Comments by "Olga P." (@olgap.) on "Anders Puck Nielsen"
channel.
-
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