The Role of Discourse Analysis in Justifying Military Action: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Russian and Ukrainian Official Statements

This paper examines how political discourse is used to justify military action in the Russia-Ukraine war through a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of official statements by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Vladimir Putin. Drawing on Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional model and van Dijk’s (2006) Ideological Square, the study analyzes the linguistic and rhetorical strategies employed to construct legitimacy, assign blame, and assert moral authority. The findings reveal that Zelenskyy frames Ukraine’s resistance as a just, defensive struggle for sovereignty, using emotive appeals, historical memory (e.g., Chornobyl), and the Peace Formula to position Ukraine as a guardian of international law. In contrast, Putin’s discourse relies on narratives of “denazification” and Western provocation to justify aggression. The analysis demonstrates that in modern warfare, language is a strategic weapon, shaping global perception and political action. The paper underscores the power of discourse in constructing wartime realities and mobilizing support, highlighting the essential role of critical media literacy in interpreting political narratives.