According to Wikipedia, 2 decades ago, "On 15 February 2003, a coordinated day of protests was held across the world in which people in more than 600 cities expressed opposition to the imminent Iraq War." 1/
"It was part of a series of protests and political events that had begun in 2002 and continued as the invasion, war, and occupation took place. The day was described by social movement researchers as "the largest protest event in human history"2/
"According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of 15 and 16 February." 3/
"The largest protests took place in Europe. The one in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history."
"Madrid hosted the second largest rally with more than 1.5 million people protesting the invasion of Iraq; Mainland China was the only major region not to see any protests on that day, but small demonstrations, attended mainly by foreign students, were seen later." 4/
So why so few anti-war protests against Putin now?
Why does the world seem to care less about Ukrainians than Iraqis? Less about democratic Ukraine than autocratic Iraq? I honestly don't get it. Because people don't believe Putin will attack? Other theories? 5/ END THREAD.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
During our negotiations with Russians on New START Treaty, Moscow said they would never, never, never sign the treaty without limitations on missile defense. We said we couldn't agree to that maximalist demand. 1/
The Russians did not take that demand off the table until the very END of negotiations. But they finally did. 2/
What is strange about some of the commentary on the current crisis is that people like Hawley want to capitulate to Russia's most maximalist demands at the very beginning of negotiations. So odd to me. 2/
Cyberattacks against Estonia 2007, interventions in Georgia 2008 & Ukraine in 2014, recognition of Abkhazia & S. Ossetia as countries, annexation of Crimea, war in Donbas, hit squads in London, Salisbury, Berlin & Tomsk killed Europeans & undermined European security.1/
Compared to this list, please explain to me how NATO expansion -- the last major wave which took place 20 years ago-- "threatens" Russian/European security? (& yes, I take note that NATO did attack a Serbian dictator conducting ethnic cleansing.) 2/
And now today, Putin has deployed 130,000 heavily-armed soldiers to invade Ukraine. Isn't that a threat to European security too? Before this crisis, what had Ukraine, Biden, or Brussels done to threaten Russia? Nothing. (The false equivalency in policy debate needs to end.) 3/
On the U.S. preemptive war in 2003 vs Putin's planning for preemptive war 2022, I don't see logically or morally how you could be against the former but acquiescent to the latter. I'd have thought there'd be more outrage at the UN or campuses about this new impending war.1/
The decision to invade Iraq when we did was a mistake. In the fall of 2001, I had a different view. By the spring of 2002, I changed my view. By me aside, even if you were against the war from the beginning, there is no moral equivalency between Iraq then & Ukraine now. 2/
Ukraine has not invaded or tried to annex a neighbor. Or used chemical weapons. Or violated countless UNSC resolutions. Or repressed or terrorized Ukrainian citizens. Or done anything threatening to Russian security. Rather than seeking WMDs, Ukraine gave up nukes. 2/
You can argue that Bush's preemptive war in 2003 and Putin's preemptive planned war in 2022 were/are both immoral. 1/ THREAD
You can argue that 2003 and 2022 were/are strategically imprudent and geopolitical blunders. 2/
You also can explain both 2003 and 2022 as the "world as it is" -- great powers doing what they do. We may not like it, but that's the nasty Hobbesian world we live in. Classic realism. 3/
"MAPs do not provide security guarantees, and the hard reality is that Ukraine today is not qualified to join NATO. Zelensky should focus instead on implementing necessary domestic reforms to prepare Ukraine for NATO membership without formally signing a MAP." 2/
Since 1945 until today, U.S. soldiers have been stationed in Germany to deter a Soviet threat and now a Russian threat. I don't recall German leaders describing these deployments as "too provocative" to Moscow. But I'm not an expert on German history. I'm probably wrong. 1/
Imagine, if during the Berlin blockade in 1948, Truman had said, 'better not send any planes; Moscow might think it too provocative?' (Remember, in 1948, West Germany was not a formal ally.) 2/
The Berlin blockade analogy is an instructive one. Think of the counterfactual. Had we not responded and let the Soviets take the city, would Moscow have then stopped threatening West Germany or other parts of Europe? Of course not. 3/