This is Voices at the Brink

The majority of comments with substantive arguments suggested Ukraine was made vulnerable by dismantling and transferring nuclear weapons to Russia between 1992 and 2001. The commentary was connected to the dogma that nuclear weapons provide protection from invasion and that deterrence works to limit or block conflict.

This argument ignores that the potential of proliferation closer to Russia’s borders is a stated cause for the invasion of Ukraine. Russia perceives the eastward movement of NATO as a threat that brings nuclear encroachment through NATO’s nuclear umbrella. Nuclear armed states sharing borders does not increase security, it increases the urgency for one side to control the other and potential for escalation from diplomatic disagreements or low-intensity conflict to nuclear war.

The suggestion that the majority of nations in the world “choose” not to possess nuclear weapons was a major trigger for many respondents. This was seen as an example of naïveté and a lack of understanding of great power politics. These commenters simply could not accept that nations would choose not to develop and deploy nuclear arms if they could.

The short length of the video did not allow for expanding on the different forms these “choices” take. How does a nation choose to eschew nuclear weapons? Who actually makes the choice? A head of state, parliament, the citizenry?

More stories detailing the various ways nuclear weapons have been rejected are needed to illuminate the role the diplomatic process and civil society play in securing disarmament and non-proliferation. Illuminating the ways nuclear weapons have been limited to a fraction of nations also highlights that treaties have value and disarmament is possible — responding to two of the other major critiques.

It is important to note that Twitter/X now favors users with premium subscriptions Those willing to pay receive a bigger boost for their posts. This creates an atmosphere where users who most align with Elon Musk's vision self-select on the platform and are overrepresented due to quirks of the algorithm.

Twitter/X, like most social networks, gives each user a unique experience. Premium users may get the highest "boost" when replying to a post, but other factors influence what a user can see including who they follow and which posts they interact with. Conducting analysis and recreating the timeline is constrained by the user-specific nature of Twitter/X and the minimal API. For example, only 250-300 replies to a post will load rendering viewing all replies impossible. However, we looked for common themes in replies and highly engaged posts in order to reconstruct a timeline of key momnets. From this we gained insight into why the post went viral and the profile of users involved in "dogpiling" the post with negative replies and "Quote Tweets."

Though they posses much general knowledge, and a unique depth of military information, there is much that this group and others do not know about nuclear disarmament. For those who came of age after the Cold War, the success of disarament campaigns to halt the march towards nuclear annihilation remain largely uknown or misunderstood. They see the world shaped in power and by powerful individuals, not by collective action. We need heroic tales of disarmament that frame the current nuclear order as a victory against impossible odds. The existence of humanity is not thanks to Kennedy or Krushev, Reagan or Gorbachev, but to disarmament campaigners. They faced off against the great empires and won.

Along with the grand victories comes more complexity. Campaigners and communicators in disarament and other disciplines are encouraged to simplify messaging and the pathway to success. We are not asking for something difficult and contentious, but something obvious. This is sensible given the absurd complexity of deterrence theory and is likely the best way to reach broad audiences. However, this movement, like most today, must create connections of depth and meaning. To do so requires asking more of supporters, not less and highlighting the obstacles to success. The North Atlantic Fella Organization requires members to donate to approved charities and then send a screenshot of the donation to the groups leadership through email or a Twitter/X direct message. The multiple steps and donation requirement are in stark contrast to campaigning best practices that create the lowest bar possible to action and streamlined user-experiences. But asking more creates deeper connections and a stronger bond of belonging.

The final recommendation may seem counterintuitive, but there is truth that individuals will act and speak in a manner online that they would not in-person, and that online groups forge incidiary environments. Inviting individuals to in-person events where they can participate -- feel heard, but also hear out others could make inroads with these types of groups. They seek legitimacy and belonging...ultimately, to be told that they have value and what they do has impact. Providing new venues to achieve that may pay off in unique ways.

These people need a mission; give them a better one.