The paper seeks to analyze Vladimir Putin’s securitization of the West in his speech at a military parade in Moscow’s Red Square on the 9th of May 2022. Thereby, the article employs political discourse analysis and Copenhagen School’s securitization theory to show how Putin uses speech acts to transform the West into an existential threat and justify the adoption of extraordinary measures, such as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, the research refers to Richard Sakwa’s concepts of “cold peace” and “neo-revisionism” to make sense of the emergence of such discourse. By using humiliation narratives and evoking patriotic images, Putin exacerbates a sense of victimhood and historical right in the Russian audience that emphasizes the state’s isolationism and historic role to fight against the “Nazified” West and Ukraine. Putin also promotes an image of Russia’s superiority, supporting cultural and civilizational pluralism and diversity ending the pre-existing Western universalism. The paper concludes that with these practices, the Russian president manages to not only successfully securitize the West but also spur significantly the public’s support for his war.
Migration has been a vital element of human histories, cultures, and civilizations. Although it poses a long-standing issue, migration studies have made significant progress only in recent decades. The combination of the progress in interdisciplinary pursuits and the popularization of postmodern thought proved to be enough to establish it as a discipline in the late 1990s (Greenwood and Hunt 2003). Since then, scholars have used different approaches and scopes of analysis to tackle the phenomenon, ranging from 'geographies of migration' to 'diasporas and transnationalism ' (Pisarevskaya et al. 2020). As Alejandro Portes (1997) predicted, the newly emerged pluralism contributed to the shift of focus from issues of governance to themes of families and gender in the twenty-first century. Academia and policymakers began to give more attention to the complexity of migration, thus leading to the increase of work on identity narratives, such as migrants and their descendants' dual identities (De Fina 2003; Jens and Carbaugh 2001). However, this change did not last long.Due to the increase of such events as the rise of neo-nationalist right-wing populism, terrorism, and the global increase of migration waves in recent years, the public discourse has returned to the preexisting practice of a collective equation. The narrative has shifted from asking the question of 'how?' and 'why?' to 'how can we stop it?' and 'where they are from?'. As a result, the migrants have become numbers and their stories irrelevant, the act of compassion has given way to depersonalization, and the popularity of the focus on the individual dimension has decreased. Amid this turn of events, scholars of migration studies have continued to further the field's progress through the formulation of more innovative and ambitious research. Among these, the publication, Remembering Migration: Oral Histories and Heritage in Australia, edited by Kate Darian-Smith and Paula Hamilton, has stood out.The book constitutes one of the most comprehensive studies of diverse migrant memories in Australia since the 1950s, when Jean Martin compiled the life and integration stories of displaced
This essay discusses the evolution of the modern conception of security and argues that there is a need for its expansion in order to tackle the rising non-traditional threats. Traditionally, the realist paradigm of national security has dominated the academic debate, while promoting a military and state-centric approach to "doing security". Despite emergence of non-military and non-state security threats, the paradigm of national security is still figuring at the center of the modern state. However, the proliferation of nontraditional threats combined with the states' inability to address them have troubled the academia and policymakers. This perception has been further reinforced by the latest Covid-19 pandemic, which demonstrated not only the limitations of national security, but also the dangerous consequences of this new type of threat. As climate change effects become more tangible and destructive, it becomes evident that the coronavirus outbreak is another indication that the security landscape is not equipped to confront rising threats. Therefore, there is a need for the development of a more holistic security concept and the dismantlement of the preexisting strictly state-centric and military approaches.
The paper aims at investigating the relationship between Trumpism and the European far-right parties. The combination of shared ideological cores with the confrontation of similar “enemies” has resulted in the creation of an unprecedented relationship, wherein Trump takes the role of “international godfather” and inspiration for the European far right. To examine this relation, the paper focuses on references to Donald Trump and his policies and statements from 2016 to 2020 in the discourse of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), Hungarian Civilian Alliance (Fidesz), and Lega Nord (Lega). The examination of the discourse of the three parties about security, immigration, foreign policy, and corruption shows that these parties have utilised Trumpism in three manners. Firstly, they have employed Trumpism to normalise certain pre-existing far-right ideologies and practices within their national and European context. Secondly, they have emulated Trump’s discourse and policies to capitalise on his popularity and support their national endeavours. Thirdly, they have used Trump’s fight and ideas to justify national measures, beliefs, criticism, or political goals. This paper thus aims to establish the leitmotifs governing the use of Trumpism by European far right to set the framework for future more critical analyses and a better understanding of this unprecedented relationship.
The paper discusses the moral justification of the adoption of the restriction measures during the coronavirus pandemic, and attempts to connect it with the notion of human rights and freedom. The popular Western response falls in the line of the work of John Rawls and his perception of justice and fairness. The premise of Rawlsian approach is that the state has a duty to protect everyone as they themselves would wish to be protected. However, as the time has progressed, the outcomes of the lockdown has begun to become visible, hence challenging the initial Rawlsian view of the issue at stake. Under the new circumstances, the political theory of utilitarianism seems to be gaining ground, but in its most brutal form. Dismissing the roots of the utilitarian theory, the utilitarian calculus has been used as a sophism by politicians for the introduction of the notion of "sacrifice" for the greater good. By the presentation and application of the two approaches, in the face of a future reemergence of similar problem, this paper argues for the adoption of a combining approach that covers the concerns of both and answers the moral dilemmas that have emerged from this period of quarantine.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.