What is US war propaganda

27. Juni 2023

Anne App­le­baum: “Tim wan­ted one last word, so I will give it to him.”

Timo­thy Sny­der “I think that was a beau­ti­ful sum­ma­ti­on by Ser­hii, I just wan­ted to say what is new is often old, I mean, that the thing that we are see­ing in the form of pre­si­dent Selen­skyj, but not only, is the unasha­med arti­cu­la­ti­on of values - right? The unasha­med arti­cu­la­ti­on of values. And that is an anci­ent tra­di­ti­on. I mean, thats a clas­si­cal tra­di­ti­on. To speak and to exem­pli­fy phy­si­cal cou­ra­ge, and to asso­cia­te taking risks with demo­cra­cy, is a clas­si­cal tra­di­ti­on. Its very old, but its new in the sen­se, that we’­ve for­got­ten about it. It’s new in the sen­se, that the way the rus­si­ans have trea­ted ever­ything as cri­tique, ever­ything as sub­ject to be under­mi­ned, and how we have kind of gone for that too, we’­ve come to accept, that may­be not­hing is real­ly true, and may­be not­hing is worth sacri­fi­cing, and may­be ethics dont real­ly mat­ter - and so I think what is one of the things that is new in this war is some­thing that is actual­ly very old. The reco­gni­ti­on, that some things are worth figh­t­ing for, and that while you are figh­t­ing for them its worth try­ing to say what they are.”

The thing that hits you right over the head here as soon as the talk starts is that the com­po­si­ti­on of the panel is off.

Becau­se you have three his­to­ri­ans who all do the same thing, and start laye­ring their “argu­ments” with almost ran­dom emo­tio­nal­ly char­ged phra­ses - all ending up in dif­fe­rent pla­ces, giving dif­fe­rent emo­tio­nal­ly char­ged, con­struc­ted argu­ments, try­ing to pick up and estab­lish dif­fe­rent buz­z­words, and the result is that you can easi­ly clue in on what is hap­pe­ning here.

So if you ever wan­ted to know how mass pro­pa­gan­da is craf­ted, this is how. The ent­i­re event has the fee­ling of a ser­mon, half of the audi­ence is clin­ked out after the first 20 minu­tes, but its most­ly important that you film Wolf­gang Ischin­ger part­ta­king in the event.

Just under­stand that this is pre­fa­ced by App­le­baum to be a talk of three of the most important his­to­ri­ans of our time -- and then try to pick up on what they argued this war is, or was about nine mon­ths ago, and how much is actual­ly rele­vant now that you look at the video nine mon­ths later.

Its… Real­ly something.

Of cour­se - Vic­tor Pin­chuck foun­da­ti­on, YES con­fe­rence.

It was a sign of Snyder’s stan­ding that the YES con­fe­rence was only the second-highest-profile stop on his Kyiv iti­nera­ry. The main rea­son for his trip, Sny­der told me, during one of three long con­ver­sa­ti­ons we had recent­ly, was a pri­va­te mee­ting with Ukraine’s pre­si­dent, Volo­dym­yr Zelenskiy.

src: click

(Fluff­pie­ce in the UK Guardian)

Just so you see what the pro­mi­nent his­to­ri­ans actu­al per­for­mance is, and how its por­trai­ed in the Guar­di­an in this case.

Its… Real­ly qui­te something.

Vic­tor Pin­chuck Foundation.

edit: Now all thats left to do is to hope for a Rau­scher at the aus­tri­an news­pa­per Der Stan­dard, to craft opi­ni­on pie­ces for three weeks in a row (1,2,3), that the aus­tri­an government, as well the aus­tri­an oppo­si­ti­on lis­tens to the wrong experts in the Ukrai­ne case, and that they’d need to lis­ten to Sny­der, and Fiao­na Hill (1,2) and Kras­t­ev (not­hing against Kras­t­ev) instead.

After the opi­ni­on jour­na­list has been invi­ted to the IWM­Vi­en­na, and then name­dro­ped the­re from the stage.

And having a for­mer US ambassa­dor that hims­elf name­drops Timo­thy Sny­der at the Munk deba­tes surely doesnt hurt eit­her. He just read one of his books on the way to the deba­tes btw. “And it exp­lains every aspect of this war, …” (From memo­ry, plea­se dou­ble­check this state­ment.) Even though it was publis­hed befo­re the war.

The audi­ence starts clapping.

edit: And then of cour­se sta­te in the IWM­Vi­en­na, that you (peop­le who do per­cep­ti­on cen­te­red focus group rese­arch on what messaging publicly works for the ukrai­ni­an side) have Sny­der to exp­lain to the public Ukrai­nes past, but who will exp­lain to them Ukrai­nes future per­spec­ti­ves? Sny­der thinks its him, of cour­se - but then, thats pro­bab­ly not such a good idea…

Hinterlasse eine Antwort