011. Дисертації

Permanent URI for this community

https://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/handle/123456789/43

Browse

Browsing 011. Дисертації by Author "Kuzmenko, Hlib"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Framing of reputationally damaging events in Russia's strategic communication during the full-scale Russo-Ukrainian war : dissertation to obtain the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
    (2026) Kuzmenko, Hlib; Kvit, Serhiy; Romaniuk, Victoriia
    PhD thesis to obtain the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Programme Subject Area 061 "Journalism" (06 – Journalism). – National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Kyiv, 2026. During the full-scale Russo-Ukrainian war Russia has caused several events that damage its reputation, undermine its image and strategic narratives. Such events may include war crimes and severe violations of international law like civilian harm, conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV), executions of prisoners of war (as well as mutilation of their bodies etc.). Hence, as a part of its general warfare and specifically the information war (Russia’s way of strategic communication) Kremlin’s system has been trying to re-construct the social reality to reduce the reputational damage and preserve its image using specific framing. The aim of this PhD thesis (dissertation) is to highlight framing Russia uses for reputationally damaging events in the full-scale war in the context of Russia’s strategic communication. Such events include three central "humanitarian" categories (civilian harm, CRSV, executions of prisoners of war and related crimes) The four research questions (RQ) were formulated as follows: • RQ1: What are the main frames that Russia uses to communicate reputationally damaging events during the full-scale Russo-Ukrainian war?• RQ2: What are the patterns of these frames by (sub-)categories of the events? •RQ3: How do these frames interact with Russia’s strategic narratives? • RQ4: What is the mechanism of Russia’s framing of reputationally damaging events in the context of its strategic communication? In the theoretical chapter, Russia’s strategic communication is defined as information war and analyzed using Lasswell’s classical model. The theoretical exploration identifies two major strategic narratives Russia relies on in the full-scale Russo-Ukrainian war: "the great power" and "external threat, Russia vs. the West". These two narratives, which are labeled metaphorically as "Two Evil Matryoshkas" are crucial elements of Russia’s discourse and the system of strategic communication, whereas frames represent the next discourse level after strategic narratives. The empirical part includes thus two stages: 1) three sub-studies of qualitative exploratory frame analysis of the more "prominent" cases of civilian harm, CRSV, and POWs-related crimes with a preceding pilot exploratory sub-stage – sub-study of typical civilian harm cases; and 2) quantitative frame analysis of both the "typical" and "prominent cases" sub-samples. This empirical part focuses on framing that is conducted through messages, statements, comments, and "non-communications" of Russia’s official communicating actors in a connection to what is labeled here as reputationally damaging events. In total, 370 cases and 408 texts were analyzed. Additionally, within an early pilot exploratory study, 43 cases of civilian harm perpetrated by Russia were analyzed. For the frame analysis in the core stages, the 6-tier frame analysis model is introduced. It involves describing the six features of a frame: four of its functions (based on Entman, 1991; 1993), crisis response (based on crisis response strategies and groups in Coombs, 2007 approach), and interaction of a frame with strategic narratives of Russia. The qualitative stages (exploratory stage and pilot stage) involve using manual coding at basic tools like Google Sheets / Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word for data structuring. For analysis in the quantitative stage, IBM SPSS statistical software and Google Sheets / Microsoft Excel were used. The AI models Gemini 3.5 Flash, Claude Opus 4.8, and ChatGPT 5.5 were used as supplementary instruments to assist in data collection (web search) and processing (structuring, transforming string into quantitative identifiers, and pre-coding of texts) with further manual verification. According to the results, Russia’s framing varies between categories of cases as well as between more "typical" and more "prominent" sub-categories of cases. For typical cases of civilian harm, CRSV, and POWs-related crimes, Russia tends to apply strategic silence – seemingly, treating those cases as events that are not worth addressing at all. However, for example, for the "prominent" cases of civilian harm, Russia usually applies explicit deny (e. g. the "bloody provocation / anti-Russian insinuation" frame, which shifts the blame on the enemies) or diminish frames (legitimization of the attack using "hit military targets" frame). The results of the empirical research also demonstrate that frames serve not only as structural elements of strategic narratives, but as switchers / enablers of Russia’s strategic narratives. Theoretically, when Russia’s "great power" is undermined, Russia may use framing to protect the "great power" narrative explicitly, switch to the alternative narrative ("external threat, Russia vs. the West"), preserve the "great power" narrative but highlight the alternative one, support both narratives actively, or preserve them both passively through strategic silence. However, in practice, Russia tends not to protect the "great power" image actively and instead either relies on passive reaffirmation, or switches attention on the "external threat, Russia vs. the West" narrative. The scientific novelty of the study is reasoned by several factors. Firstly, the research is perhaps the first attempt at systemizing empirical and theoretical data on Russia’s use of framing within its strategic communication in the context of crisis communication (reputationally damaging events) during the full-scale Russo-Ukrainian war. According to the results of this study, when a reputationally damaging event happens, Russia’s narratives are undermined, and framing is then used within Russia’s crisis communication, interacting with strategic narratives in a certain way like reaffirming it, switching to an alternative narrative etc. Secondly, this study introduces the 6-tier frame analysis model, which is an effective tool of deconstruction of Russia’s framing in the context of crisis communication and Kremlin’s strategic communication system. Thirdly, this research fills in the empirical gaps by systematic empirical analysis of framing in Russia’s official representatives’ statements for the cases of civilian harm, CRSV, and POWs-related crimes. Fourthly, the research provides an alternative perspective on the interaction between frames and strategic narratives, where frames are not only seen as the building blocks of strategic narratives but as entities that serve as their switchers (or rather switchers between narratives). In the practical context, this study provides implications for Ukraine’s and its allies’ understanding of Russia’s information war and prediction of Russia’s patterns of framing reputationally damaging events. This also includes notions that Russia’s framing does not usually follow the "normal" protocols of crisis communication, instead treating war crimes as events unworthy of mentioning or events of e. g. rumor-level. This research also provides grounds for further analytics using the 6-tier frame analysis model and general theoretical and empirical insights that could be used for education content, analytical and media publications.