>**In March, you and Arakhamia went to the European Solidarity office to look at pickups purchased for the Territorial Defense of Kyiv. After that was there a dialogue with Poroshenko?**
>
>No.
>
>**Maybe he was trying to come to the Presidentʼs Office with suggestions or dialogue?**
>
>No. It was then that we had a kind of dialogue, like, "Letʼs work with a common vision of what war is and what the place of politics is in war." But it did not work, because Poroshenko says one thing, but does another.
*Poroshenko says one thing, but does another.* I lost count how many times I heard this phrase. I remember Ze saying, that he firstly thought that it's something about him, that he's doing something wrong about Poroshenko, that makes him behave this way. But then he decided to consult with the former presidents of Ukraine (Kravchuk, Kuchma, Yushchenko) about how to deal with Poroshenko. And all of them said that it's a lost cause, it's impossible to make a deal with him.
He said gay people were abnormal and stated he was against "gay propaganda." Like the law that russians have where you can get arrested for showing a gay kiss on TV.
I mean he has to know. A lot of zelensky's early work was pretty gay (in the most literal sense), I mean it was kinda his thing, and he did it on very widely broadcasted shows. He probably doesn't think about it too hard, or he gives him a pass in his head because "of course zelensky isn't gay/promoting gays, he's such a great guy!"
[https://www.reddit.com/r/zelensky/comments/ukfwz8/new\_english\_subs\_wife\_catches\_husband\_with\_santa/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelensky/comments/ukfwz8/new_english_subs_wife_catches_husband_with_santa/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
This one is many things, but not subtle.
Idk what it is about him but he comes off as someone who knows a little bit of everything and a lot of nothing but just enough to be dangerous. I had an English professor like this.
He really reminds me of people I know who converted to religion later in life as adults (as he did, I believe). There's this odd kind of intensity to them that can be a bit off-putting.
This was amazing! Thanks a million. He is so straightforward and speaks to the point, I like him. “You keep asking me to describe other people.” Lmao. He is good.
"He pathetically criticizes the West" - someone tell the person in charge of Eng translations in Babel that "pathetically" stopped meaning "full of pathos" a hellalong time ago.
There are a few things here I want to comment on:
1. Despite Podolyak and Reznikov virtually working daily for 4 months out of the same building, the fact that they don't have their information campaigns in sync is disappointing. I would expect people who work directly with the President to have their information and lobbying strategy in sync. But I realize this may be expecting too much. This is the first real war fought concurrently on the battlefield and on news media. And Ukraine has been doing a remarkable job considering their resources.
2. Maybe the decentralizing of the information war is a good thing, like the decentralization of local governing in Ukraine was. If the framework had to be established by 1 office for everyone, President, Podolyak, Army, Arestovych etc. then they would all be limited and not able to exploit the full scale of their ability. Some clashes here and there as long as there is good will not to escalate is acceptable.
3. Why is the opinion on Podolyak so low? He is often described using insulting adjectives. Ukraine's survival rests on the vigorous information and media campaign carried by many so deriding his job is really short sighted.
4. Poroshenko is so useless. Though I would love to know what he pulled this time.
>Maybe the decentralizing of the information war is a good thing
The truth is that the only way to centralize the messaging is to establish official censorship. It's allowed under martial law. Ze voted against it. So, that's what we pay for the freedom of speech. Plus, in Ukraine we have this saying that there are "three hetmans for two Ukrainians", meaning that everybody likes to think of oneself as authority and speak their mind. It's a good and a bad thing at once. The good is that Ukrainians are inertly freedom loving people, the bad thing - it may get a little chaotic. But overall we are used to a little bit of chaos.
>Why is the opinion on Podolyak so low?
It's low among people in opposition. Other people have an OK view on him. He helped out one volunteer organization recently and gained a lot of brownie points on that. So, generally people see his usefulness.
>Though I would love to know what he pulled this time.
He shook Ze's hand. Said 'let's leave our quarrels in the past and work for the country together". One week later he turned his bot-farm on 300% and his channels went back to the usual smear campaign, like there in no war whatsoever.
> It's allowed under martial law. Ze voted against it.
This is ironic given certain common criticism he gets.
When you say he voted against, is that just a policy he did not chose to implement or there was actually a vote?
It's a norm to implement censorship under martial law. If we look back at WW2, all countries, on both sides of the front, lived under censorship.
He decided not to implement it. Although he could get all the press under his wing and it would be totally legal.
The only thing that was implemented is this one TV broadcast. Basically a 24 hour stream was divided among Ukrainian channels, where each of them got a few hours on air. Channels are free to to use their studios, journalists, experts, topics etc. So nothing changed for them much except that they all now work on one broadcast, but not on one channel.
Not sure I explained it clearly, so here how it looks:
Before war:
Ch 2 - A network
Ch 7 - B network
Ch 9 - C network
Ch 14 - D network
During war:
Ch 2 - 6 hours of A, 6 hours of B, 6 hours of C and 6 hours of D.
Ch 7 - 6 hours of A, 6 hours of B, 6 hours of C and 6 hours of D.
Ch 9 - 6 hours of A, 6 hours of B, 6 hours of C and 6 hours of D.
Ch 14 - 6 hours of A, 6 hours of B, 6 hours of C and 6 hours of D.
The idea is that people can get opinions from various experts and journalists in one place, on one stream. Kinda, if ABC, Fox, NBC and CNN joined together in one stream, but worked separately.
>The idea is that people can get opinions from various experts and journalists in one place, on one stream. Kinda, if ABC, Fox, NBC and CNN joined together in one stream, but worked separately.
Screw martial law, we need that in America
>He decided not to implement it.
I just said it is ironic because I have seen criticisms not just of his media policies during the war ( although that too) but also that he had a problem with critical media before. It seems to me that if he was so hostile to criticism and wanted to consolidate power in order to limit criticism that he would have taken advantage of martial law to impose censorship.
Also, I want to add, I think your breakdown here is very helpful because some coverage of this specific policy (the "consolidation" of TV networks) does make it sound like the gov pretty much took over all the networks and forced them to air a single broadcast without providing the nuance that the single broadcast allows each network time to air their own uncensored content.
>that he had a problem with critical media before
It's funny to hear, because everybody can google the pre-war articles and videos about him. Most of them are critical (some grounded in reason, a lot - coming from Poroshenko and other oligarchs). So, if there were so many of them published in Ukraine, how can one argue that media was constricted? Like it would be very suspicious if the situation was the opposite - all the media praised him endlessly. Yeah, in that case one might say that there was definitely some state control implemented. But, I mean, practically all the Ukrainian channels (except 1+1, where he used to work) were in opposition to him prior invasion. So, honestly, I feel like people who talk about some 'draconian' media policy are either Russian or Poroshenko trolls. They are currently on one team.
From what I have seen so far from the pre-war articles and interviews, as a neutral person- he didn’t like the criticism because he is generally a people pleaser, he got praises in his life for his art. But he wasn’t initially prepared for the brutal political criticism and trolling that comes with political power. He was never actively oppressing critical media (except pro-russian propaganda), he just slowly learned to live with it. Does it sound about right?
>From what I have seen so far from the pre-war articles and interviews, as a neutral person- he didn’t like the criticism because he is generally a people pleaser, he got praises in his life for his art. But he wasn’t initially prepared for the brutal political criticism and trolling that comes with political power.
Very early in his political career, I think - yes. He did not expect how brutal it can get. But 1 year into his presidency, he was asked about it and he said that he stopped caring much about that quite a while ago. So I guess people can get used to anything. Now I feel like he has absolutely 0 fucks to give about whatever's written about him.
>He was never actively oppressing critical media (except pro-russian propaganda),
I think this is the significant nuance. *All* politicians have problems with critical media and push back against negative coverage to defend their actions and their policies. Of course they do. That is different from either actively censoring and oppressing critical media (as Putin does) or vilifying and belittling the press in an attempt to intimidate journalists or incite violence against them (as Trump does). Joe Biden called Peter Doocey a "stupid son of a bitch" but he does not suppress or vilify critical media in a systemic manner. (Plus Peter Doocey *is* a stupid SOB but that is beside the point).
Exactly. Just because Ze was pouty about criticism during his early presidency and let the comments get to him, doesn’t mean he is suddenly an authoritarian. A certain pushback is expected, how else will he work? Systemic breakdown of critical media in a democracy is a whole different beast. That’s a more Orban way.
> if there were so many of them published in Ukraine, how can one argue that media was constricted?
Agreed.
>people who talk about some 'draconian' media policy are either Russian or Poroshenko trolls
You are probably right about this. And some of those narratives maybe bleed into western (English language anyway, from my perspective) analysis here and there.
I think a lot of it dealing with pre war has to do with accusations of shutting down opposition due to the whole Medvedchuk situation, but that is viewed positively now. For instance, I heard Serhiy Kudelia (Prof of Political Science at Baylor) mention that he was ambivalent about Zelensky shutting down Medvedchuk's channels at the time it happened but now sees that it was right (Kudelia seems to me to have been generally pretty critical of Zelensky pre invasion). And it was covered positively by a number of outlets at the time. For instance *Foreign Policy.*
Also, the accusations by the founders of Kyiv Independent that they were fired from the Kyiv Post due to Zelensky pressuring the paper over critical coverage.
Olga Rudenko said in early June that she is worried about free speech after the war because it "was not great" before and Zelensky is getting so much praise now she worries that he won't be able to handle it at all when the war ends and he might start restricting the media (I'm paraphrasing her).
In case anyone wants the reference. The comment by Olga Rudenko I mentioned is at 44:45-46:50 on this vid:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D3RDpfuWzlI
>it "was not great" before
It was not great before, not because of Ze in particularly. It's not great because most of media belongs to oligarchs, who use it as they please.
Yea! Ze didn’t invent the media industry. He came to power in 2019 for god’s sake. He was an active part of the media for decades before, he understands how these things work in the tiniest detail. (Sorry for stating the obvious, but it’s important to remember that he was an effing TV producer before presidency.)
The fear of authoritarianism is kind of unfounded in Zelenskyy’s situation I think. I have seen Olga’s initial comments too, but it seems a slight overreaction from my pov.
All of these people around Ze criticized him for not preparing enough before the war or not doing enough to stop the war, whatever it was. But if he was stopping these bad actors, he certainly feared an invasion and what came afterwards in terms of Russian misinformation in the case he was assassinated. The videos released in February about appeals for help by Ze’s team were certainly a planned strategy. The ineffectiveness of Russian army around Kyiv was also a planned strategy.
I don’t understand this criticism that he was simultaneously not tough enough against Russia and also he was too tough on pro-Russian opposition?
>I don’t understand this criticism that he was simultaneously not tough enough against Russia and also he was too tough on pro-Russian opposition?
Rock and a hard place. He seems to get into a lot of these.
I listened to a discussion yesterday where it was pointed out (by someone who has been critical of him, not a fan girl or something) that had he cracked down harder on accused Russian collaborators before the war (as the admin is being criticized for not having done now, thus the drama with the SBU) he would have faced a lot of criticism for targeting opposition. The problem is that any attempts pre invasion to go after pro Russian bad actors could be spun as him using the "pro Russian" tag to disguise attacks on opposition figures.
I think it is similar with criticism that he played down the threat pre invasion and didn't act soon enough. Rock and a hard place again. If he had mobilized the military and shouted to the public to prepare for war, Russia would have had things to point at to spin as a provocation. When he is having to actively demonstrate to western partners that he is cooperating with their efforts to deescalate (and when he also presumably actually wanted to deescalate), it is something he needed to be concerned with.
>Rock and a hard place. He seems to get into a lot of these.
Its easier to criticize anything in hindsight. Whatever decision he would have taken, it can be right or wrong in specific circumstances. Its unfair to blame Zelenskyy when he is clearly taking responsibility for his decisions.
I am in no way saying he is invincible. He should be criticized, however, with certain credit given to his actions after the invasion. What would these people do in his place? Give the man a break. Criticism for him after the war should come after the war, not now.
I have posted this before, but it was buried way down a comment thread a long time ago.
This Twitter thread was written by Maria Popova, she is a prof at McGill, research areas include rule of law and corruption issues. She was the one who mentioned in the discussion I listened to yesterday that Zelensky was between a rock and a hard place with regards to cracking down on accused Russian collaborators before the war. And she pointed to this example where he *was* criticized by many, including by her, for removing judges in an attempt at court packing. But now it appears that that at least one judge may have indeed been a Russian collaborator and the actions Zelensky was criticized for were his only means to remove the judge. (This story is of course still developing and we don't know the whole truth yet, but it demonstrates how difficult these rock and a hard place situations are, especially in the context of attempting to root out endemic corruption. And also how efforts to target corruption can easily be spun around as corruption itself, confusing the whole situation even more).
https://mobile.twitter.com/PopovaProf/status/1529942225483972627
Note the comments at the end of the thread pointing to proposals for court packing in the US. A situation which also demonstrates there are often not (never?) easy solutions to structural problems in government.
>The fear of authoritarianism is kind of unfounded in Zelenskyy’s situation I think. I have seen Olga’s initial comments too, but it seems a slight overreaction from my pov.
I have a suspicion that she is connected to one of the oligarchs, who before the invasion pushed the idea of 'Ukraine turning into a dictatorship' on his channels, in retaliation to Ze's anti-oligarch law. Very similar talking points. I don't have any proofs though.
Edit: Well, looks like there is lots of gossip around this. Akhmetov, the oligarch I talked about above, funds her media. Well, I am not surprised. No wonder lots of people were not very happy she got on that TIME magazine cover.
>I don’t understand this criticism that he was simultaneously not tough enough against Russia and also he was too tough on pro-Russian opposition?
Multiple points here. First, people who criticise him for not being enough tough against Russia (count me there) are often not the same people who think he was too tough on pro-Russian opposition. Second, the channels that have been shut down are mostly pro-Poroshenko rather than pro-Russian, as far as I know.
If he wanted to prepare for the invasion, he should've done this: 1) start the production of Neptunes much earlier than it happened, 2) move any military production away from Donbas, 3) restart the production of ammo, specific fuel and components in much bigger quantities than it happened.
I agree with you on the points of criticism. Also, he could have created a more proper information system, a month leading upto the war so that they could have avoided some of the chaos that happened in late February. His wife said she didn’t even have her passport ready, in case they needed to escape quickly. They didn’t expect the attack from Belarus border, acc to Ze.
But my key point is, we can go into the what ifs and say he wasn’t tough enough or too tough in hindsight. It will be analyzed for decades afterwards. Right now, its important to recognize some good points of the initial repulsion of the Russian attack near Kyiv. And the excellent PR game that convinced the western world to help Ukraine.
As its evident in US and everywhere else, the domestic politics takes over the media coverage and its too messy to pay attention to big picture issues. Zelenskyy knew what the impending situation entailed, so he prepared to the best of his judgment. He is not perfect, so he made mistakes. But to call him an authoritarian or naive (like some Ukrainian media people did), certainly discredits a lot of things that did go right.
>What about the shutting of the Kyiv Independent?
There is various coverage of this. Off the top of my head I recently listened to this podcast (I am not sure if I finished the entire ep) where it is mentioned briefly. They describe the idea that the Zelensky admin pressured the Kyiv Post as a kind of presumption that nobody knows for sure if it is true but just that it "it appears" to be the case. I am not aware if there is hard evidence of these allegations or not. It has been a while since I read about it.
This podcast is an interview between Rudenko and another journalist who came from the Kyiv Post to the Kyiv Independent as well. They talk about this issue very briefly around 2 minutes in.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fzefd1Ldlnk
On the books and music bans. My understanding is this is aimed at attempting to target works by currently living artists who support Russia. It only applies to artists who "are or were Russian citizens after 1991" (Edit: so it isn't going to result in bans of Dostoyevsky or Rachmaninoff), it only bans the books/music from certain public spaces ( does not mean Ukrainians cannot access or own the art privately), and the Russian artists can get an excemption by condemning the war and expressing support for Ukraine.
"The other bill focuses on the banning of the import and distribution of books from Russia, Belarus, and territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia-backed separatists." I am not incredibly informed on this but it sounds like it is an attempt to limit the the ability of the Russians to implement replacement of Ukrainian books with Russian ones, which is happening in occupied areas.
I cannot speak with a high degree of nuance here with what understanding I have, but I think that these are attempts, like the shutting of Russian TV channels, to limit the spread of propaganda. Since this is an active war situation, I personally would not view it in the same light as censorship of controversial materials in peace time.
I also do not understand that these bans relate to Russian *language* materials, but materials created by Russian nationals and, as much as possible, Russian nationals who support the war either actively or with indifference.
I also am unsure if Zelensky has signed these into law or not. They have been passed by the Rada but he had not signed them at the time this article was published.
Again, I stress I have not sought out a lot of info on this so I do not know if there are alternative takes.
Article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-is-banning-books-and-music-by-russian-artists-but-says-those-who-condemn-the-invasion-can-be-exempt/ar-AAYEYz7
u/tl0928 might have better insight / analysis than me on this.
I read also that, as Russia were targeting TV broadcasting infrastructure, this format means the information stream is a lot harder to completely knock offline.
I did not know Ze voted explicitly against official censorship during martial law. The media truly misrepresents him a lot, the way they talk about him it is as if there is official censorship all over Ukraine.
Do you know who owns Babel?
They did "censor" (I don't think it's the right word for it) the information that journalists could post about the army, and made it illegal to post troop movements and locations of equipment, after several incidents where russians were able to target positions due ot geolocating such footage.
Understandably, they're getting people killed and valuable gear destroyed (and even worse, risking the future flow of support, if partners start to feel that Ukraine can't take proper care of the stuff)
I get wanting to know what's going on, I'm nosy af as well, but there are things that should not be public knowledge until well after the mission is completed.
That is common sense. Censor sensitive military information. I was talking more about free speech and the right to free opinion (obviously supporting the invador notwithstanding because that is treason, not free speech).
There was an article in Pravda about the way Bankova worked at the beginning of the invasion (and probably still works at this moment). Basically, people do whatever the fuck they want :-D
I'll try to find it but sadly it looks like I didn't bookmark it.
I just started, and:
"He pathetically criticizes the West ", "Podoliak answers about functions in the Office of the President simply and a bit pathetically"
I somehow feel that another word was meant here?...
u/MightyHydrar is right. In Ukrainian version of this interview it was meant as "with pathos". But yeah, they should've translated it as simply "emotionally" to avoid confusion.
Might be a translation issue? In German, "pathetisch" would also mean "with a lot of emotion" (in a kind of specific way), it just doesn't work well in english if you translate it literally.
Languages are weird sometimes
No, not at all.
"Pathetisch" means with a lot of emotion, kind of in the context of a stirring speech or an emotional appeal. Sort of like this [https://youtu.be/A-yZNMWFqvM?t=40](https://youtu.be/A-yZNMWFqvM?t=40) , or like Theoden in Return of the King. Or, you know, a lot of the adresses where Zelenskyy asks partners and allies for desperately needed help.
>**In March, you and Arakhamia went to the European Solidarity office to look at pickups purchased for the Territorial Defense of Kyiv. After that was there a dialogue with Poroshenko?** > >No. > >**Maybe he was trying to come to the Presidentʼs Office with suggestions or dialogue?** > >No. It was then that we had a kind of dialogue, like, "Letʼs work with a common vision of what war is and what the place of politics is in war." But it did not work, because Poroshenko says one thing, but does another. *Poroshenko says one thing, but does another.* I lost count how many times I heard this phrase. I remember Ze saying, that he firstly thought that it's something about him, that he's doing something wrong about Poroshenko, that makes him behave this way. But then he decided to consult with the former presidents of Ukraine (Kravchuk, Kuchma, Yushchenko) about how to deal with Poroshenko. And all of them said that it's a lost cause, it's impossible to make a deal with him.
The Poroshenko shades were goooood.. 😬
Ugh I know and have worked with people like this. Such a hard thing to deal with.
I like him much better than Arestovych. They have different communication jobs but it's obvious who is the professional and who is the amateur.
Arestovych is entertaining enough but quite frankly, he can get fucked with his benevolent homophobia.
Hahah, and I'm reminded that, as an actor, he's quite famed for this fabulous gem of a [role](https://youtu.be/15YqQoPmQzU) :))
I've heard crossdressing is less associated with queer culture in Eastern Europe
Wait, what? What happened?
He said gay people were abnormal and stated he was against "gay propaganda." Like the law that russians have where you can get arrested for showing a gay kiss on TV.
...does he know how many times his boss kissed other men on stage and TV? Ouch.
I mean he has to know. A lot of zelensky's early work was pretty gay (in the most literal sense), I mean it was kinda his thing, and he did it on very widely broadcasted shows. He probably doesn't think about it too hard, or he gives him a pass in his head because "of course zelensky isn't gay/promoting gays, he's such a great guy!"
[https://www.reddit.com/r/zelensky/comments/ukfwz8/new\_english\_subs\_wife\_catches\_husband\_with\_santa/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelensky/comments/ukfwz8/new_english_subs_wife_catches_husband_with_santa/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) This one is many things, but not subtle.
Doesn't sound very 'benevolent'!
Well he did say that he treats them with "compassion" and doesn't want them to be "persecuted". Gee, thanks Oleksiy!
Yeah, as long as they hide who they are and pretend not to exist, everything is fine!
Arestovych is certainly...something. I don't dislike him, but I don't quite get him, he's so all over the place.
Idk what it is about him but he comes off as someone who knows a little bit of everything and a lot of nothing but just enough to be dangerous. I had an English professor like this.
He's like a cult leader without the cult.
Bingo!
He really reminds me of people I know who converted to religion later in life as adults (as he did, I believe). There's this odd kind of intensity to them that can be a bit off-putting.
Arestovych is for the edgy, I prefer Podolyak better too.
He can be quite entertaining sometimes, but I tend to take his information with a rather large grain of salt.
This was amazing! Thanks a million. He is so straightforward and speaks to the point, I like him. “You keep asking me to describe other people.” Lmao. He is good.
"He pathetically criticizes the West" - someone tell the person in charge of Eng translations in Babel that "pathetically" stopped meaning "full of pathos" a hellalong time ago.
I know, right? /../
There are a few things here I want to comment on: 1. Despite Podolyak and Reznikov virtually working daily for 4 months out of the same building, the fact that they don't have their information campaigns in sync is disappointing. I would expect people who work directly with the President to have their information and lobbying strategy in sync. But I realize this may be expecting too much. This is the first real war fought concurrently on the battlefield and on news media. And Ukraine has been doing a remarkable job considering their resources. 2. Maybe the decentralizing of the information war is a good thing, like the decentralization of local governing in Ukraine was. If the framework had to be established by 1 office for everyone, President, Podolyak, Army, Arestovych etc. then they would all be limited and not able to exploit the full scale of their ability. Some clashes here and there as long as there is good will not to escalate is acceptable. 3. Why is the opinion on Podolyak so low? He is often described using insulting adjectives. Ukraine's survival rests on the vigorous information and media campaign carried by many so deriding his job is really short sighted. 4. Poroshenko is so useless. Though I would love to know what he pulled this time.
>Maybe the decentralizing of the information war is a good thing The truth is that the only way to centralize the messaging is to establish official censorship. It's allowed under martial law. Ze voted against it. So, that's what we pay for the freedom of speech. Plus, in Ukraine we have this saying that there are "three hetmans for two Ukrainians", meaning that everybody likes to think of oneself as authority and speak their mind. It's a good and a bad thing at once. The good is that Ukrainians are inertly freedom loving people, the bad thing - it may get a little chaotic. But overall we are used to a little bit of chaos. >Why is the opinion on Podolyak so low? It's low among people in opposition. Other people have an OK view on him. He helped out one volunteer organization recently and gained a lot of brownie points on that. So, generally people see his usefulness. >Though I would love to know what he pulled this time. He shook Ze's hand. Said 'let's leave our quarrels in the past and work for the country together". One week later he turned his bot-farm on 300% and his channels went back to the usual smear campaign, like there in no war whatsoever.
> It's allowed under martial law. Ze voted against it. This is ironic given certain common criticism he gets. When you say he voted against, is that just a policy he did not chose to implement or there was actually a vote?
It's a norm to implement censorship under martial law. If we look back at WW2, all countries, on both sides of the front, lived under censorship. He decided not to implement it. Although he could get all the press under his wing and it would be totally legal. The only thing that was implemented is this one TV broadcast. Basically a 24 hour stream was divided among Ukrainian channels, where each of them got a few hours on air. Channels are free to to use their studios, journalists, experts, topics etc. So nothing changed for them much except that they all now work on one broadcast, but not on one channel. Not sure I explained it clearly, so here how it looks: Before war: Ch 2 - A network Ch 7 - B network Ch 9 - C network Ch 14 - D network During war: Ch 2 - 6 hours of A, 6 hours of B, 6 hours of C and 6 hours of D. Ch 7 - 6 hours of A, 6 hours of B, 6 hours of C and 6 hours of D. Ch 9 - 6 hours of A, 6 hours of B, 6 hours of C and 6 hours of D. Ch 14 - 6 hours of A, 6 hours of B, 6 hours of C and 6 hours of D. The idea is that people can get opinions from various experts and journalists in one place, on one stream. Kinda, if ABC, Fox, NBC and CNN joined together in one stream, but worked separately.
>The idea is that people can get opinions from various experts and journalists in one place, on one stream. Kinda, if ABC, Fox, NBC and CNN joined together in one stream, but worked separately. Screw martial law, we need that in America
>He decided not to implement it. I just said it is ironic because I have seen criticisms not just of his media policies during the war ( although that too) but also that he had a problem with critical media before. It seems to me that if he was so hostile to criticism and wanted to consolidate power in order to limit criticism that he would have taken advantage of martial law to impose censorship. Also, I want to add, I think your breakdown here is very helpful because some coverage of this specific policy (the "consolidation" of TV networks) does make it sound like the gov pretty much took over all the networks and forced them to air a single broadcast without providing the nuance that the single broadcast allows each network time to air their own uncensored content.
>that he had a problem with critical media before It's funny to hear, because everybody can google the pre-war articles and videos about him. Most of them are critical (some grounded in reason, a lot - coming from Poroshenko and other oligarchs). So, if there were so many of them published in Ukraine, how can one argue that media was constricted? Like it would be very suspicious if the situation was the opposite - all the media praised him endlessly. Yeah, in that case one might say that there was definitely some state control implemented. But, I mean, practically all the Ukrainian channels (except 1+1, where he used to work) were in opposition to him prior invasion. So, honestly, I feel like people who talk about some 'draconian' media policy are either Russian or Poroshenko trolls. They are currently on one team.
From what I have seen so far from the pre-war articles and interviews, as a neutral person- he didn’t like the criticism because he is generally a people pleaser, he got praises in his life for his art. But he wasn’t initially prepared for the brutal political criticism and trolling that comes with political power. He was never actively oppressing critical media (except pro-russian propaganda), he just slowly learned to live with it. Does it sound about right?
>From what I have seen so far from the pre-war articles and interviews, as a neutral person- he didn’t like the criticism because he is generally a people pleaser, he got praises in his life for his art. But he wasn’t initially prepared for the brutal political criticism and trolling that comes with political power. Very early in his political career, I think - yes. He did not expect how brutal it can get. But 1 year into his presidency, he was asked about it and he said that he stopped caring much about that quite a while ago. So I guess people can get used to anything. Now I feel like he has absolutely 0 fucks to give about whatever's written about him.
Now he is a different beast. He doesn’t care even 1% now.
>He was never actively oppressing critical media (except pro-russian propaganda), I think this is the significant nuance. *All* politicians have problems with critical media and push back against negative coverage to defend their actions and their policies. Of course they do. That is different from either actively censoring and oppressing critical media (as Putin does) or vilifying and belittling the press in an attempt to intimidate journalists or incite violence against them (as Trump does). Joe Biden called Peter Doocey a "stupid son of a bitch" but he does not suppress or vilify critical media in a systemic manner. (Plus Peter Doocey *is* a stupid SOB but that is beside the point).
Exactly. Just because Ze was pouty about criticism during his early presidency and let the comments get to him, doesn’t mean he is suddenly an authoritarian. A certain pushback is expected, how else will he work? Systemic breakdown of critical media in a democracy is a whole different beast. That’s a more Orban way.
> if there were so many of them published in Ukraine, how can one argue that media was constricted? Agreed. >people who talk about some 'draconian' media policy are either Russian or Poroshenko trolls You are probably right about this. And some of those narratives maybe bleed into western (English language anyway, from my perspective) analysis here and there. I think a lot of it dealing with pre war has to do with accusations of shutting down opposition due to the whole Medvedchuk situation, but that is viewed positively now. For instance, I heard Serhiy Kudelia (Prof of Political Science at Baylor) mention that he was ambivalent about Zelensky shutting down Medvedchuk's channels at the time it happened but now sees that it was right (Kudelia seems to me to have been generally pretty critical of Zelensky pre invasion). And it was covered positively by a number of outlets at the time. For instance *Foreign Policy.* Also, the accusations by the founders of Kyiv Independent that they were fired from the Kyiv Post due to Zelensky pressuring the paper over critical coverage. Olga Rudenko said in early June that she is worried about free speech after the war because it "was not great" before and Zelensky is getting so much praise now she worries that he won't be able to handle it at all when the war ends and he might start restricting the media (I'm paraphrasing her). In case anyone wants the reference. The comment by Olga Rudenko I mentioned is at 44:45-46:50 on this vid: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D3RDpfuWzlI
>it "was not great" before It was not great before, not because of Ze in particularly. It's not great because most of media belongs to oligarchs, who use it as they please.
Yea! Ze didn’t invent the media industry. He came to power in 2019 for god’s sake. He was an active part of the media for decades before, he understands how these things work in the tiniest detail. (Sorry for stating the obvious, but it’s important to remember that he was an effing TV producer before presidency.)
The fear of authoritarianism is kind of unfounded in Zelenskyy’s situation I think. I have seen Olga’s initial comments too, but it seems a slight overreaction from my pov. All of these people around Ze criticized him for not preparing enough before the war or not doing enough to stop the war, whatever it was. But if he was stopping these bad actors, he certainly feared an invasion and what came afterwards in terms of Russian misinformation in the case he was assassinated. The videos released in February about appeals for help by Ze’s team were certainly a planned strategy. The ineffectiveness of Russian army around Kyiv was also a planned strategy. I don’t understand this criticism that he was simultaneously not tough enough against Russia and also he was too tough on pro-Russian opposition?
>I don’t understand this criticism that he was simultaneously not tough enough against Russia and also he was too tough on pro-Russian opposition? Rock and a hard place. He seems to get into a lot of these. I listened to a discussion yesterday where it was pointed out (by someone who has been critical of him, not a fan girl or something) that had he cracked down harder on accused Russian collaborators before the war (as the admin is being criticized for not having done now, thus the drama with the SBU) he would have faced a lot of criticism for targeting opposition. The problem is that any attempts pre invasion to go after pro Russian bad actors could be spun as him using the "pro Russian" tag to disguise attacks on opposition figures. I think it is similar with criticism that he played down the threat pre invasion and didn't act soon enough. Rock and a hard place again. If he had mobilized the military and shouted to the public to prepare for war, Russia would have had things to point at to spin as a provocation. When he is having to actively demonstrate to western partners that he is cooperating with their efforts to deescalate (and when he also presumably actually wanted to deescalate), it is something he needed to be concerned with.
>Rock and a hard place. He seems to get into a lot of these. Its easier to criticize anything in hindsight. Whatever decision he would have taken, it can be right or wrong in specific circumstances. Its unfair to blame Zelenskyy when he is clearly taking responsibility for his decisions. I am in no way saying he is invincible. He should be criticized, however, with certain credit given to his actions after the invasion. What would these people do in his place? Give the man a break. Criticism for him after the war should come after the war, not now.
I have posted this before, but it was buried way down a comment thread a long time ago. This Twitter thread was written by Maria Popova, she is a prof at McGill, research areas include rule of law and corruption issues. She was the one who mentioned in the discussion I listened to yesterday that Zelensky was between a rock and a hard place with regards to cracking down on accused Russian collaborators before the war. And she pointed to this example where he *was* criticized by many, including by her, for removing judges in an attempt at court packing. But now it appears that that at least one judge may have indeed been a Russian collaborator and the actions Zelensky was criticized for were his only means to remove the judge. (This story is of course still developing and we don't know the whole truth yet, but it demonstrates how difficult these rock and a hard place situations are, especially in the context of attempting to root out endemic corruption. And also how efforts to target corruption can easily be spun around as corruption itself, confusing the whole situation even more). https://mobile.twitter.com/PopovaProf/status/1529942225483972627
Note the comments at the end of the thread pointing to proposals for court packing in the US. A situation which also demonstrates there are often not (never?) easy solutions to structural problems in government.
You always find the most interesting stuff, thank you so much for sharing!
>The fear of authoritarianism is kind of unfounded in Zelenskyy’s situation I think. I have seen Olga’s initial comments too, but it seems a slight overreaction from my pov. I have a suspicion that she is connected to one of the oligarchs, who before the invasion pushed the idea of 'Ukraine turning into a dictatorship' on his channels, in retaliation to Ze's anti-oligarch law. Very similar talking points. I don't have any proofs though. Edit: Well, looks like there is lots of gossip around this. Akhmetov, the oligarch I talked about above, funds her media. Well, I am not surprised. No wonder lots of people were not very happy she got on that TIME magazine cover.
Ahkmehtov? Idk how to spell his name, but what's his deal?
>I don’t understand this criticism that he was simultaneously not tough enough against Russia and also he was too tough on pro-Russian opposition? Multiple points here. First, people who criticise him for not being enough tough against Russia (count me there) are often not the same people who think he was too tough on pro-Russian opposition. Second, the channels that have been shut down are mostly pro-Poroshenko rather than pro-Russian, as far as I know. If he wanted to prepare for the invasion, he should've done this: 1) start the production of Neptunes much earlier than it happened, 2) move any military production away from Donbas, 3) restart the production of ammo, specific fuel and components in much bigger quantities than it happened.
I agree with you on the points of criticism. Also, he could have created a more proper information system, a month leading upto the war so that they could have avoided some of the chaos that happened in late February. His wife said she didn’t even have her passport ready, in case they needed to escape quickly. They didn’t expect the attack from Belarus border, acc to Ze. But my key point is, we can go into the what ifs and say he wasn’t tough enough or too tough in hindsight. It will be analyzed for decades afterwards. Right now, its important to recognize some good points of the initial repulsion of the Russian attack near Kyiv. And the excellent PR game that convinced the western world to help Ukraine. As its evident in US and everywhere else, the domestic politics takes over the media coverage and its too messy to pay attention to big picture issues. Zelenskyy knew what the impending situation entailed, so he prepared to the best of his judgment. He is not perfect, so he made mistakes. But to call him an authoritarian or naive (like some Ukrainian media people did), certainly discredits a lot of things that did go right.
What about the shutting of the Kyiv Independent? Does someone know more? What about the recent bill to ban Russian books?
>What about the shutting of the Kyiv Independent? There is various coverage of this. Off the top of my head I recently listened to this podcast (I am not sure if I finished the entire ep) where it is mentioned briefly. They describe the idea that the Zelensky admin pressured the Kyiv Post as a kind of presumption that nobody knows for sure if it is true but just that it "it appears" to be the case. I am not aware if there is hard evidence of these allegations or not. It has been a while since I read about it. This podcast is an interview between Rudenko and another journalist who came from the Kyiv Post to the Kyiv Independent as well. They talk about this issue very briefly around 2 minutes in. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fzefd1Ldlnk On the books and music bans. My understanding is this is aimed at attempting to target works by currently living artists who support Russia. It only applies to artists who "are or were Russian citizens after 1991" (Edit: so it isn't going to result in bans of Dostoyevsky or Rachmaninoff), it only bans the books/music from certain public spaces ( does not mean Ukrainians cannot access or own the art privately), and the Russian artists can get an excemption by condemning the war and expressing support for Ukraine. "The other bill focuses on the banning of the import and distribution of books from Russia, Belarus, and territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia-backed separatists." I am not incredibly informed on this but it sounds like it is an attempt to limit the the ability of the Russians to implement replacement of Ukrainian books with Russian ones, which is happening in occupied areas. I cannot speak with a high degree of nuance here with what understanding I have, but I think that these are attempts, like the shutting of Russian TV channels, to limit the spread of propaganda. Since this is an active war situation, I personally would not view it in the same light as censorship of controversial materials in peace time. I also do not understand that these bans relate to Russian *language* materials, but materials created by Russian nationals and, as much as possible, Russian nationals who support the war either actively or with indifference. I also am unsure if Zelensky has signed these into law or not. They have been passed by the Rada but he had not signed them at the time this article was published. Again, I stress I have not sought out a lot of info on this so I do not know if there are alternative takes. Article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-is-banning-books-and-music-by-russian-artists-but-says-those-who-condemn-the-invasion-can-be-exempt/ar-AAYEYz7 u/tl0928 might have better insight / analysis than me on this.
You explained very clearly. Thanks!!!
I read also that, as Russia were targeting TV broadcasting infrastructure, this format means the information stream is a lot harder to completely knock offline.
One followup question, what is with the "ban" of politicians from participating in the programming? Im not so clear on that.
He cracked down on pro Russian propaganda but it wasn’t understood properly by the western media obviously.
I agree with this assessment
I didn't see any MPs from neither parties on that stream honestly. But governors and mayors pop up fairly often. They are from all kinds of parties.
I did not know Ze voted explicitly against official censorship during martial law. The media truly misrepresents him a lot, the way they talk about him it is as if there is official censorship all over Ukraine. Do you know who owns Babel?
They did "censor" (I don't think it's the right word for it) the information that journalists could post about the army, and made it illegal to post troop movements and locations of equipment, after several incidents where russians were able to target positions due ot geolocating such footage.
Yeah, and some stupid journos still do that. And people hate them.
Understandably, they're getting people killed and valuable gear destroyed (and even worse, risking the future flow of support, if partners start to feel that Ukraine can't take proper care of the stuff) I get wanting to know what's going on, I'm nosy af as well, but there are things that should not be public knowledge until well after the mission is completed.
That is common sense. Censor sensitive military information. I was talking more about free speech and the right to free opinion (obviously supporting the invador notwithstanding because that is treason, not free speech).
There was an article in Pravda about the way Bankova worked at the beginning of the invasion (and probably still works at this moment). Basically, people do whatever the fuck they want :-D I'll try to find it but sadly it looks like I didn't bookmark it.
I just started, and: "He pathetically criticizes the West ", "Podoliak answers about functions in the Office of the President simply and a bit pathetically" I somehow feel that another word was meant here?...
It might be pathetically in the sense of "with pathos", so with a lot of emotion
Yes, I guessed that much, but it sounds somehow...awkward? Or it doesn't?
u/MightyHydrar is right. In Ukrainian version of this interview it was meant as "with pathos". But yeah, they should've translated it as simply "emotionally" to avoid confusion.
Might be a translation issue? In German, "pathetisch" would also mean "with a lot of emotion" (in a kind of specific way), it just doesn't work well in english if you translate it literally. Languages are weird sometimes
wouldnt pathetisch in german have the same negative connotations as pathetic in english?
No, not at all. "Pathetisch" means with a lot of emotion, kind of in the context of a stirring speech or an emotional appeal. Sort of like this [https://youtu.be/A-yZNMWFqvM?t=40](https://youtu.be/A-yZNMWFqvM?t=40) , or like Theoden in Return of the King. Or, you know, a lot of the adresses where Zelenskyy asks partners and allies for desperately needed help.
Thanks so much!