I became active on nuclear threat issues while in Europe during the Euromissile crisis. I belonged to a large segment of the movement which did criticize the SS20 deployments and worked closely with dissidents in Eastern Europe. We weren't falling for the "dagger to Russia's heart" line, because the SS20s were a dagger to the heart of every West European nation. Not long afterward, I worked with Parliamentarians for Global Action to launch the Six Nations Peace Initiative, which helped bring about a breakthrough on test ban verification.
Thank you, Aaron, for your insights. I was working in government during the protests in Europe over the missile deployments. For a brief time I was a junior staffer in the US Information Service helping to coordinate an interagency task force working to influence European public opinion which was heavily against the deployments (and US policy in Central America). I can tell you that those in the Reagan Administration certainly thought that the protests were focused much more heavily on the US than on the Soviets. But that's not perception, not proof.
When I joined the staff of the House Armed Services Committee in the mid-1980s, that is still how it seemed to most Members. Again, perception not proof.
Many activists, including you, did see the twin threats from both nuclear superpowers. And protests were banned in the Soviet Union, so it's understandable that Western Europeans would protest at the only sites they could: those deploying US weapons.
But I didn't think then and don't think now, that the protests held both countries equally liable for the danger they were creating. I must admit that I am influenced by the thinking of Eric Schlosser on this. He has long held that the Soviets and too much influence over the western peace movements of the 1980s, diverting them to target the US primarily and often solely.
One of the reasons that Putin is able to exploit our internal divisions is that we've come to love our divisions way too much. Sure, we can blame this on corporate media, social media and cynical politicians etc, and all that's true. But the real culprit is us, the audience. We've turned the news in to an entertaining reality TV show where everybody in America is a villain to somebody else. The only reason all the polarizing content is being pushed at us is that we watch it, feed on it, fuel it.
The best way to undermine Putin's information assault is for all of us to work on making some kind of peace with those across on the other side of political divide. We've never going to agree on everything, but we can do a lot better job of looking for common ground.
An article coming later this month on my site will list some list some of the common ground this liberal sees with those on the right.
Hey, Joe! Eek! You need a proofreader. ;)
I became active on nuclear threat issues while in Europe during the Euromissile crisis. I belonged to a large segment of the movement which did criticize the SS20 deployments and worked closely with dissidents in Eastern Europe. We weren't falling for the "dagger to Russia's heart" line, because the SS20s were a dagger to the heart of every West European nation. Not long afterward, I worked with Parliamentarians for Global Action to launch the Six Nations Peace Initiative, which helped bring about a breakthrough on test ban verification.
Regarding the war on Ukraine, take a look at my piece at aaron.tovish@medium.com . Of perhpas greater urgency, check out the Declaration of Public Conscience at https://nofirstuse.global/2023/04/11/launch-of-nuclear-taboo-from-norm-to-law/ which builds upon the G20's Bali Declaration.
Keep up the good work!
Best regards, Aaron
Thank you, Aaron, for your insights. I was working in government during the protests in Europe over the missile deployments. For a brief time I was a junior staffer in the US Information Service helping to coordinate an interagency task force working to influence European public opinion which was heavily against the deployments (and US policy in Central America). I can tell you that those in the Reagan Administration certainly thought that the protests were focused much more heavily on the US than on the Soviets. But that's not perception, not proof.
When I joined the staff of the House Armed Services Committee in the mid-1980s, that is still how it seemed to most Members. Again, perception not proof.
Many activists, including you, did see the twin threats from both nuclear superpowers. And protests were banned in the Soviet Union, so it's understandable that Western Europeans would protest at the only sites they could: those deploying US weapons.
But I didn't think then and don't think now, that the protests held both countries equally liable for the danger they were creating. I must admit that I am influenced by the thinking of Eric Schlosser on this. He has long held that the Soviets and too much influence over the western peace movements of the 1980s, diverting them to target the US primarily and often solely.
Let's continue the discussion....
One of the reasons that Putin is able to exploit our internal divisions is that we've come to love our divisions way too much. Sure, we can blame this on corporate media, social media and cynical politicians etc, and all that's true. But the real culprit is us, the audience. We've turned the news in to an entertaining reality TV show where everybody in America is a villain to somebody else. The only reason all the polarizing content is being pushed at us is that we watch it, feed on it, fuel it.
The best way to undermine Putin's information assault is for all of us to work on making some kind of peace with those across on the other side of political divide. We've never going to agree on everything, but we can do a lot better job of looking for common ground.
An article coming later this month on my site will list some list some of the common ground this liberal sees with those on the right.