ISSN 2360-7998
Abstract
This article examines how wartime political rhetoric functions as a vehicle for constructing national identity, legitimizing power, and shaping ideological polarization during the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Through a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of selected speeches by Presidents Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the study investigates how linguistic strategies articulate competing narratives of sovereignty, legitimacy, and moral authority. Drawing upon Van Dijk’s (1998, 2006) socio-cognitive model and Fairclough’s (1995, 2015) three-dimensional framework, the analysis explores how discursive choices both reflect and reproduce structures of dominance and resistance. Three official addresses by each leader, delivered between February 24–26, 2022, were purposively selected for their immediate geopolitical significance and representativeness of early wartime rhetoric. The findings reveal that both presidents rely on comparable discursive mechanisms—binary oppositions, moral evaluation, and collective identity formation—though these serve divergent ideological ends. While Putin’s discourse constructs Russia’s aggression as defensive and restorative, Zelenskyy’s rhetoric frames Ukraine’s resistance as moral and democratic. The study contributes to the growing body of CDA scholarship on political communication by illuminating how rhetorical strategies mediate power relations and legitimize conflict in the contemporary global arena.
Keywords: critical discourse analysis, political rhetoric, Russia–Ukraine war, ideology, power, nationalism, presidential discourse