Seems logical that he would use a green screen whether he was in Ukraine or not.

Very start of an invasion doesn't feel like a great time to be broadcasting your exact location. Also maybe not a great time to be doing outtakes in the open streets.

I don't have a whole lot of information to say whether he actually stayed or not. I assume there would be a ton of credible evidence in one direction or the other - photos, videos, etc. But either way, I'm just saying that I could definitely understand the need for a professional studio and obfuscation of location.

Yup, I assume faked backdrops are pretty common among politicians.

Again, President Biden has used a fake Oval Office several times:

https://www.newsweek.com/why-white-house-built-fake-oval-off...

Woah, you're really gatekeeping how a president should look like in the middle of war?

Or worse, complaining that his image is unpresidential?

What the actual fuck?

I sure am. Because it’s obvious propaganda.

Is there anyone who thinks that the way a president dresses and acts isn't propaganda?.. It's not exactly some huge revelation.

Such a strange take. Of course any public appearance of any government head is propaganda. If propaganda ever has a value, it’s the assured image of a commander in chief in the war time, when the troop have to face a stronger enemy who outnumber them. They need to know their leader is there with them. It’s a matter of survival for Ukraine. Do you think a well shaved Zelenskyy in impeccable suits, sitting behind long table — like Putin — is more suitable?

What do you think all of Prigozhin’s videos are?

In a way, yes I would find it more plausible if Zelenskyy looked like the trope of president should look like.

I sincerely would have been more likely to believed that Putin is ran evil warmonger, and that Zelenskyy is a paragon, if it wasn’t the case there was so much of this top-down pressure in the US to make sure people don’t accidentally pick the wrong side to root for.

If I saw that the facts were plainly speaking for themselves I would believe them. But they aren’t, so I have to be very critical.

I understand the need for this propaganda in Ukraine for the sake of Ukrainians. I don’t understand why in the US, Ukrainian propaganda has a state sanctioned monopoly over Russian propaganda.

I still don't understand your take, you are very wary of Ukrainian propaganda because the US supports it. So look at the facts: Russia invaded a neighbouring country, butchered civilians, hazed cities.

Your take on propaganda because a president of a country being invaded doesn't dress the part you expect is seriously bizarre. You're not being critical, you are being cynical.

Zelenskyy dressing a certain way and standing in front of a green screen to look like he is in Kiev was just one thing that came to mind specifically because the poster I was responding to was talking about how Zelenskyy was so unique for doing this.

Since that was the aspect of the propaganda that was relevant at the moment, that’s what I focused on. But it is a tiny part of the whole, and yes on its own I agree that it appears quite trivial and inconsequential. But when mass media (including new media) ceaselessly bombards the entire population with tiny things like this over the course of years, then it has a very real and drastic effect. And most nefarious of all, because this kind of propoganda is ever present and so subtle, it is almost invisible. And when you do point out any one of its many aspects you get responses exactly like this: that it is trivial and inconsequential and why don’t I just get with the program, and isn’t it obvious there’s good guys and there’s bad guys and isn’t it obvious who is who.

> and why don’t I just get with the program, and isn’t it obvious there’s good guys and there’s bad guys and isn’t it obvious who is who.

And this is the cynical post-modernist post-truth part that I criticise about your position. It's just a doubt of everything, of what's even real, and so you are just playing your part of the propaganda that made you think that way. The issue in post-truth is that your take is just another parroted version of "what's even real?". Even on this case, where it's pretty clear who are the bad guys, you prefer to be cynical and not even believe what your eyes can see.

You've been bombarded by subtle or overt propaganda your whole life, by governments and corporations. It's not by being cynical that you are somehow better than others or not being influenced by it, you aren't immune to it by believing nothing. Or by being a contrarian.

This is the stance of post-truth, exactly one aspect of post-modernism.

Even more because you won't ever be able to verify every single piece of information yourself, you don't have access to all the data possible to verify it. You don't have access to people.

Again, you not trusting anything is the result of falling for propaganda that told you that nothing is trustworthy.

Are you going to reproduce every single scientific experiment to be able to verify them? Are you going to travel to every single place that has news about to interview people yourself and get your own conclusions? Nope, you just don't believe anything, you went to the extreme cynicism side.

It's impossible to achieve what you wrote, it's a lie you tell yourself because it's uncomfortable to trust, there's no truth except your own and that is... Very, very post-modern.

It’s not like he’s traipsing around in full combat kit. The look he has chosen is probably meant to convey that 1: we’re at war (regardless of what conditions might be like at your particular location), and 2: I’m not living a pampered lifestyle while you’re sitting in the cold and the dark under threat of missile and drone attack. (Whether that’s true or not is beside the point)

What should he wear so that no one thinks it's propaganda?

Are you blaming the weaker country for doing what it can? You people are unconscionable.

could be worse, he could be wearing a tan suit or a sweater /s