Comments by "Olga P." (@olgap.) on "Anders Puck Nielsen"
channel.
-
36
-
24
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just to be on the same page: if, as you say, meat waves are conscious choice, what alternative approaches did Russia turn down to send the message?
4:36 Please pass the memo to MSM and YT.
Something weird is going on. Press changed focus for Israel for a while. What came after made such a sharp U-turn: like reports are the same, but countries are swapped. Economy will crash any time, army runs out of people and ammo, country development towards dictatorship, political crisis, bad decisions on the battlefield... All we were told about Russia out of a sudden apply to Ukraine. And what angers me the most, downplay or ignore Ukraine's achievements. I don't understand what it is good for.
YT algorithm went nuts as well, Scott Ritter and co. as suggestions - that's new.
I don't think Putin needs a frozen conflict to reduce western help to Ukraine. Military wise help from the West as it is and is to be expected, by all respect, is annoying, but not preventing Putin to proceed. If there will not be significant change in speed, quality end amount of, it does not really matter for Putin if it stops or not. I don't mean help is pointless, I wish there were more.
Going on conflict will harm Ukraines demographics and economy the longer the more. To destroy Ukraine as a state Putin does not need a lot of change of front lines. Just enough notisable action to avoid too big trouble at home and prevent Ukraine to get Back to business as usual as long as possible.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sarahrosen4985 I guess you call all Russians Muscovites, not only those living in Moscow?
Well, I am Russian citizen who happened to live abroad.
The main impact on daily life compared to 3 years ago is self-censoring.
First, as the war started, speaking about it was pointless as everything I said was used against me. Really everything. Like I would say
-"The sky is blue" and hear
- "there is blue in Russian flag, you love Putin, want this war, hate Ukrainians, you are nationalist, imperialist etc."
- "Where does that come from? There is also blue in Ukrainian flag, for example ?! would I wonder.
-" Whataboutism!!! "
I never took what is said by officials and analysts for true value. Why would it change now? But, for any reason, critical thinking was set equal to blind patriotism. It was very frustrating and exhausting to have to explain that questioning 1 specific news or statement or trying to understand what it is based on is exactly that and not justifying Putin or supporting the war.
Later I had to become more careful about public statements on social media as every unconscious word could mean a trouble.
What about other Russians? Hard to tell in detail, because "it's not a topic for a phone call".
It is easy to overlook the protest of broad mass because it is very subtle. Look at art, humor, read between the lines, observe how language changes. Disagreement is everywhere, but the biggest impact on daily life is that it is not spoken out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Asptuber Please don't take thoughts of a bored, not even interested in politics, housewife too serious.
""As the conflict will not end with acceptance of defeat, it will have to move somewhere else. "
Hmm, are you thinking Georgia? Some other non-NATO ex-soviet state?" To answer that we need to know why Ukraine is being under attack now. If we look at it as part of a larger disharmony gone conflict NATO-Russia going on since 1991, any non-NATO country where USA starts peeing on Russia's leg can be next. No, I don't think Putin will try to swallow one country after another without any threat to be expected. But who am I to judge what is threat in Putin's opinion?
""If Putin accepts defeat under the narrative of war Russia against the West it will be seen as weakness, and that does not help to keep power in Russia. "
Putin needs something that can be dressed up as a victory. The smarter way for him to get this would be to concentrate not on "the West", but on the Ukronazis. "
Well, the narrative The West is against us and we have to stand our ground is already there. He can not shake it off while the West is increasing its involvement on a daily basis.
""Turning the special operation into the war officialy as an answer to unfriendly actions of the West who is eager for escalation is the only way to keep power in Russia"
But this would be stupid*, because there is less possibilities of victory, and more problems from unrest at home.
*Stupid as things stand now. But if the West, or a neighbour (Moldova would be the prime candidate, maybe Georgia, or Azerbadjan?), somehow let itself be baited into the conflict, the calculation changes dramatically. If someone gave him a clear casus-belli that he could "win" this scenario works much better."
Exactly, "*Stupid as things stand now." and only if you look at this military operation on its own. I think this special military operation was not even planned to happen. Concidered as one of options, but not a firm plan from the start. What triggert the invasion? Now he is in Ukraine and it would be fatal ambarrassing to loose the operation against Ukraine. But being in a war with the West trying with all means to prevent Russia protecting its interests is something different. Loose the battle to win the war later could be a plausible explanation for Russian population. Winning the war would be here to weaken the West till is gives up and starts cooperating again.
"The problem for Putin is that he can't turn this into an actual big war (aka world war 3), because he can't win that. He can only escalate for the home audience, not in reality (at least not too much). Great escalation in reality leads to a really humiliating defeat, and loss of power for him, and in the worst case destruction of Russia as it is now. "
There is nothing Putin can do, Russia will not be as it was before 24th of February. Do you believe, that if the invasion stops today, Russian army leaves all Ukrainian territories including Donbas and Crimea, USA and EU will pretend nothing happened and set back the framework to the conditions of the middle of 2021? Putin does not only need a victory he can sell at home. That helps short term, but in the long run he needs something that either brings Russia and EU at least trading with each other again or to build up new partnerships that are able to compensate the EU. Russia can not win WW3 on its own, can not afford loosing this spesial military operation either. NATO can not stop after massive participation and harm dome to own economies as well. I don't think Putin will escalate proactive, he will react to what he defines to be an attack. Both sides, NATO and Russia, can not just stop, both sides can not endless escalate. Economies of all participants suffer, the money will decide over win or loose.
1
-
12:25-13:05. There is a lot to unpack here. What are your statements based on? All I observe is exactly the opposite.
To begin with, Russians do not want to see Putin at all and he knows it. How else would you explain the way he confirmed he runs for presidency in 2024? Was it a loud and proud public announcement swimming on the wave of popular support? Why are there no photos of Putin on his election advertisement posters, in contrast with his previous ones? How is gathering signatures going? Why, again, did gathering hot spots disappear? May it be because nobody showed up?
If it was "popular in Russia when they make this attacks (on civilian objects)" , why would state media, as you yourself mentioned at 8:25, describe them as unintentional, collateral, caused by Ukrainians who do not know what they are doing? Is it how state media would present a welcome event? If the war was popular, would Putin justify he started it with phrases like "we were forced", "we did not have any other choice"?
Why would Putins regime bother about single people holding up empty sheet of paper, if it would've been enough just to bomb couple of playgrounds or hospitals and everything is peachy?
I could go on, but you as an analyst are certainly aware of all I would say. So, why the hell are you feeding Putins propaganda by spreading such rediculous lies? What happened to the person who ones wrote this: "The tone about ordinary Russians has become increasingly hostile in the West. They are portrayed as terrible people, incapable of independent thought, and genetically predisposed for imperialism and autocracy. This is understandable, but at the same time it strikes me as utterly unproductive if we want #Russia to change"?
Perhaps I am too harsh and you are right. So, what are your statements based on?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anderspuck Thank you so much for your very polite and patient response. I am the one to apologize, bringing up anger does not add anything to the discussion, and I shouldn't have done it.
In your video you say “Russia wants a world order where grate powers are above the rules, so the rules in the international system are for the small countries.” But the international system has always been this way. Your chain of argument is based on a false premise. To point this out is neither whataboutism nor projecting values into something. The only conflict of ideas taking place is whether the world stays unipolar or will become multipolar. Yes, Russia is aiming to create a multipolar international system. To make your point you’ve replaced unipolar with rule based order.
By doing that you made the conflict sound more dramatic than it is. Than the fearmongering language you use, constant repeating that Russia deliberately commits war crimes to fight the world order, making extremely severe accusations of bragging about targeting civilians and civil objects on state TV without any prove or example –all that creates a particular negative perception of Russia.
If using false premises to vilify the enemy is not propaganda, then I don’t know what is.
With "There is a narrow edge between analysis and propaganda and you’ve missed the mark (again)." I meant that for the most part your videos are very good analytics, there is always a true core, but there are details that turn them into propaganda.
By far not everything you do is propaganda to me. It was the last word that would come to my mind to describe your content back than when I started to watch your videos several month prior full scale invasion. And watching your collaborations with other vloggers does not give me this vibe at all. But at some point you’ve changed the purpose of your solo-videos from informing the public to forming public opinion in certain ways. Whatever the reason for this change, there are patterns that, regarding your high level of knowledge and communication skills, your professional background make me think it is your deliberate choice.
1
-
@anderspuck Thank you for reminding me of Vlad Vexler. Two and a half years ago something put me off from watching his videos, there is a lot to catch up. Interesting how we, watching same content, come to different conclusions. And puzzling to observe you and your hard-core followers acting contrary to his recommendations I absolutely agree with.
Belated congratulations on your book! In a military context your definition of propaganda is correct. As a civilian I would rather describe it the way Wikipedia does: “Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. Propaganda can be found in a wide variety of different contexts”. The fact of deliberate influence on its own is neither positive nor negative to me. But goals, means and effects matter. I find the means you use questionable and effects partly counterproductive. To be honest, I am very surprised that you find my opinion absolutely strange, because what you are doing fulfills criteria of both definitions. Exaggerated and oversimplified your solo videos (with a few exceptions, though) boil down to “whatever happens is beneficial to Ukraine”. In your bubble the other end of the spectrum “whatever happens is beneficial to Russia” (for the record, does not resonate with me either) is being called out as propaganda. So, why is the one extreme a propaganda and another extreme not? Is propaganda something what only the enemy does? Than, what is the correct term for pushing a particular narrative that own government wants? We could use that instead.
I do believe that you are acting with good intentions, but downsides of your off-balance approach make me dislike it. Lack of objectivity repells part of the audience and therefore important messages stay unheard. More important, it can lead to decrease in interest and public support of providing help to Ukraine. If everything is going according to the plan, if Ukraine is winning, then why bother?
Thank you for adding details to your chain of arguments in this video, now it is more understandable to me. I am not sure that my point comes across correctly. It is not about what you say, it is about how. Maybe I interpreted into this video more purpose than you intended, but as you say, your videos build on top of each other over time. To me it was intensification of “Why is Russia bombing civilians?”. It is important to remind that a war is more than frontlines. There are numerous reasons why armed forces deliberately commit war crimes. Therefore talking about war crimes and their systemic nature is not vilification of Russians, I am with you on that. But presenting them happening on behalf of ordinary people, with one single purpose of entertainment is. You obviously read comments, so I suppose you to know how “Why is Russia bombing civilians?” was perceived. Perhaps I missed it, but I did not hear you tell it was misunderstood.
1
-
1
-
@hegulikekuli Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, ..."
Englisch is not my best language, perhaps I misunderstood it, but "A cornerstone of the Alliance", as NATO describes Article 5, seems to be a very elastic concept to me.
Being a member of a big defensive Alliance definitely has it's pros, but there is no obligation to provide as much help as needed. In this regard The North Atlantic Treaty is as empty shell as The Budapest Memorandum.
1
-
@hegulikekuli Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, ..."
Englisch is not my best language, perhaps I misunderstood it, but "A cornerstone of the Alliance", as NATO describes Article 5, seems to be a very elastic concept to me.
Being a member of a big defensive Alliance definitely has it's pros, but there is no obligation to provide as much help as needed. In this regard The North Atlantic Treaty is as empty shell as The Budapest Memorandum.
1
-
@hegulikekuli Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, ..."
Englisch is not my best language, perhaps I misunderstood it, but "A cornerstone of the Alliance", as NATO describes Article 5, seems to be a very elastic concept to me.
Being a member of a big defensive Alliance definitely has it's pros, but there is no obligation to provide as much help as needed. In this regard The North Atlantic Treaty is as empty shell as The Budapest Memorandum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomasschwarz1973 Unfortunately your reply did not answer my question. Perhaps I did not express myself clear enough. It triggers me each time I hear claims like "there is no/was no Ukrainian culture" on its own, or in your words "in the last 100 years, the cultures that we now call "Russian" and "Ukrainian" were almost unrecognizable". I am sincerely curious why you say so. There always was recognizable Ukrainian culture, for much longer than just the last 100 years. Partly suppressed and neglected in times of foreign rule. How could Olena Pchilka, mother of Lesya Ukrainka, record Ukrainian folk songs, customs, embroidery and publish them in 1870th? How could she homeschool her children in Ukrainian, translate works of Gogol, Pushkin and others into Ukrainian if, according to you, there was no recognizable Ukrainian culture? At which point of time do you think Ukrainian culture became recognizable?
Your examples did not help me understand your definition recognizable culture.
"If a modern Russian went to Omsk 100 years, you might not even be able to read the language". I am not entirely sure what is your point here. Russian language did not change more than other European languages. Texts older than 1710 might be not convenient to read due to several "not necessary" letters, but the language itself is not hard to understand. Pushkin, father of modern Russian language, did not invent something new, he united official book Russian and talked folk Russian, died in 1837. While book Russian was more "heavy", it is pretty well understandable.
Or is it about Omsk dialect? Was it so strong 100 years ago? Never heard of dialects of Russian being so different 2 Russian speaking people from different areas would not understand each other. Russian citizens of different ethnic backgrounds may speak each their language and not understand each other. Does it make each of their cultures "unrecognizable"? I am currently living in Northern Germany, so, let's take Germany as an example to try to find out what recognizable culture is. Is German culture "recognizable" to you? How many modern Germans understand Platt, Danish, Sorbian ? Would modern Germans speaking Hessian and Bavarian dialects understand each other? According to you there is no recognizable German culture. Or did I get your argument wrong?
"Take a look at the Russian language on the walls of a provoslavni tzerkov mosckvi..... Can you read it?" If it is Russian and was written within last 100 years - definitely. Old Russian - yes. Old East Slavic (used 7th or 8th century to the 13th or 14th century)- rather not. I would say Russian from Domostroy age (16th century) is understandable. Language on the walls of Russian Orthodox Churches is Russian Church Slavonic or Old Church Slavonic- liturgical language since the 9th century, based on Old Bulgarian. No, I could not read it. Like I would not be able to read/understand anything modern doctor would wright in Latin. How does dead language used for specific purposes by specific group of people only define if a culture, with all its components you mentioned above, is recognizable or not and if recognizable, since when? If a Spanish, French or Italian can not read Ecclesiastical Latin, would it mean there is no recognizable Spanish, French or Italian culture?
P.S. Sorry for the wall of text and late reply. It does anger me to the core to hear people say Ukrainian culture does not exist on its own or is very young. I had to sit on my fingers for a while and forgot to reply.
1