-stock-by-region/
26 https://www.thelocal.se/20090130/17262
30 Ferrada de Noli, M. “Poltava’s geopolitical aftermath and the warmongering of Swedish elites”. The Indicter, 24 Mar 2021. https://theindicter.com/poltavas-geopolitical-aftermath-and-the-warmongering-of-swedish-elites/
31 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/sweden-veteran-peace-movement-nato
32 Ferrada de Noli, M. “Interference by journalists on sovereign opinions of professors, academics, and independent researchers, comprise infringements to Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. The Indicter, 7 Feb, 2020. https://theindicter.com/interference-by-journalists-on-sovereign-opinions-of-professors-academics-and-independent-researchers-comprise-infringements-to-art-19-of-the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights/
34 Ferrada de Noli, M., “Integrity Initiative scandal reaches Sweden amidst deceiving media debate on Martin Kragh”. The Indicter, 15 Mar 2019. https://theindicter.com/integrity-initiative-scandal-reaches-sweden-amidst-deceiving-media-debate-on-kragh/
36 https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-nato-military-chiefs-d020f72aaa3abec8e5fa971f7123ffe1
37 “‘Tug of war’ talks over long-range missiles helping Putin’s war on Ukraine, warns former defence secretary”. Independent, 14 Sept 2024. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/russia-ukraine-war-ben-wallace-starmer-biden-b2612775.html
38 “Starmer meets Biden at White House but no decision on Ukraine missiles”. BBC, 13 Sept 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c7858qqzyv8t?page=2
39 Wheeler, C., and Shipman, T. “Five ex-defence secretaries tell PM: let Ukraine fire our missiles”. The Times, 14 Sept 2024 https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/go-it-alone-and-let-ukraine-fire-missiles-keir-starmer-told-9mc0q5w2w
40 Sott, J. “Sir Keir Starmer says Russia started Ukraine war and ‘could end the conflict straight away’ “. Sky News, 14 Sept 2024. https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-russia-started-ukraine-war-and-could-end-the-conflict-straight-away-13213459
41 Ferrada de Noli, M. “Origins of the Russian Military Special Operation in Ukraine”. The Indicter, 29 Jan 2024. https://theindicter.com/origins-of-the-russian-military-special-operation-in-ukraine/