I've been blogging for almost a decade, eight years of which had substantial visitor traffic. Comments have been allowed for about seven of those years.
Still, after so many years of experience I kept pretending that this works:
1st describe a problem
2nd describe an approach for a solution
3rd preventively counter some likely counter-arguments
4th enjoy agreement
I tell you, step #4 looks like a near-total bust when it comes to strictly military topics. (This isn't only about comments made here.)
There are three obvious explanations; one is that I may be wrong in my diagnosis or prescription, in which case one could hope for a logically coherent counter-argument that shatters my case. Frankly, I've hardly ever recognized this, so either I cannot recognize this when I see it or it does hardly ever happen.
A second possibility is that I may simply fail at step #2 or #3, failing to convince due to poor writing or incomplete logic.
The third obvious explanation is that it's naive to think that a more or less logical argument changes minds.
There actually is research on this; psychological experiments of the past fifty years have shown that humans tend to not change minds when faced with evidence contradicting their belief. The original belief is not easily given up. Sometimes, they attack the evidence, its messenger and become more stern in their belief.
This is a very fundamental issue for this blog, since almost everyone already has an opinion on these topics. Some of my blog posts are meant to explicitly challenge widespread and long-held beliefs about historical events et cetera.
I'm largely alone. There's no array of TV stations, newspapers, journals, websites and bloggers pushing into the same direction. This leaves me to be rather unconvincing by default.
In light of years of experience and five decades of psychological research the only conclusion left is that 'activism' milblogging against the stream doesn't work. This blog matured into a format in which I attracted a readership that's interested in military affairs and then exposed it to moderate pacifism. I've been pointing at deterrence & defence against Russia since 2009 at the latest, but even though the attitude is finally mainstream (and the distraction of occupation warfare largely exhausted) I am seemingly the lone voice among milbloggers world wide in calling for not increasing military spending in Europe. That, of course, is another hopeless proposition because everybody seems to have bought into the conventional wisdom that awakening to the only actual justification for substantial military spending in Europe means that one needs to add spending - instead of reallocating it. To reallocate resources would require to give up things that have grown dear, and nobody want to change one's mind, remember?
I would waste my time if I wrote this blog for a moderate pacifist audience. They're already convinced. Websites written for an audience in agreement serve only as echo chambers, news distributors, as support for organising efforts or as nodes for radicalisation. None of this is what I want to do.