Suchergebnisse

The events of Russia's local hybrid warfare in Ukraine are in fact the information occasions of Russia's global information war against the West which, especially expert circles, seem to comprehend it. Consequently, the problem arises: how local hybrid warfare is combined with global information warfare, and what media tools create narratives based on hybrid warfare that meet the interests of the propaganda initiators. It is important to determine the mechanisms of information influences on Ukrainian society and the world community in modern wars. The aim of the study was to find out how the general characteristics of Russian pro-government media reports (intensity, events and intentions) depend on the events in the war zone and the general situation in Ukraine, where the hybrid war is waged. In the study information and analytical materials of the Russian international multilingual information channel RT were researched. The headlines and leads of more than 44 thousand short information messages for the period from October 1, 2014 to June 30, 2020 and more than 1 thousand analytical materials for the period from October 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020 were analyzed. The following methods were applied: intent analysis of political discourse, methods of descriptive statistics, data visualization, testing of statistical hypotheses, correlation analysis, modeling of multiple regressions. The statistical data are consistent with the two hypotheses of the study: 1) RT reports follow a selective event orientation; 2) RT reports have a clear object and intention orientation. The obtained results let the authors conclude that the mechanism of Russian propagandists' media influence is conscious, targeted, with pre-planned consequences and begins with the first words of the publications, i.e. the headline and the lead.

The Russian Federation has been carrying out long-term and successful disinformation and propaganda activities against Ukraine. Due to its powerful, state-supported media structures, it is able to impose its vision of reality on its respective audiences. The purpose of this article is to determine the lexemes and topics of the "landscape" of analytical reports produced by Russia Today (RT) in 2018–2020. Lexemes and topics lay the groundwork for the RT propaganda discourse aimed at interfering and disbalancing Ukraine's media space. This paper, based on quantitative and qualitative analysis, focuses on (1) the vocabulary structure of analytical materials, which may indicate Russian priorities, and (2) the thematic content (hidden topics) of RT messages. The RT analytical reports titles and relevant metadata were analyzed. The body of data was subdivided into periods of presidencies of P. Poroshenko and V. Zelensky. The authors argue that personalities do not play a significant role in the Kremlin's attitude toward Ukraine; only the Ukraine-Russia opposition is decisive, in which the RF assigns Ukraine the only acceptable role as Russia's "puppet."

Languages are the basis for Europeans who want to coexist and work together. To do this, the Europeans need to understand each other, the EU's neighbors and partners as well, and to teach and promote the linguistic heritage of the Member States. The motto of the European Union – "Unity in diversity" – reflects multilingualism as the basis of the EU, which is enshrined in a number of documents at the pan-European level. Multilingualism makes business and citizens more competitive and mobile. Promoting multilingualism is a great way to unite Europeans, to build a truly inclusive society where citizens' rights are respected. In the EU "multilingualism" is treated as the ability of communities, groups and individuals to use more than one language in their daily activities on an ongoing basis. The European Commission (together with national governments) coordinates the goal of multilingualism and the goals of the language strategy. Languages should not be an obstacle to participation in society, and marginalized language groups should be identified, represented and included in society. However, the national language policy is the sphere of competence of each state. The article substantiates the assumption that there are certain factors that determine the specifics and level of multilingualism of the EU Member-States. The multilingualism index of each EU Member-State was calculated and the countries were ranked according to a number of sub-indices, in particular: official languages, foreign language skills, language education and study, foreigners (migrants) and language policy, everyday languages, international communications. It was found out that according to the integrated index of multilingualism, the top 5 countries are represented by Luxembourg, Germany, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. The most important factors determining the policy of multilingualism are the following: the influence of citizens who are interested in learning foreign languages, as well as foreigners, migrants who study the state language to assimilate in society, the influence of using foreign languages in practice and online communication.

Multilingualism is one of the EU's integrity cornerstones. However, language policy is a matter for each Member State to seek to meet the EU's multilingualism requirements and to ensure the integration of its own society. The purpose of the article is to substantiate that effective communications based on multilingualism development contribute to strengthening the monolithic nature of European states unification within the EU structure. The system of generalized indices, cluster and factor analyses made it possible to prove that the higher the level of the linguistic landscape is, i.e., the higher the level of multilingualism, the higher the level of monolithic nature of the unification. In this article the factors that contribute to the development of the EU Member States linguistic landscape have been identified. Çokdillilik AB'nin bütünlük köşe taşlarından birisidir. Buna karşılık dil politikası her üye devletin AB'nin çokdillilik taleplerini karşılaması ve onları kendi toplumuyla bütünleşmesini sağlaması bakımından önem taşır. Bu makalenin amacı çokdillilik gelişimine dayalı etkin iletişimlerin yekpare doğası olan Avrupa devletlerinin AB yapısı altında birleşmelerinin güçlenmesine katkıda bulunmaktır. Genelleştirilmiş gösterge, küme ve faktör analizi sistemi dilbilimsel manzara ne kadar yüksek düzeyde olursa, yani çokdillilik yüksek düzeyde olursa, birleşmenin yekpare doğasının daha yüksek düzeyde olacağını kanıtlamayı mümkün kılmaktadır. Bu makalede AB üye devletlerinin dilbilimsel manzarasının gelişimine katkıda bulunan faktörler tanımlanmaktadır.

Multilingualism, outlined in a number of pan-European documents, is a cornerstone of the EU's diversity, which promotes the integration of European, yet different, nations into one community. Furthermore, it is a sign of non-conflict coexistence of nations in Europe. However, in general, language policy is the area of competence of the national EU Member-States, which level of multilingualism / monolingualism differs. The authors argue that effective non-conflict communications, which in this interpretation are possible due to the development of multilingualism, contribute to strengthening the monolithic unification of European states in the EU structure, and thus they lay the foundation for a tolerant, non-conflict society. In the study, the "linguistic landscape" is interpreted as a general picture of the languages spoken and used in the country, i.e. the linguistic landscape is associated with multilingualism. The purpose of the article is to substantiate on the basis of the developed indices of the linguistic landscape that the multilingualism of the EU Member-States contributes to the monolithic nature of the whole Community. The system of generalized indices, cluster and exploratory factor analyses have allowed the authors to prove that the higher the level of the linguistic landscape, i.e. the higher the level of multilingualism is, the higher the level of monolithic nature is. The high index of the linguistic landscape demonstrates the dominance of centripetal forces in individual Member-States and contributes to the monolithic nature of the EU; instead, the low index of the linguistic landscape inherent in monolingual communities indicates weak cohesion and the predominance of centrifugal tendencies, which weaken the monolithic nature of the European Community. This article identifies the factors that contribute to the development of the linguistic landscape of the EU Member States. ; Мультилінгвізм, окреслений у низці документів пан'європейського рівня, – наріжний камінь розмаїття Європейського Союзу, який сприяє не лише інтеграції європейських, але все ж відмінних націй, в одну спільноту, а й є ознакою неконфліктного співіснування націй у Європі. Проте загалом мовна політика – це сфера повноважень національних держав-членів ЄС, рівень мультилінгвізму/монолінгвізгму яких різниться. Автори доводять, що ефективні неконфліктні комунікації, які в цій інтерпретації можливі завдяки розвитку мультилінгвізму, сприяють посиленню монолітності об'єднання європейських держав в структурі ЄС, а відтак і закладають підґрунтя для толерантного, неконфліктного суспільства. У дослідженні «лінгвістичний ландшафт» трактують як загальну картину мов, якими володіють і користуються в країні, тобто лінгвістичний ландшафт асоціюють з мультилінгвізмом. Мета статті – на основі розроблених індексів лінгвістичного ландшафту обґрунтувати, що мультилінгвізм держав-членів сприяє монолітності усієї Спільноти. Система узагальнених індексів, кластерний та розвідувальний факторний аналізи дозволили довести, що чим вищий рівень лінгвістичного ландшафту, тобто чим вищий рівень багатомовності, тим вищий рівень монолітності об'єднання. Високий індекс лінгвістичного ландшафту демонструє домінування доцентрових сил в окремих державах-членах й сприяє монолітності ЄС; натомість низький індекс лінгвістичного ландшафту, притаманний монолінгвальним спільнотам, свідчить про слабку когезію й переважання відцентрових тенденцій, що послаблює монолітність Європейської Спільноти. У цій статті визначено чинники, що сприяють розвитку мовного ландшафту держав-членів Європейського Союзу.

Political communication is a major factor in the democratisation of power relations, since the latter are based on public policy, ensuring a constant interconnection between political actors at all levels. Through political communication, it is possible to overcome the contradictions that complicate the democratisation of society. The article is a critical examination of the present-day communication interaction between the citizens and the government of Ukraine. The term developed here to describe this phenomenon is the communication discord between the citizens and the government provoked by the heterogeneity of interests and goals of society and factors associated with the activity of the government. Communication policy of the government is aimed at involving citizens in the decision-making process while communication activity of the citizens is oriented on the formation of public opinion, the exchange of ideas and arguments and, later on, on the influence on the government and the decision-making process. The distinction of these two communication processes is also facilitated by the tendency of mediatisation of communications in the modern world, related to technical development, the Internet and social media. Models of the communication interaction between the government and society are researched. Recommendations to improve the political communication of Ukraine's Government are developed.

Political communication is a major factor in the democratisation of power relations, since the latter are based on public policy, ensuring a constant interconnection between political actors at all levels. Through political communication, it is possible to overcome the contradictions that complicate the democratisation of society. The article is a critical examination of the present-day communication interaction between the citizens and the government of Ukraine. The term developed here to describe this phenomenon is the communication discord between the citizens and the government provoked by the heterogeneity of interests and goals of society and factors associated with the activity of the government. Communication policy of the government is aimed at involving citizens in the decision-making process while communication activity of the citizens is oriented on the formation of public opinion, the exchange of ideas and arguments and, later on, on the influence on the government and the decision-making process. The distinction of these two communication processes is also facilitated by the tendency of mediatisation of communications in the modern world, related to technical development, the Internet and social media. Models of the communication interaction between the government and society are researched. Recommendations to improve the political communication of Ukraine's Government are developed.

CEEOL: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1197952 This is a study of the development of Ukraine's information policy within the dichotomy of two concepts of information (or cyber) security – those of Russia and the West. Ukraine may have chosen a policy of integration into Western security structures; however, for decades, it has been firmly connected to the traditions and approaches inherent in the Russian concept of information security. This phenomenon has been observed in the positions taken by researchers and lawmakers in the country and causes some ambiguity. Here, we present an assessment of the contradictory characteristics of Ukraine's information security policy and compare its Russian influence with its orientation to the West. We conclude that Ukraine is still balancing between these two spheres. Exposure to Russia's concept remains in academic circles, but the legal and normative sphere tends to follow the Western approach; and gradually, Ukraine's subjectivity in information security issues is developing at the international level.

This article discusses the results of verbal framing analysis of the conflict in news published on Telegram channels by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti (RIAN) and the Ukrainian news agency (UNIAN) during the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The analysis, using the text mining method, shows differences between how a more authoritarian and more competitive regime uses social media to construct strategic narratives. RIAN benefits from a technical frame that has not changed throughout the war although the reality on the ground has been evolving dramatically. It focuses on military issues and international rivalry (e.g. sanctions) because the Kremlin focuses on it. UNIAN, on the other hand, uses the moralizing frame of conflict which is more flexible and has been developed in response to changes on the ground – from discussions about the possibility of the invasion to humanitarian tragedy to war crimes, and to creating a more essentialized image of the enemy ('rashists').

This article focuses at the issue of strategic communications of Ukraine during the Russian-Ukrainian war, which began on February 24, 2022. The authors consider strategic communications as a system consisting of invariant and variable components that can be projected in media reports. The authors proceed from the fact that, on the one hand, the media are an instrument of strategic communications, and on the other, strategic communications are transformed, reflected in media reports. The study is aimed to reveal the structure of strategic communications, which is characteristic of the period of armed conflict. Reports of the Insider Ukraine Telegram channel during the first 100 days of the war were analyzed. On the basis of a reflexive thematic analysis, using a one-way dispersion analysis, it has been found out that the strategic communications of Ukraine during the war period consist of the following invariant components: interactive communications of Ukraine, operational communications of Ukraine, extraoperational communications of Ukraine, operational and extraoperational communications concerning the RF. These generalized components have their own sub-components, the intensity or total absence of which in media reports can be related to specific events of the war period. This study contributes to the understanding of the structure of strategic communications in general and during the war in particular.