Online Russia, today.
How is Russia Today framing the events of the Ukrainian crisis of 2013 and what this framing says about the Russian regime’s legitimation strategies?
The case of the Russian-language online platform of RT
Margarita Kurdalanova 24th of June 2016
Graduate School of Social Sciences Authoritarianism in a Global Age
Adele Del Sordi Dr. Andrey Demidov
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 3
1.Introduction ... 4
2.Literature Review ... 5
2.1 Legitimacy and legitimation ... 5
2.2. Legitimation in authoritarian regimes ... 7
2.3 Media and authoritarianism ... 9
2.4 Propaganda and information warfare ... 11
3.Case study ... 13
3.1 The Russian-Ukrainian conflict of 2013 ... 13
3.2 The power of RT ... 16 4. Research design ... 18 4.1 Methodology ... 18 4.2 Data collection ... 19 4.3 Frames ... 20 4.4 Qualitative analysis ... 21 4.5 Validity of results ... 22 5. Findings ... 23 5.1 Security ... 23 5.2 Duty ... 24 5.3 Anti-Ukraine ... 26 5.4 Anti-West ... 27 5.5 Moral ... 28 5.6 History ... 29 5.7 Nationalism ... 30 5.8 Information warfare ... 31 5.9 Frames count ... 32
6.0 The presidential Crimean speech ... 33
7. Discussion of Findings ... 36
8. Theoretical implications ... 38
9. Conclusion ... 40
10. RT articles cited ... 42
Abstract
Since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis in 2013, the Russian government has increasingly been engaging in media manipulation strategies. Often referred to as the greatest propaganda blitzkrieg in the history of information warfare, the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict brings forward the importance of online information in a globalising world. The following thesis aims to answer the question of how Russia Today is framing the events of the Ukrainian crisis, and further speculates about what such framing can say about Russia’s legitimation strategies. The data source for the analysis performed is the Russian-language version of RT, where the main audience targeted is the domestic one. Having prime focus on theories of legitimation, the thesis aims to understand the exact practices of legitimation rather than its outcome. The analysis of four events, including the official Crimean address of Vladimir Putin, confirmed the importance of nationalism as a frame popular within RT news reports. Furthermore, the thesis yields seven more categories further observing the legitimation strategies of the Russian-language online platform of RT.
The first casualty when war comes is Truth — U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917
1. Introduction
The Russian annexation of Crimea and any subsequent events have led to civil unrest and mass protests all over Ukraine. Furthermore, the Russian Federation was strongly criticised by most of the Western world for the infringement of state sovereignty and unlawful actions against Ukraine. However, the importance of this conflict goes beyond Russia’s militaristic operations and the subsequent backlash from the Ukrainian and international community. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict of 2013 can be seen as an instance in which the concept of legitimation played a crucial role. It marked the role of media as a tool in legitimising Russia’s actions and presenting those actions as a brave countermeasure against “Ukronazis” and oppressors of the Russian people. For Russia, such legitimation practices were of great importance since no government or international law could have justified Russia’s actions against Ukraine.
Russia’s propensity to seek legitimation is strongly underlined within Kremlin’s media. Despite the fact that the Kremlin’s media channels argued in favour of anti-fascism and ensuring the security of Russians as the main reasons behind the Crimean annexation, most international observers harbour significant doubts regarding the idea of Russian protection as a motive behind the conflict of 2013. A closer look at the narratives of the conflict suggests the presence of economic, political and foreign policy goals as more likely causes of the conflict. However, if media legitimation practices were used in order to justify Russia’s policy implementation, this raises questions about the role of legitimation within authoritarian regimes.
In order to approach these questions, the current research takes a closer look at the Crimean crisis as presented by Russia’s official media channel. With the help of content analysis and category-based data observation, the research addresses the debate of how legitimacy affects authoritarian regimes. As the thesis will further illustrate, legitimacy and legitimation are concepts of great importance for the stability of regimes. The focus of the current thesis is the Russian-language version of RT where the practices of legitimation are targeted towards the domestic audience of Russia Today. As the thesis will later on discuss the fact that the audience of the Russian language RT is primarily the domestic one is in close correlation with the ways through which messages were framed by the media. This is most
visible in the performed comparison between RT articles and the Presidential official Crimean address where variance in between audiences targeted is present. In addition, the fact that only articles in Russian language have been analysed could provide further information about the exact nature of messages broadcasted to the educated, internet-literate audience of the online Russian RT.
Moreover, the act of legitimation provides feasible information for the measurement of the effects legitimacy has on regimes’ stability. In this paper’s analysis of the research, such legitimation practices will be derived from RT’s online articles, further exploring the importance of media manipulation and propaganda in the 21st century. Prior to that, a theoretical reflection of the relevant concepts will be provided, where the importance of legitimation is further explored. This theoretical section is followed by summary of the specific narratives of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The same narratives will be further discussed in the following chapter, which is concerned with the factual background of the conflict. After presenting the methodology and operationalisation sections, the research will outline the findings of the analysis and return to answer the principal research question: How has the online Russia Today framed events in front of its domestic audience during the Ukrainian conflict of 2013-2016 and what such framing says about Russia’s legitimation practices?
2. Literature Review
2.1 Legitimacy and legitimation
The concept and theorisation of legitimacy has long perplexed politicians, rulers, psychologists and scholars within various humanitarian fields. Scholars have, over the course of centuries, discussed the phenomenon of how leaders “deduce their legitimacy, no matter with what right, from the will of the governed” (Weber, 1921, p. 4). The concept of legitimacy and its definition have significantly changed throughout the years, especially after the emergence of democratic regimes (Hawkesworth & Kogan, 2004, p. 110). A widely accepted definition is the one of Lipset stating legitimacy as “the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate or proper ones for the society” (1959, p. 77). Alagappa (1995), in addition,
believes there are cases where “the concern is less with the use of power within the law and more with its effective use for the promotion of the collective welfare.” (p. 31). The author further argues that “the emphasis in political legitimation shifts to the normative and performance elements.” (: ibid). An example of such performance elements could be the use of soft power, where in the current state of globalisation, “factors of technology, education and economic growth are becoming more in international power” (p. 154), since “If a state can make its power seem legitimate in the eyes of others, it will encounter less resistance to its wishes.” (Nye, 1990, p. 167). This, therefore, leads to the belief that authoritarian regimes retain a set of practices in order to ensure the legitimacy of rule.
Without engaging in the debate of whether the above critiques are justified or not, this literature review focuses on the argument that one should not discard any area of study, especially in cases where the study clearly spurs debate in a particular field. In line with this argument, Barker (2001) states that, despite being important, normative discussions of legitimacy suffer from certain drawbacks (pp. 21-24). The author further argues that the judgemental nature of normative discussions limits the debate to a restricted conclusion of whether one regime is legitimate or not, without any descriptive or explanatory content (: ibid). On the other hand, profound study of the ways in which regimes legitimate themselves and the ways through which they resist counter-legitimations can reveal political practices which both constitute and cause particular outcomes for the existence of that regime. Barker (2001) debates that the only way to focus on legitimation is to distinguish “the terms ‘legitimacy’ and ‘legitimate’ as respectively descriptive of an object and the property of an object, to normative enquiry, and to use the term ‘legitimation’ for the discussion of observable human activity” (p. 23)
Leibfried and Zürn (2005) conducted a study examining legitimation practices, and, more specifically, how official political statements affect the state’s legitimacy. Their study led to the conclusion that there is “no doubt that the transformations of the modern Western state through globalisation and transnational integration affect processes of legitimation”. (p. 135) This transformation, however, is not only visible within Western states. Despite addressing the connection between globalisation and authoritarian (in)stability, Hayoz (2012) extensively discusses the need for legitimation practices within authoritarian regimes. (pp. 19-22) Presenting Russia as a representative of authoritarian regimes, the author argues that facing the challenges of globalisation “the regime may become more repressive or will need to find an alternative source of legitimacy”. (Hayoz, 2012, p. 20) Having all of the criticism in
mind, one should take note of the argument that “legitimation is a distinct and valuable concept, and that once it has been distinguished from other concepts, which do different work, a theory of legitimation is possible to solve problems which have held up the study of politics and government, and which facilitates more fruitful investigation in the future” (Barker, 2001, p. 23).
The above discussion has shown that studying legitimacy is a difficult enterprise in any political regime. In particular, it is extremely hard to measure the actual level of regime acceptance in authoritarian contexts. This drawback comes not only from the restrictions in possible methodology, but also the fact that authoritarian regimes often do not provide a free enough political environment to permit the expression of opinion. This, therefore, is the reason why one should turn to the practices and strategies of legitimacy-seeking, that is legitimation, in order to better understand the process of maintaining political beliefs.
2.2. Legitimation in authoritarian regimes
Legitimation is relevant for all types of regime. The studies of Graf Kielmansegg, (1971) and Schmidt (2003), have led Von Soest and Grauvogel to the argument that “Every political system – irrespective of whether it is democratic or authoritarian – must attain a certain level of legitimacy in order to ensure its persistence in the long term”. (von Soest & Grauvogel, 2015, p. 19). There is, however, a great difference in the approaches to democratic and authoritarian legitimation. By representing regime stability in three pillars, namely repression, co-optation and legitimation, Gerschewski (2013) calls for a greater amount of research on legitimation in autocratic regimes. Referring to the work of Linz (1976) and O’Donnell (1979), Gerschewski points out that “while the research on democracy and democratization has produced an abundance of theories and empirical results, the research on autocratic political regimes as the “counterpart” to democracies has not moved beyond the classics of the 1960s and 1970s” (p. 13). Gerschweski enumerates the normative, substantive and methodical contemporary critiques as the reasons behind the neglect of legitimation as a factor of regime stability (: ibid). In other words, the author debates that scholars tend to overlook the causal factors when discussing legitimation. In his definition, legitimation is seen as the process of gaining support through an empirical form of legitimacy belief. By
introducing this alternative, empirical approach to studying the process of gaining support, Gerschewski attempted to give a new perspective to the existing normative traditions. He debates that “research efforts have gradually lost sight of the legitimation dimensions” (p. 18). By discussing the empirical dimensions, Gerschewski presents a more feasible set of practices for studying legitimation with the core assumption that no ruler can maintain ultimate power without a certain degree of legitimacy(: ibid). After applying this assumption to authoritarian cases, the author debates that “Today’s autocracies cannot rely (at least in the long term) entirely on their abuse of power” (2013, p. 18).
Von Soest and Grauvogel (2015) develop the concept further, stating “A regime’s claim to legitimacy is important for explaining its means of rule and, in turn, its durability (Easton, 1965; Brady, 2009), because relying on repression alone is too costly as a means of sustaining authoritarian rule.”(pp. 18-46). The issue with power politics and repression as conditions for preserving authoritarian rule is mainly their short term effect. Von Soest and Grauvogel (2015) further argue that political leaders can only sustain their rule in the long term by seeking certain levels of legitimacy. Relying on repression alone would mean that no leader could guarantee the stability of rule since the regime would appear vulnerable to anyone more powerful. In contrast, by introducing the concept of legitimacy, rulers can influence “elite cohesion, opposition activity, and potential regime popularity” (Grauvogel and von Soest, 2014). By introducing certain dimensions of legitimation strategy ranging from ideology to performance, Von Soest and Grauvogel (2015) conclude that such legitimation strategies can influence not only regimes’ persistence but also their breakdown. It is, therefore, worth noting that deeper understanding of the aforementioned practices could also enhance the creation of counter strategies
Despite being called “observable human activity” (: ibid), Gerschewski underlines the difficulties in studying legitimation practices within authoritarian regimes (2013, p. 20). One of the strategies to evaluate legitimation practices proposed by Gerschewski (2013) is focused on official legitimacy claims, which can be classified and studied through content analysis techniques (p. 21). In addition, Hayoz (2012) underlines the importance of the command of language, arguing that “modernization remains at the level of rhetoric since under non-democratic conditions it cannot mean serious economic and political reforms” (p. 21). It is therefore safe to say that political messages are indeed an important feature of authoritarian legitimation practices. This hypothesis will be explored within the current thesis, which
examines both direct messages from the authorities and public discourse as transmitted by official online media.
2.3 Media and authoritarianism
The end of the 20th century also marked the collapse of 85 authoritarian regimes, bringing forward the idea of global democratisation (Geddes, 1999). Since then, the field of comparative politics has spent significant time in explaining the rules of democratic transition around the world. Beginning with O’Donnell and Schmitter (2013 [1986]), many academics have developed political models discussing the paradigm of democratisation. There was, however, an interesting change in the focus of those models. In its early years, democratic transition theories were rather state centred with little or no attention paid to international influence and factors (Kern & Hainmueller, 2009). In the wake of globalisation studies, however, inter- and supranational environment became a topic greatly explored by politicians and scholars (Linz, 2000; Linz & Stepan, 1996; Starr, 1991; Huntington, 1991). As part of this theoretical shift, mass media was noted as an important element of soft power used by both democratic and authoritarian regimes (Nye, 2004; Giddens, 1981). The significance of media use and abuse has been central in several theoretical works (Giddens, 1981; Nye, 2004; Kern & Hainmueller, 2009; Gunitsky, 2015).
Many scholars have studied the Western use of media in terms of soft power weapon against authoritarianism (Pool, 1973; Quester, 1990; Lisann, 1975; Nelson, 1997; Puddington, 2000). Such studies focus on the idea that access to free media can trigger pro-democratic values and the need of change within masses. The above academic discourse consists of two well-maintained theories. The first one claims that Western media had a snowballing effect on the countries behind the Iron Curtain and played a major role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. This snowballing effect consisted of cross border inspiration, where a revolution in one country would essentially lead to civil unrest in another. Such inspiration, however, would have been impossible without the means of Western media broadcasting (Schmitter; 1996, O’Neil; 1998, Pridham 1997). The second theorisation claims that Western media can have rather long term effect over authoritarian regimes, since it reassures people that the free, democratic world has not forgotten them. Free media does so by exposing propaganda,
undermining the authoritarian sources of information and most importantly weakening the credibility of regimes rulers (Kern & Hainmueller, 2009) (See also: Diamond; 1993, Whitehead; 1996, Sukosd; 2000, Bennett; 1998, Buhl; 1990, Rustow; 1990, Roberts; 1999).
The effect, however, is not so straightforward. In fact, the adaptation of authoritarian practices, which will be described in the following paragraphs, can be juxtaposed against the aforementioned Western practices of using media against oppressive states. According to Kalathil and Boas (2001), authoritarian states can respond to the influential challenges of Internet in two ways: proactive and reactive. (Kalathil & Boas, 2001) (pp. 3-5). Proactive responses are of a somewhat guiding nature, where the state is aiming, instead of prohibiting, Internet usage to “build state-controlled national Intranets that serve as a substitute for the global Internet” (Kalathil & Boas, 2001, p. 3). This proactive use can be seen as a strong legitimation practice, imposed by authoritarian regimes in order to reassure its legitimacy both, domestically and internationally. Some scholars believe that with the development of Internet media, authoritarian regimes are in fact strengthening rather than declining. Morozov (2011) states that people “in their refusal to see the downside of the new digital environment, cyber-utopians ended up belittling the role of the Internet, refusing to see that it penetrates and reshapes all walks of political life, not just the ones conducive to democratisation” (p. 3). Continuing, Morozov (2011) argues that “Failing to anticipate how authoritarian governments would respond to the Internet, cyber-utopians did not predict how useful it would prove for propaganda purposes” (p. 3), where online propaganda appears to be a strong legitimation practice for authoritarian regimes.
Finally, Gunitsky explores the transition authoritarian regimes have undergone in proactively using social and online media rather than supressing it. Moving away from the negative outcomes social media might have on authoritarianism, state rulers effectively adopted the new concept in order to promote “chosen traumas” (Volkan, 2001) to undermine democratic values, indicate achievements of political officials and divert public attention. Gunitsky then argues, “The opposite of internet freedom, therefore, is not necessarily internet censorship but a deceptive blend of control, co-option, and manipulation.’’ (Gunitsky, 2015, p. 1). This change, spurred by Internet media, is also reshaping the ways in which scholars approach the idea of media practices and influence. As already shown, scholars have put a lot of effort in studying the influence of Western media domestically and internationally. Now, more attention should be devoted to the ways in which authoritarian regimes make use of online media.
2.4 Propaganda and information warfare
The connection between propaganda, legitimation and authoritarian stability has not been explored in depth. The literature on propaganda offers some insights in this sense (Bernays, 1933; Doob, 1935; Ellul, 1965; Jowett & O’Donnell, 1986; Rushkoff, 1999). As observed in the media debate, there are proponents arguing in favour of the democratising effect of the Internet (Castells, 2010; Coleman, 2005; Kline & Burstein, 2005; Kahn & Kellner, 2004) and critics arguing the opposite. (Murdock, 2002; Graber, 2004; Morozov, 2011)
Curran (2012) for example, argues that states can always legitimate themselves with the help of various means other than the practices of Internet control and manipulation (pp. 49-51). The above statement, however, undermines the importance of propaganda and neglects the argument that propaganda is not only evolving but also expanding. Doob (1989) for example states that “the growth of propaganda and propaganda organisations in the twentieth century has been exponential” (p. 375).
In their study about propaganda and persuasion, Jowett and O’Donnell (2014) argue that the “development of new technologies affect the nature of propaganda and has been seen to be the major factor in the increasing use of propaganda” (p. 393). This comes to show that internet politics are far from being predominantly democratic. “The internet is not democratic by nature. Both democratic and authoritarian governments try to control the Internet” (van Dijk, 2012, p. 136). It can be argued, however, that authoritarian regimes need to control the internet in order to maintain their rule. Jan van Dijk (2012) argues there are three predominant ways in which authoritarian regimes make use of online media. One of those is the “counter-information campaign” method, where “authoritarian regimes themselves use social media to distribute their own propaganda” (van Dijk, 2012, p. 111). However, to understand the impact of internet on authoritarian regimes, one should “look beyond the Web’s obvious uses by opponents of the government and study how it has affected legitimacy-boosting aspects of modern authoritarian rule as well” (Morozov, 2011, p. 86).
Another useful lens through which to look at the matter is that provided by literature on information warfare. According to Singh (2014), “Information warfare may include giving
the enemy propaganda to convince them to give up, and denying them information that might lead to their resistance. It is the strategy for undermining an enemy’s data and information systems, while defending and leveraging one’s own information edge.” The key objective of information warfare is to modify the facts concerned with current affairs through user-generated content in order to gain control over the narrative and essentially to influence and manipulate the population (Fokin, 2016, p.9).
In the case of Russia, the war is aiming at shielding the regime from international criticism and internal opposition alike. Despite the fact such tactics of leveraging information are nothing new to Russia, since the 2013 Ukrainian crisis we have witnessed “the most amazing information warfare blitzkrieg we have ever seen in the history of information warfare”. (Hoyle, 2014) The reason behind the increased intensity of information disparity is Russia’s objective to isolate its internal population from any international influence. However, the question of whether the objective is met is not necessarily the right one. As Pomerantsev (2015) argues, “the Soviet bloc was not sustained by fervent belief in the system, but by acquiescence in a common discourse that co-opted the population—a case of propaganda signalling what was “correct” behaviour rather than achieving ideological indoctrination“(p.42).
It is therefore worth observing the official and public discourse and seeing whether a deeper understanding of the Russian narratives can provide further information about the regime as a whole. The following research will make a step in this direction and will try to answer the question of how the Russian state has used online media towards its domestic audience to legitimise its policies in relation to the Ukrainian conflict of 2013. Having a prime focus on the core aspects of the narrative, the research is aiming to read between the lines of media framing and understand more about Russia’s media legitimation strategies.
3. Case study
3.1 The Russian-Ukrainian conflict of 2013
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is by no means an issue recently emerged. The geopolitical significance of Ukraine dates as far back as the collapse of the Soviet Union, a notion later reinforced by the Orange Revolution. The independence of Ukraine and its integrity, however, were taken for granted. Despite being formally independent, Ukraine is still de facto strongly influenced by the Russian state.
Political observers often discuss Viktor Yanukovich’s policies and the annexation of Crimea as an expression of Russia’s long lasting imperialist politics (Kuzio, 2015; Grant, 2015). Such imperialistic politics, however, are often defined by oppression and violence (Cohen; 1998, 78-80). The case was no different in the instance of the Ukrainian crisis of 2013-2014 (Kuzniar, 2014). In November 2013, the then-Ukrainian President faced a choice which served as a catalyst for the upcoming events in the region. Victor Yanukovych was in the position to either tighten the EU-Ukrainian relationship or to move forward to a planned Eurasian Union together with Russian, Kazakhstan and Belarus. By choosing the latter, the Ukrainian President rejected the European Association Agreement act and became the reason for the most violent civic unrest in the history of Ukraine. The Maidan protest resulted in hundreds of casualties later named as the Heavenly Hundred. The Maidan protest, in turn, led to Yanukovych’s ousting, who secretly fled to Russia and was granted a Russian citizenship (RFE, 2014). The conflict escalated rapidly in the following months, leading to the annexation of Crimea on the 18th of March 2014, bringing forward “the first formal annexation of territory in Europe since 1945” (Wilson, 2014, p. vi). The impeachment of President Viktor Yanukovych and covert invasion of, at the very least Russian-backed, military forces led to open conflict and political unrest all over the country (Yuhas, 2014). The principal actors throughout the Crimean Crisis were the Russian and Ukrainian government, whilst non-state, pro-Russian forces and separatist movements in Crimea were actively fighting for the independence of their region (Biersack & O'Lear, 2014, p. 248).
Currently ongoing, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine goes far beyond military interventions and further complicates Russian- European diplomacy. Previously based on international agreements and mediation, the EU and US relationship with Russia is now underlined by open information war, sanctions and strategic military campaigns. Each one of
the above policies holds a different role and significance within the conflict. The information warfare implemented by the Russian state aims to influence the way in which current affairs are perceived domestically and internationally in order to then act upon its means, bringing opposition to a minimum degree (Darczewska, 2015, p. 13-14).
The current research has turned to four instances present in Russia’s media and political life during the Ukrainian crisis. The selection criteria for the events included the conditions that first both Russia and Ukraine had to be objects discussed in the articles. In addition, the events had to be greatly publicised in Western media as well, since this is often a precondition for a strong Russian media response. The third condition defined only events with long-term effect over the Russian-Ukrainian relationship where further discussions of the subject could influence Russia’s policies towards Ukraine. Last but not least, all of the news events were selected primarily based on the exact time frame of the Russian-Ukraine conflict, and specifically the Russian-language online platform of RT.
To start with, the Crimean Status referendum was held on the 16th of March 2014. The question of the referendum was whether the Crimean people wanted to join the Russian Federation or if they wanted to remain under Ukrainian governance (BBC, 2014). Highly criticized by the international community, the referendum was dismissed by the West as illegal and was labeled as a referendum at gunpoint. Russia, on the other hand, discharged such allegations, claiming no international laws were disregarded. With a remarkable result of 96.77% in favor of succession, the referendum led to the declaration of independence of the Republic of Crimea and its acceptance to join the Russian Federation (Clegg, 2014). The annexation of Crimea is not only the first formal annexation since 1945, but also the greatest contemporary issue defining the struggle between Russia and the West. The significance of the event brought forward the official presidential address of Vladimir Putin welcoming Crimea into the Federation (Wilson, 2014, p. vi).
The third event present in the current research is the tragedy of the MH17 plane crash. The Malaysian Airline flight MH17 was an international flight scheduled for the 17th of July 2014. This is the exact date when the plane was shot down near the Russian-Ukrainian border and crashed in the Donetsk region (BBC, 2015). The crash occurred during a battle in the ongoing war in Donbass. Resulting in nearly three-hundred casualties, the MH17 crash reinforced the Russian-Ukrainian information warfare and brought forth constant accusations and blame from both sides. The tragedy once more underlined the importance of deeper understanding and quick resolution of a conflict which has led to thousands of casualties
including the MH17 victims. The plane crash appeared as an important scene in the information warfare between Russian and Ukraine, since the victims of the tragedy were primarily Dutch citizens and the disaster was instantly depicted by the international community and media.
The last event discussed within the current research is concerned with the Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko. Currently a member of the Ukrainian parliament, Savchenko is a former pilot of the Ukrainian Army air force. During the Donbass war in 2014 Savchenko was captured by pro-Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine and was later deported to Russia. The Ukrainian pilot was accused of illegal border crossing and the murder of two Russian journalists (BBC, 2016). The significance of the case comes from the great importance Savchenko played in the media war between Russia and Ukraine. While still imprisoned, Savchenko was elected deputy in the Ukrainian parliament and was awarded the title of “Hero of Ukraine”. Russia, on the other hand, held a strong position against Savchenko’s actions and argued against the politicisation of the trial. On 21st of March the Donetsk court found Nadiya Savchenko guilty of charge and sentenced the pilot to 22 years in prison (: ibid). The media attention to the above case, together with the strong Ukrainian and Western pressure over the Russian Federation, led to a prisoner swap in 2016 when Savchenko was released through a pardon granted by Vladimir Putin. The above case was specifically selected for this study due to the attention given by the Russian media and the fact that Nadyia Savchenko appeared to be a personification of the power politics of Russian and Ukraine.
The presidential speech was held on the 18th of March 2014, in which Vladimir Putin addressed State Duma deputies, Federation Council members, heads of Russian regions and civil society representatives in the Kremlin (Kremlin, 2014). This is the second event discussed within the research, in which the official presidential discourse is juxtaposed against the RT narratives of all other events. During the speech President Putin discusses the Crimean referendum, Western media, the common Ukrainian-Russian history, and the policies of the EU and US. During the same event, the treaty of accession of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol in the Russian Federation was signed. In a similar manner to the referendum, the Crimean speech was greatly criticized and many believe the event was the turning point for the war in Donbass (Piontkovsky, 2014).
3.2 The power of RT
The above events have led to the research of articles published on the online platform of the Russian-language Russia Today media outlet. The data source was chosen based on the history and nature of RT, the specifics of the online platform, and the focus on a Russian-speaking audience. Initially created in 2005, RT openly broadcasts its connection with the Kremlin. During an interview with RT journalists, Putin calls the media outlet a personal project stressing that: “When we designed this project back in 2005, we intended to introduce another strong player on the world’s scene, a player that wouldn’t just provide an unbiased coverage of the events in Russia but also try, let me stress, I mean – try to break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams.” (RT, 2013)
The history of Russia Today serves as evidence of the close ties the media has with the Russian government. According to a recent EU report “RT chief editor Magarita Simonyan admits to having a hotline to the Kremlin, and she echoes Dmitry Kiselev's disregard for 'objective reality'” (Bentzen & Russell, 2015, p. 3). The arguments for RT being a puppet media outlet were further reinforced during the Ukrainian crisis when the channel experienced major reforms.
In 2013, only a month after the protests in Kiev began, the Russian president ordered the liquidation of Russia’s leading news agency RIA Novosti, along with the 1929-launched radio station, The Voice of Russia. After 72 years of news reporting and no signs of decreasing popularity, Putin urged the liquidation of RIA Novosti giving a three-month deadline for the closure. The replacement, proposed by Vladimir Putin, introduced a new international RT information agency, intending “To highlight abroad the state policy of the Russian Federation and its public life” (Putin, Presidential Decree No:894, 2013). The title of the decree in itself says a lot about the nature of the media channel. Named a decree “on some measures for improving the effectiveness of State media” (: ibid), the document treats RT as an instrument for policy-making rather than a news-reporting agency. Such attempts to reach a wider audience have been visible since 2009, when the channel was renamed from Russia Today to simply RT (: ibid). The above developments show Russia’s attempt to end RT’s isolation from the world and rather adopt an expansionist model of development in order to increase its popularity and, more importantly, its influence.
In addition to the newly conceptualised RT, in 2013 the media outlet introduced a Russian-language online portal targeting Russian-speaking internet users. Based on recent surveys, RT claimed Russia’s internet usage has risen significantly and now more than 60% of Russians rely on internet updates (RussiaToday, 2016). The demographics behind the above 60% show that half of the internet users in Russia are under the age of 34 (RussianSearchMarkeing, 2016). It is interesting, therefore, to look at the online RT and to what extent its published content is targeting the aforementioned majority of 18 to 34 year-old users. Such a focus on the online RT materials can give a new insight into the practices of media use in Russia. In addition, it is worth mentioning that a great proportion of Russia’s online users are people living in the Western parts of the country, often based in Moscow or other large cities (: ibid).
As mentioned, the Russian-language RT is the prime focus of the current research. Despite having free access to any internet sources, it can be argued that the main source of information for the domestic Russian audience is the one written in Russian. The reason for that is the high level of foreign language illiteracy in Russia since, according to a Levada (2014) poll, only 11% of Russians speak English to a level high enough to enable them to read the news comfortably (LevadaCenter, 2014). The second most-spoken language reported was German (at 2%), which leads to the belief that the majority of the Russian audience is relying on Russian-language news outlets (: ibid). The above arguments, together with the World Bank claims of rising internet popularity in Russia (from 4.1 % in 2002 to 53% in 2013), are underlining the importance of online RT for the Federation (Fredheim, 2014, pp. 41-42). The above surveys, together with RT’s information page, show that at least 70 million Russians turn to RT for news updates to a certain extent. This number does not include other Russian-speaking nationalities or Russian emigrants. It is, therefore, important that further studies concerned with RT and its publications be undertaken, especially within the environment of such conflicts as the Ukrainian crisis where direct influence over the domestic audience of RT can, in fact, contribute to Russia’s regime legitimation.
4. Research design
4.1 Methodology
The unit of analysis in this research is online news articles. The articles were retrieved from the online platform of the Russian RT website in March 2016. The platform provided a search engine, giving the opportunity to search for articles based on a certain time period. This option, however, was removed by RT in April 2016 giving less opportunity for replication of the analysis. The articles, nevertheless, are fully accessible on the RT website with their specific dates and unique URLs.
The performed qualitative content analysis has examined the (non)existence of different narratives. Content analysis is the preferred method of analysis for many due to the possibility of producing systematic results through qualitative analysis. When in 1927, Harold Lasswell introduced the Theory of Political propaganda, he also introduced media content analysis as a systematic way to observe mass media channels (Lasswell, 1927). Later on he presented a great definitive model underlining the importance of four factors:
Who says what
Through which channel To whom
With what effect? (Lasswell, 1948, p. 38)
Answers to the above questions can be regarded as an important basis for an insightful analysis. It is important to note, however, that the current research looks only at the intended effect. This paper does not aim to assess the levels of success of propaganda. The intended effect is of greater importance, since the research is interested in what it was aimed at rather than what was achieved. Qualitative analysis is different in its interpretive capacity, which enables researchers to discuss their analysis in depth. In choosing qualitative content analysis as a preferred methodology for this research, I am preferably looking for an explanatory meaning of given data. One of the most important benefits of qualitative content analysis is the possibility to perform “continuous, iterative analysis” and systematically discuss the meaning of your data (Matthew, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013, p. 14).
In order to further validate the results, a numerical count of words is performed. This word count serves as a complementary set of data which further justifies the selection of categories drawn from the qualitative analysis.
4.2 Data collection
The source chosen for the data collection is the Russian written online platform of RT. As mentioned before, RT is state owned media outlet with strong ties with the ruling government. This, and the fact that RT was voted most influential media channel in Russia, brought forward the belief that RT would serve as a great basis for data collection (RussiaToday, 2015).
The units of analysis are news articles concerned with events connected to the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. As already shown, media and news outlets can have a serious impact on their audience and thus they provide an important platform for studying news content. Secondly, the close ties of RT with the Russian state mean that the news articles give a representation of what the state stands for.
I will look at 110 articles and review four events: the Crimean referendum, Putin’s Crimean speech, MH17 accident and the court battle of Ukrainian-labelled hero Nadya Savchenko. The time period for each event is exactly seven days, starting from the day of the event’s occurrence. By covering all articles over the period of one week for each event, the research aims to create reliability of results. I will study all articles presented by RT through both, qualitative and quantitative means. The selection criteria for the events included the conditions that both Russia and Ukraine had to be objects discussed in the articles. The reason for this is that the research emphasis is focused on Russia’s legitimation strategies within the Ukrainian crisis of 2013. The condition for having both countries in all events would ensure the consistency of the analysis. In addition, the events had to be greatly publicised in Western media as well, since this is often a precondition for a strong Russian media response. The third condition defined only events with a long-term effect over the Russia-Ukrainian relationship where further discussions of the subject could influence Russia’s policies towards Ukraine. Long-term in the above case is defined by the fact that all events brought forth international sanctions which will inevitably affect the Russian-Ukrainian relationship and
future mutual policies. Last but not least, all of the news events were selected based on the exact time frame of the Russian-Ukraine conflict from 2013 to 2016, and specifically the Russian-language online platform of RT.
4.3 Frames
The study of framing is one of growing importance, especially within the fields of communication and media studies, in which nowadays one can hardly find studies completed without the use of a framing study. The reason why framing studies are so widely accepted is the ability to analyse the process of communicating text and messages. The text analysis can vary from novels to an official governmental decree and therefore provides a unified tool for studying scripts. According to Entman (1993), “frame is to select some aspect of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text” (p. 52). The process of framing is needed by authors in order to “promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment recommendation” (: ibid). The above proposed definition underlines the importance of studying framing, since texts are always placed through the vision of authors, consciously and/or subconsciously.
Media framing in particular is even more important when discussing news articles and policy-making, as it is the case of the current research. In the process of news framing, frames reshape complex issues by communicating greater importance or weight to certain arguments and ideas. Moreover, news framing is aimed at creating connections between issues, objects or any concepts such that after exposure to the framed message the targeted audience accepts or is at least aware of the connections (Nisbet, 2010, p. 47). This use of media framing is an inseparable part of the previously discussed governmental propaganda and can serve as a powerful instrument in dictating public behaviour. As D’Angelo and Kuypers (2010) debate, the word “use” is of particular importance due to its dual meaning: “use as a conduct of information and use as a manipulated channel for information” (p. 1). The latter has been greatly exploited by Russian media, where the misuse of information channels is a reoccurring event. This and the previously mentioned high levels of Russian state-owned media influence placed RT as an object of analysis within the current research.
4.4 Qualitative analysis
For my qualitative content analysis I have created a codebook which summarises the analysis performed. The analysis is performed by the extraction of paragraphs which carry specific legitimisation ideas and which are later on interpreted based on their specific context. In the codebook the possible legitimisation practices were operationalised based on eight major categories concerned with different RT narratives.
The above categories were derived from two sources: my preliminary analysis of articles and an extensive literature review. During my preliminary research, I studied small, random samples of RT articles acknowledging the range of reoccurring frames. The preliminary research underlined the importance of nationalism as a narrative often used by RT in their news articles. Moreover, in line with the literature provided, my sample analysis brought forward the categories of anti-Ukraine and anti-West as important frameworks within the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Securitisation as a category, on the other hand, was included solely based on previous research findings where scholars believed the Russian media was using securitisation frameworks in order to legitimise state actions in Ukraine (Gaufman, 2014).
As already mentioned, the importance of the above categories was underlined through numerical count of words. The main difference with the above qualitative analysis is that a numerical count does not treat data as a text which can be further interpreted, but rather as an information sample constructed of words (Laver & Garry, 2000). Words, however, often carry different meanings depending on their context. The concept of nationalism, for example, can be underlined not only by the use of the word ‘nationalism’ but also ‘our land’, ‘Russia’, ‘we’ and so on and so forth. I did, therefore, create a dictionary which takes the same main frameworks I used for my qualitative analysis and further on analysed each framework. My selection of words is based on both empirical and theoretical reasoning similar to the one used for the qualitative analysis. Again, sample news articles were selected in order for words concerned with main frameworks to be detected.
4.5 Validity of results
In order to assess the validity of the results of this research project, an intercoder reliability check has been used. Since one of the goals of content analysis is to interpret text and to identify underlying meanings, ensuring the reliability of the analysis is crucial (Neuendorf, 2002). When conducting content analysis, independent coders evaluate and interpret these texts to check if they can come up with the same findings. High intercoder reliability, expressed in a percentage, can, therefore, increase the validity of research design and eventual results.
For the purpose of this research design, two coders with a comparable academic background were asked to apply the codebook and dictionary for both the qualitative and numerical analysis to 20% of the data. The results of these coders were then compared to my own of the same 20%. As expected, the reliability for the quantitative key word search is 100% due to the minimal subjectivity involved in this kind of analysis. With regards to the qualitative frame analysis, some differences can be observed: coder 2 reached 76% and coder 3 reached 82%. This, again, is understandable; identifying and coding frames is more subjective than the mere counting of key words. Nevertheless, an inter-coder reliability rate of 79% represents a significant overlap between the three coders and adds to the validity of the overall results of the entire dataset.
The second type of validity test is the one of theoretical validity. In this category, I have compared to what extent my data findings fit categories found in the literature. There was a strongly defined confirmation of the use of the categories of nationalism, history and anti-Ukraine/West. In line with the literature reviewed, RT was greatly relying on the above narratives within all the articles studied. Nationalism appears to be of particular importance for RT, since as the literature debates nationalism has long been used by the Russian state as a tool for reinforcing state policies.
5. Findings
5.1 Security
The security narrative within RT articles fluctuates within different sub-narratives. On the one hand, it describes the threatening internal Ukrainian instability and on the other hand, the external Ukrainian hostility towards Russia. The security narrative predominantly occurred within the articles about the Crimean referendum, less within the MH17 tragedy narrative, and close to non-existent in the Savchenko case. In total, 20% of all frames in the above events were concerned with security, 16% of which can be found in the Crimean referendum data.
Firstly, the Ukrainian instability is defined within the Crimean referendum, where RT claims “The extreme nationalists who control the power in Kiev have begun their discriminatory activities against Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine, defined by brutal violence against opposition”1. Such claims are accompanied by the repeatedly occurring statements that “in Ukraine there was a violent change of power” and that Yanukovych “was forced to leave Ukraine because of death threats”.2
Such narratives represent Ukrainians as the personification of a newly-emerged danger threatening the Russian people and the integrity of the Russian state. RT underlines the need for action against such external threats by claiming that “in Sevastopol there are nuclear submarines, which could fall into the hands of right wing Ukrainian groups”.3
Moreover, the media outlet speculates about direct actions against the Russian president, where “the purpose of the Ukrainian missile fired from the ground or a military aircraft might have been the presidential plane”.4 The narrative underlining Ukraine as an external hostile actor is also defined by the relationship of the country with its Western partners. Debating firstly, that “Ukraine is prepared to take over Russia’s place in G8” and secondly, that “Angela Merkel and Laurent Fabius discussed possible Russian exclusion from G8 with regards to the Crimean events” implies there is a
1 (RT, Head of the House of Romanov Maria Vladimirovna considered appropriate the Crimean return to
Russia., 2014 a)
2 (RT, Crimea holds a referendum on its status of autonomy - Live Stream., 2014 c) 3 (RT, US places Russia against the EU to defend its economic interests., 2014 d) 4
(RT, A source in the Federal Air Transport Agency: The objective of the Ukrainian missiles were probably Vladimir Putin's plane., 2014 e)
possibility of endangering affiliation between Ukraine and the West.5 According to RT, such a relationship could directly affect the Russian state since as “Vladimir Putin declares if the city falls into the hands of NATO, the main issue will be the protection of oil and gas pipelines” As mentioned, the RT statements are accompanied by constant war references towards Ukrainians naming those “Nazi activists” , “Nazis” 6, “fascists” with their “swastikas”7
. Such rhetoric can be of great danger since it directly affects Russian people, thousands of whom decided to volunteer in the war against Ukraine. By publishing quotes such as this one “Volunteer from the Ukrainian National Guard: “I hope I won’t have to kill any Russian brothers. But I will kill them if they come here. I will not take any hostages, in this case they deserve to die” ”8
the Russian state owned RT has supposedly created strong tensions within both Russia and Ukraine. Such quotes with debatable credibility together with the reoccurring WWII rhetoric are part, not only of the securitisation narrative, but also in most other categories as the following paragraphs show.
5.2 Duty
The duty category is one of great importance, since the following paragraph aims to show RT’s arguments in favour of Russia’s obligation to act in Ukraine in order to protect vital governmental and societal interests. Similar to the previous category, here the narrative is also mostly defined within the Crimean referendum articles. With a total of 8%, the duty frames are the third least popular within the current research, where 6% of those were found in the Crimean referendum news articles.
As in the previous category, the focus of the narrative is distorted by the division of international and domestic emphasis. When talking about the Russian annexation of Crimea the international discussion of RT is concerned with supposedly similar cases of annexation used as precedents for legitimising the Ukrainian crisis. To start with Kosovo, according to RT in a conversation with the US president Vladimir Putin, they confirmed that “the Crimean
5 (RT, Yatsenyuk: Ukraine is ready to take Russia's place in the G8., 2014 f) 6 (RT, Sergei Shargunov: African vacation., 2016 g)
7
(RT, Zakhar Prilepin: Savchenko for the last time. , 2016 h)
referendum is fully consistent with the international law and the UN charter, and has taken into account the well-known Kosovo precedent”.9 Moreover, RT underlines that the “US criticizes Russian over Crimea, yet they forget about the independent state of Texas”10
, where the media outlet is again touching upon historical precedents. Through such articles RT constantly emphasises the idea that “the residents of Crimea have done the same as the population of several other countries and regions, including the recent Scotland, Catalonia, and Venice” and that “self-determination is one of the basic principles of international law”.11
What appears to be important for RT is the need to justify the Crimean case by looking at allegedly similar international precedents. The justification of actions is primarily concentrated on the notion that the people of Crimea feel Russian and that Ukraine should be seen as an enemy. The media outlet debates familiarity with Crimean’s wants stating ““They [the Crimean people] want to be part of a great country. I think it was the answer to an important question: “Why you do not want to be a part of Ukraine?” Because Russia is a magnificent country, and they want to be part of something that big and great.”12
Similar statements are often part of the rhetoric of RT where the media is arguing for the legitimacy of Russia’s actions since “Russia protects its interests in Sevastopol, which is its legitimate right” In addition, as stated before, the Ukrainian state is repeatedly portrayed in a negative light, as RT accuses the country of illegitimate actions arguing that “Ukraine forcefully changed the governmental power”, “amended the constitution”, and forced the president to leave the country through “death threats” despite the fact he is the “legitimately elected head of state” The anti-Ukrainian narrative is thoroughly discussed in the following section. However, it should be noted that within the current analysis of RT articles, no information was found about the abuses of Ukrainian human rights reported by the UN or the count of over 190 thousand Ukrainians displaced from their homes. (OHCHR, 2014) In contrast, RT argued “There is no war [in Crimea], because the entire population as a whole wants to join Russia. There are no problems or any conflicts”13
9 (RT, Vladimir Putin today, will address the adoption of Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian Federation.,
2014 j)
10 (RT, Media: US criticizes Russian over Crimea, yet they forget about the independent state of Texas., 2014 k) 11 (RT, American conservatives are sensitive to the situation with the Russian annexation of Crimea., 2014 l) 12
(RT, 96,77% of Crimean voters voted for joining Russia., 2014 m)
5.3 Anti-Ukraine
The Russian-Ukrainian crisis of 2013 served as the catalyst that helped the construction of a strong anti-Ukrainian narrative. The three main arguments debated by RT are the instability of Ukraine, the threat of Ukraine being favoured by the West and the belief that there are anti-Russian sentiments present in Ukraine. In contrast to the previous two categories, the Anti-Ukrainian frames were very much missing in the Crimean referendum data and were mostly present within the MH17 case. The total Anti- Ukraine frame count equals 10%.
RT debates the instability of the Ukrainian state as one of the reasons behind the MH17 crash in which 298 people lost their lives. According to the media outlet “there is a war within the airspace of Ukraine”14 and “the purpose of the Ukrainian missile fired from the ground or a military aircraft might have been the [Russian] presidential plane” Moreover, the media argues the “the plane received orders from the Ukrainian Air Traffic controllers to lower its altitude”15
and that even after the accident “Kiev cannot guarantee the safety of international experts who investigate the Boeing crash”. 16
It should be noted that the wording of the above articles is by no means unintentional. The fact that RT calls the missile Ukrainian and repetitively underlines that the crash occurred on Ukrainian governed territory is an example of an anti-Ukrainian narrative aiming to publicly undermine the credibility of the state and its capabilities to act in critical situations.
The threat of a strong Western-Ukrainian relationship is discussed throughout most of the events, calling out for possible endangerment of the Russian state. An example of such endangerment is the RT opinion piece, stating that “according to the West if you act against Russia you are innocent” and that Russians are “the wrong victims and since they are Russian they simple don’t count”. 17
Moreover, according to the media, the West is strongly influencing the politics of the Ukrainian state where “the US has particular interests, and Washington is aiming to have a pro-American government bordering Russia.”18 RT portrays
14 (RT, The Malaysian Trade Union stewards will check the information on the refusal of flight attendants flying
over Ukraine., 2014 o)
15
(RT, Relatives of the victims in the Boeing 777 crash call for quick investigation of the tragedy., 2014 p)
16 (RT, Kiev does not guarantee the safety of experts investigating the Boeing crash., 2014 q)
17 (RT, Expert on the Savchenko case: From a Western perspective whoever acts against Russia is innocent.,
2016 q)
the US as a perpetrator who aims “to completely pull Ukraine out Russia’s sphere of influence and tie it to the EU, which nowadays is almost a puppet of the United States”. (: ibid) Such statements directly target Ukraine’s intentions to sign the European Association Agreement, which caused the Ukrainian crisis to begin with. Such criticism portrays Ukraine as a puppet state of the West, by which RT implies that Ukraine was stolen away from Russia.
The statements used to debate anti-Russian sentiments in Ukraine could also be seen as a justification of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. RT’s opinion piece argues the Ukrainian government “has banned the Russian language and oppressed Russian-speaking citizens” and justifies any further actions by stating that “Russia saw what was happening. Since in Crimea there are 2.5 million Russians, Russia intervened.”19
The anti-Ukrainian narrative goes even further by arguing that Ukrainians in Donbass “are Nazi movement activists” who “killed thousands of civilians” The above WWII references in addition to the moral illustration of Russian suffering are used by RT in building anti-Ukrainian sentiment within the Russian-speaking audience of the media.
5.4 Anti-West
The Anti-West narrative did not seem to be the most popular one. With 13% total frame count, the category is not far ahead of the Anti-Ukrainian one. It is, however, interesting to note that the Anti-West narrative is evenly spread across all events. The count has shown consistency throughout all events where the Anti-West frames appear equally popular.
As mentioned, the previous category of anti-Ukrainian narrative is closely connected to the negative representation of the West served by RT. In addition, the media often juxtaposes the West-Ukraine relationship against the one Russia has with Asian countries, claiming any sanctions imposed on the Russian state are in fact harmful for Europe. One of those countries mentioned is China, where RT claims “The imposition of sanctions against Russia is not beneficial to the West, since that would lead to Russian convergence with China.”20
Even further, RT frequently argues against the European sanctions imposed on Russia claiming “the ultimate goal of the sanctions is to harm Russia”, which according to RT
19 (RT, Alexander Lukashenko: Belarus de facto recognized Crimea as part of Russia., 2014 s) 20
(RT, The imposition of sanctions against Russia is not beneficial to the West, since that would lead to Russian convergence with China., 2014 t)
could “possibly turn against” the West.21
In the articles reviewed, RT presents a strong line of argument debating the idea of how harmless the sanctions are, as if the media outlet has to reassure its audience. An example of such reassurance is the RT’s claim that “everyone in the world understands that Ukraine’s faith is in the hands of Russia and therefore no sturdy sanctions should be expected”. (: ibid) This narrative of a strong Russian state is juxtaposed against the unlawful West and their blameful policies aiming to harm Russia. According to RT “The US has changed several governments of sovereign countries and bombed without asking a few beautiful cities” , yet they “accuse Russia of pressuring Crimea”.22
RT’s use of such statements could be seen as a tool for justifying Russia’s actions against Ukraine, since the media outlet argues the West is no different and therefore it is hypocritical to criticise Russia’s actions.
5.5 Moral
Despite being the least popular of all, with 2%, the moral category was well defined in the Crimean referendum articles. In contrast, as the research will later show, morality has notably higher presence in Putin’s speech.
The moral category is an important part of RT’s narrative, since the outlet narrates events by using powerful lexis, which could deeply influence the audience targeted. The difficulty of the situation with war prisoners, for example, is expressed by arguing Ukrainians “killed thousands of civilians” and imprisoned “pregnant women” . In addition, as a very conservative country, with 75% of its population being devoted Christians, Russia offers a great environment for the creation of a moral tension. RT makes use of that foundation and refers to claims about “explicit threats against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate”. The above argument of endangerment of the Russian church in Ukraine is accompanied by remarks about the “detachment of Crimea from its Motherland- Russia” and how difficult it is for Crimeans to “restrain their tears” According to RT, the people of
Crimea feel so attached to Russia that even homosexual Crimeans “voted for annexation to Russia, despite the ban on gay propaganda” since they see Kiev activists as “fascists”.23
21 (RT, European sanctions will last six months. , 2014 u) 22
(RT, US analyst: The relationship between Russian and US will improve soon., 2014 v)
Touching upon the humane narrative, the outlet states that “We live in a bloody carnival world filled with hypocrisy, where some have lost all their shame in the political and human carousel, which is seen as an evidence of progress and world order.” This so called carnival world addresses Ukraine and the West, suggesting their high levels of immorality. What RT aims to achieve with the help of its moral narrative is to create this victim image of oppressed Crimeans, oppressed Russians, and an unlawfully scattered Russian state.
5.6 History
The historical narrative is the third most popular within the articles studied. In total, 15% of historical frames were found throughout the events. Within the MH17 case, however, not even one historical reference was found. The above is hardly surprising since the airplane tragedy is in no way concerned with any historical events. Nonetheless, the above only goes to show prevalence of historical references within the events of the Crimean referendum and the Nadya Savchenko court case. If analysed separately, historical references would count for 26% and 22% of the above two events respectively.
The historical narrative which was analysed appeared to be very consistent in its nature. The main focus is predominantly placed upon WWII referencing, often glorifying the vision of the great Russian soldier. For example, within the Savchenko case, RT stated that “Russian opposition commentators must necessarily equate fighters from the volunteer battalions, the National Guard, and any other punishers to the soldiers of the Red Army, fighting against the Nazis.” The above terminology, used to narrate the conflict, shows positive attitudes towards the Russian militarised groups fighting in Eastern Ukraine. In addition, the previously mentioned ‘swastika’, ‘fascism’, and ‘Victory day’ references are also supporting the positive image of Russians fighting against ‘ukronazis’. When discussing the “Nazi movement activists” , RT is referring to the opposition forces in Ukraine, thus further reinforcing the notion that these forces pose a real threat to Russia’s integrity. In addition to the narratives of Ukrainian “fascists” , RT is justifying the Crimean annexation
by arguing that “Crimea has been Russian much longer than it has been Ukrainian”.
According to the media channel “59% of Crimeans are ethnic Russians”24
and therefore see “the Crimean annexation to Russia as inevitable” , and argues the annexation could serve as
