This paper deals with Weaponizing History in the Russo-Ukranian War in diachronic perspective focusing on the events of 2014 and 2022. It shall be demonstrated that in 2014 it was medieval narratives that were the main focus: For instance, in the presidential speech addressed to the Federal Assembly on December 4, 2014, the annexation of Crimea was legitimized by the disputed "Korsun Legend". This firmly established narrative has made it possible to proclaim Crimea to be the cradle of the Russian nation and a sacred place. In the recent war Putin invokes the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) which has been developed into a central place of remembrance in his regime and according to which Ukraine is to be denazified and delegitimized as a product of Bolshevism. It is significant to note that these narratives synchronize and harmonize rather well with one another in the collective historical consciousness of Russians. Keywords (ab)uses of historical memory-politicization of history-history wars-Russkiy Mir-Putinism-annexation of Crimea-Russo-Ukrainian War

Political attempts to control how the past may be represented have flourished in the twenty-first century. Russia participates in this trend, having taken steps to legislatively and juridically safeguard the legacy of the USSR's involvement in World War II. This has institutionalized an interpretation of the fight against Nazism that was already widely held in society, making the Russian case a "hard test" for evaluating when the violation of a historical norm is deemed appropriate and what the impact of a memory law might be relative to other factors. Drawing on two vignette experiments conducted in 2021, our article demonstrates both that the discursive context in which a controversial statement about the past is made matters when respondents assess whether the person making it should be punished and that criticism of a historical norm is more likely to be accepted when it emanates from an in-group member. We also find that the state has limited ability to influence societal attitudes regarding history. Moreover, a willingness to defend state-led interventions into how the past is depicted aligns with support for the political system but the latter does not necessarily overlap with individuals' historical views, underscoring the multidimensional nature of collective memory.

On the 24th of February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in a war that has drawn widespread condemnations, criticisms, and reactions from world leaders. While an infinitesimal figure has spoken in support of the invasion, most world leaders have outrightly condemned the action of the Russian government led by Vladimir Putin who in the process of justifying his actions, claims that the reason for the invasion was to “de-nazify” the Ukrainian government policies. Ironically, Putin himself is a product of Nazism, a system of government that he strongly supported in his prime. Moreso, in the days of the USSR, the Russian government had been accused of the same offense the Russian government is accusing Ukraine of. Therefore, this is a clear case of linguistic labeling embellished in the exercise of power as a justification for the activity carried out by a more superior force. The theoretical framework of CDA was adopted in this study because it focuses squarely on the projection of ideolog...

If used correctly, language can be a guiding force, allowing an individual to influence others and achieve the desired results. However, the power of language can be used by politicians, one of whom is President Putin, and that was evidenced during the annexation ceremony of the four Ukrainian regions by Russia. Thus, the purpose of this paper is a critical analysis of Putin"s speech, and the author employed Fairclough"s three-dimensional discourse analysis to investigate how language is used to control mass opinion and gain dominance. The study results show that President Putin successfully used rhetoric to encourage nationalism and patriotism among (nearly) all Russians who were not satisfied by the set of events in Ukraine. Moreover, politicians can achieve the desired results by using several linguistic features and rhetorical strategies, and since a series of geopolitical conflicts mark international relations, that issue is essential. On the other hand, a more accurate understanding of the language and its usage can be achieved through critical discourse analysis. Therefore, in this paper, the author uses Norman Fairclough"s 3D Model of Critical Discourse Analysis to investigate President Putin"s linguistic features and rhetoric to understand the interrelation between language, power, and political discourse in contemporary conflicts.

This paper looks at Vladimir Putin's public statements and articles devoted specially to historical issues which were published in 2019 through 2021 (with reference to the first such article published in 2009). The Russian President's statements and extended texts on history are scrutinized in this paper as political messages having a certain target audience and political goals. The analysis has revealed a rapid evolution of Putin's approach to relations with the West in 2019-2021, from attempts to reanimate the dialogue to a sharp confrontation. It has also proved the

This paper analyzes the propaganda campaign orchestrated by the Russian authorities with the aim of promoting a version of the country’s history for political purposes. This version puts the accent on the exceptionality of Russian historical development, and is Geared to endowing the figure of Vladimir Putin – seen as the person who has succeeded in carrying out a number of national projects that have been frequently abandoned throughout Russian history. The analysis presented here centres on two channels used in the campaign: school textbooks and the film industry.

Stretching from the “Ancient Rus” to events taking place in May 2021, the essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” provides a highly selective and ideological reading of over one thousand years of history. Despite Putin’s claim that this is “analytical material based on historical facts, events and historical documents”, it would be pointless to engage in a sweeping review to debunk the individual claims made throughout. Instead, the document is interesting as a source about Putin’s world view and that of his inner circle and should be analysed as such.

This paper deals with Weaponizing History in the Russo-Ukranian War in diachronic perspective focusing on the events of 2014 and 2022. It shall be demonstrated that in 2014 it was medieval narratives that were the main focus: For instance, in the presidential speech addressed to the Federal Assembly on December 4, 2014, the annexation of Crimea was legitimized by the disputed “Korsun Legend”. This firmly established narrative has made it possible to proclaim Crimea to be the cradle of the Russian nation and a sacred place. In the recent war Putin invokes the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945) which has been developed into a central place of remembrance in his regime and according to which Ukraine is to be denazified and delegitimized as a product of Bolshevism. It is significant to note that these narratives synchronize and harmonize rather well with one another in the collective historical consciousness of Russians.

This article is concerned with exploring conflicting media positions as reflected in the discursive patterns of news headlines and leads. Using Halliday’s transitivity analysis, this study examines how the Russian Military Intervention in the Syrian Civil War was socially, discursively and linguistically represented in the CNN and RT coverage of the event. The analysis examines the process of news making, role of ideology, and types of relationships between the news agencies and the political institutions in the United States and Russia. The aim is to show the discursive power of news agencies in creating different realities of the same event through language use. Results indicate that media are a political actor in the dissemination of both Russian and American views on the Syrian conflict. Although RT and CNN write about the same issue, the language choices made and underlying ideologies are different. The conflicting ideologies of both CNN and RT were highlighted by the use of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation in order to support self’s ideological positions and distort other’s political stances.