This is the second consecutive article of a new regular column from IAPSS Ukraine. The column, “Voices From Ukraine,” highlights real and current experiences from students in Ukraine, living through the ongoing Russian invasion.
UKRAINE – Years have passed since the factual start of a military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, and the use of language continues to play a significant part in the conflict. Words have become instruments of power division, intertwining linguistics with politics to construct alternative parallel realities that absolutize aggression and split societies from within. In this context, where propaganda reshapes what is true and what is not, understanding the evolution of political discourse is essential. The government and the state of the Russian Federation employs newspeak to soften the terrors of war imposed on domestic and foreign people, whereas dissenting voices develop plain easy-to-read language as a counterweight to challenge it, revealing how language not only reflects but also reshapes political dynamics and power shifts.
The concept of newspeak, drawn from totalitarian novels by George Orwell (the most recognizable being 1984), has been reimagined to describe modern linguistic strategies of functional propaganda. In political science, most understand it to serve in maintaining control by restricting the range and scope of expressible ideas and stylistic devices, exemplified by turning all-out wars into “special military operations.” In linguistics and lexicology, it distorts meanings to align with ideological perspectives, creating a framework where criticism of any kind becomes unthinkable, imponderable. This delicate interplay underscores the necessity to examine how political discourse changes international relations and diplomatic negotiations.
In recent analyses, such as those exploring how the Russian language reacts to ongoing sociopolitical and socioeconomic events, euphemisms, remarks, and newspeak emerge as viable ways to discuss seamlessly forbidden topics of interest (Kuzio, 2025). In political science, these obfuscations reflect freedom of press (or its lack thereof), media censorship, mass surveillance, forging evasive and indirect expression. In linguistics and lexicology, they demonstrate adaptability of a given language, birthing terms that circumspect limitations while conveying dissent.
However, owing to the nature of audial content, detailed transcripts and closed captions of such discussions are generally unavailable, thereby limiting deeper immersion. Nonetheless, the key idea—that language constantly evolves under pressure—ties directly to political theories of discourse as power (Fairclough, 2025).
1. The Essence of Newspeak in International Politics and Public Opinion
Newspeak functions primarily as an instrument for domination and submission, where words are redefined to suit the reverberated narrative. In Russian official discourse, the war is termed a special operation, a military vocabulary phrase introduced in an address to the nation on February 24, 2022. This labeling in political science frames the conflict as arranged and waged by professionals, distancing it from the connotations of feature-length war.
In linguistics and lexicology, the word special implies expertise and professionalism, suggesting ordinary citizens need not delve very deeply into the preparations and developments. In political science, this maintains domestic and foreign passivity, but as the conflict escalates and engulfs on other nations, even government and stately figures occasionally slip into saying war, though only in broader contexts like sparring with the honorable dignified partners from the global North as opposed to the friendly nations of global South.
The literalised use of such terminology signals loyalty and devotion to the ruling political elites, as deviations further lead to imprisonment or impoundment. In linguistics and lexicology, this presupposes a mass effect, where speech becomes a distinctive marker of allegiance. In political science, it polarizes the already polarized society even further, thus turning language into a battlefield for national conscience.
Militarists and nationalists mock any newspeak abridgements and abbreviations demanding recognition of it as war to intensify assaults and strikes. In linguistics and lexicology, this reveals internal fractures in political discourse. In other words, it pressurizes the regime toward unprovoked escalation, illustrating the placement of a language in policy shifts.
The state’s manipulation of language through newspeak is most powerful when amplified by media outlets that are either state-controlled or heavily influenced by government policies. In Russia, the propaganda in the media plane plays a crucial role in disseminating the official narrative, reinforcing the framing of the conflict as a special military operation. The term is continually reverberated across state-run news channels, such as NTV, RIA, RTR or TASS, social media platforms, for example, MAX, or VK, pre-installed applications and stores such as RuStore, RuTube and Gosuslugi. This term, special military operation, is advanced in many rehearsed speeches, for instance, from the foreign affairs ministry and top military brass, hammering it through the skull and into the national consciousness. This repetition ensures that the language becomes second nature to the population, directing the state’s constructed reality into a social truth.
In political science, this media strategy keeps dissenting voices marginalized and weakened when it prevents alternative narratives from gaining momentum and traction. The media acts as both a vehicle for and a validator of the government’s cause and effect sequence of events, further cementing the power dynamics established through newspeak. In a Levada Center opinion poll conducted in July 2025, 78% of surveyed Russians expressed at least some degree of supplementary support for the ongoing military interference in Ukraine, reflecting many years of state suppression.
In linguistics and lexicology, the repetition of carefully selected terms and phrases—often devoid of emotional weight—serves to distance the public from the true horrors of war. The constant exposure to this sanitized vocabulary can desensitize individuals to the violence and suffering of the conflict, while fostering a false sense of normalcy and obedience for the state’s actions. Moreover, the media’s role in disseminating this language reinforces the authoritarian grip on public opinion by restricting the vocabulary available to citizens, forcing them into a linguistic conformity that stifles critical thought. Even as independent observers and opposing figures attempt to make use of safer social platforms to challenge the narrative, they are often being brought to censorship, imprisonment, penalties, further solidifying the regime’s linguistic preoccupation. In this way, the media becomes a crucial battleground, where newspeak is not only a handicraft tool of the state but also an instrument of propaganda that shapes and maintains the larger political and ideological landscape.
2. Language as a Mechanism of Political Control of the Population
The concept of newspeak, coined by and borrowed from George Orwell’s 1984, has been adapted and localized to describe the contemporary language of authoritarian dictatorships. In the case of Russia, newspeak is strategically employed as a tool of propaganda to limit the scope and string of ideas that can be expressed publicly. In political science, it serves to prove war efforts and an unnecessary aggression, turning military campaigns into “special military operations” that seem benign and targeted. In linguistics and lexicology, this process distorts meanings and suppresses any critical discourse. This dynamic not only affects domestic politics but also impacts international relations, as the terms used in political discourse shape diplomatic conversations and global alliances.
The pervasive use of newspeak in Russia also has significant psychological effects on the population. In linguistics and lexicology, it encourages a form of cognitive dissonance, as individuals are pushed to reconcile their lived experiences with the narrative presented by the state (Festinger, 2025). In political science, this induces a sense of comfortable conformity and cheerful denial, where individuals may suppress doubts or critical thoughts in order to be consistent with the broader societal consensus. Over time, this process weakens the ability of citizens to critically evaluate their own government and state, leading to a situation where even the most blatant violations of human rights are rendered invisible through the implacable use of language (Saradzhyan, 2025). The long-term mental impact of this linguistic manipulation is the erosion of individual autonomy, as the population becomes conditioned to accept the government’s alternation of reality.
The influence of newspeak extends beyond domestic politics to the international stage. The language used by Russian ambassadors and representatives to describe its actions at many councils and summits plays an exponential role in shaping how other nations perceive the conflict, in particular their gas and oil trade partners, as diplomatic deliberations are oftentimes influenced by the rhetoric and wording deployed by the state (Hopf, 2024). By framing the invasion as a special military operation or liberation of its own land, and the civilian population inhabiting it as its own people with the shared identity, Russia seeks to reduce international condemnation and secure diplomatic support or silent approval and general bereavement from countries sympathetic to its culture and history (Lukin, 2025). In linguistics and lexicology, this manipulation creates a diplomatic fog, where the true nature of the conflict is concealed and obscured, making it difficult for foreign governments to take clear stances. In political science, the use of newspeak is a deliberate strategy to manage international relations and mitigate the risks of economic sanctions or military intervention by framing the conflict in a way that aligns with global power dynamics.
3. Euphemisms and Phraseology in Propaganda: Evolution of Russian Political Discourse
As the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has evolved over the course of the years, the Russian language has adapted in response to political pressure. Euphemisms and phraseology, covert remarks, and developed newspeak have emerged as strategies to discuss forbidden or sensitive topics in an indirect manner. In political science, these linguistic adaptations reflect the suppression of free speech and the censorship of the media. In the absence of open, fair and honest debate, the use of euphemisms allows the government to manipulate public perception, presenting atrocities in a more acceptable, palatable manner. In linguistics and lexicology, this development showcases the flexibility of the language, since newer terms are created to move around state-imposed limitations while still conveying resistance and dissent (Blommaert, 2024). This inherent duality of language—both as a tool for controlling the narrative and as a means of challenging power—demonstrates its pivotal function in political discourse.
Euphemisms in the Russian language play a strong part in both preserving state power and enabling subversion. They act as an artificial barrier, allowing the state to mask the true nature of its actions while simultaneously providing a channel for resistance. Terms such as “special operation” mask the aggressive nature of Russian military campaign, turning war into an administrative and bureaucratic term reemerging again and again. However, opposing forces use the same euphemistic language as a tool for dissent, adopting terms with sabotaging and subversive intent.
Censorship in Russia has played a critical role in the suppression of dissenting voices, forcing political discourse into a constrained and contained linguistic space. As government officials and state-controlled media consistently utilize euphemisms, those who express their wish to challenge the narrative must navigate an unfriendly system where certain words are undeniably forbidden or heavily scrutinized. Dissenting figures, in their resistance, have creatively appropriated the language of the state, using euphemisms to avoid censorship while still conveying subversive messages. Calling the conflict a war, or using terms like annexation, occupation, aggression or invasion, becomes an act of linguistic defiance. The constant tension between state-imposed limitations and the language of resistance reveals the struggle for intellectual freedom in a heavily controlled society.
The media plays a pivotal role in reinforcing or subverting euphemisms through its selective adoption of language. In state-run media, terms such as special military operation, terrorist state, demilitarization or denazification in relation to Ukraine and its allies as well as extremist or terrorist undesirable organisation to uncompromising media outlets are repeatedly used to normalize the government’s narrative, presenting the conflict in public as a defensive action and response prevention rather than an act of aggression (Wodak, 2024). However, independent news agents and media outlets often defy these euphemisms in favor of clear, direct language, which challenges the ruling elite line and premature indoctrination. In linguistics and lexicology, this battle over terminology specifies the station of the media as both a means of state power and a restorative vehicle for resistance. In political science, the media’s choice of words can either reinforce the government’s control over the narrative or suggest a solution, pushing the public towards a more critical evaluation of the conflict.
Euphemisms carry a weight of ambiguity and that can be strategically exploited by both the state and its critics. For the Russian government, terms like “special military operation,” “terrorist state,” “demilitarization” or “denazification” are either a sword or shield, enabling officials to avoid directly addressing the atrocities and crimes associated with war. However, this ambiguity and uncertainty also opens the door and yields tribunes for citizens to interpret the conflict in their own terms, giving right to subversion. By using less direct language, the government leaves room for people to question the veracity of the official narrative, even as the state continues to control the discourse. The duality of euphemisms as both a tool of control and a potential site for resistance underscores the complex relationship between functional language, international politics, and public perception.
4. Plain, Easy-to-Read Language: A Counter-Narrative of Resistance
In response to the dominance of newspeak, opposing voices in Ukraine and Russia have turned to a simplified, more direct mode of communication. Plain, easy-to-read language—what some may call a counter-narrative of resistance—has become a substitution to the convoluted rhetoric of the state. This form of discourse deliberately contrasts with the obfuscation and distortion of newspeak, opting instead for clarity and conciseness. In political science, this type of language challenges the dominant narrative by exposing truths and framing the government’s actions in upright stark terms (Kovalenko, 2025). In linguistics and lexicology, it strips away euphemism and phraseology, turning words into weapons of critique. However, the simplicity of this plain, easy-to-read language also shifts its appeal, as it risks alienating unrelated parties and making ideological divides. Still, its role in fostering dissent and galvanizing resistance cannot be underestimated or understated.
In contrast to the obfuscating tactics of state-driven language, the use of plain, easy-to-read language provides a transparent and unfiltered alternative that confronts the dominant political narrative. By getting rid of complex euphemisms and paraphrasing, this straightforward approach ensures that the message is accessible to a broader audience, including those outside of the intellectual elite. In political science, it acts as a corrective to the distortions of official discourse, aiming to reveal the harsh realities of state-imposed sanctions, including military aggression, media censorship, and political repression. In linguistics and lexicology, its appeal lies in its simplicity and its capacity to convey unambiguous messages that resonate with the general public and strike a chord with so many. While it avoids the subtleties of more sophisticated discourse, it focuses on clarity and precision, striving to reach those whose voices have been marginalized or muted.
Despite its effectiveness in simplifying political discourse, the use of plain language also carries the risk of oversimplification, which may alienate unrelated sides or potential allies. The directness of the language, while powerful in mobilizing dissent, also creates a polarizing effect, drawing sharp ideological lines between opposing sides. In political science, this risk is particularly significant in a context where public opinion is divided, as overly simplistic messages may inadvertently push away individuals who are undecided, fence-sitting or who may not completely embrace the bilateral framing of the conflict. In linguistics and lexicology, this reduction of complex issues into stark, black-and-white terms may obscure the nuances that are critical for a deep understanding of political dynamics. Although the focus on simplicity enhances clarity, it can inadvertently undermine the potential for building consensus across the chasms of ideological divides.
While plain language can be polarizing, it also has the potential to bridge divides in times of crisis by making complex issues accessible to all. In societies with high levels of political polarization, the use of direct language can cut through the rhetoric of division, providing a platform for open discussion and collective action. In political science, this can foster unity by presenting the issues in a way that resonates with a wide cross-section of society, including those who may feel disenfranchised, disillusioned or disconnected from the political process. In linguistics and lexicology, the straightforward nature of this discourse creates a shared understanding of the conflict, reducing misunderstandings and facilitating more constructive dialogue. Despite its risks, the potential for this language to unite disparate groups in the pursuit of a common cause of good and virtuous remains one of its most significant strengths.
5. The Restrictions and Challenges of Alternative Discourse
Despite the power of plain, direct language as a tool of resistance, it also comes with inherent vices. While it serves as a critique of the state’s manipulation of language, it also imposes its own prerequisite rules of the game. In a manner simile to newspeak, this alternative discourse creates an ideological framework that shapes the way its developers and contributors see the world. By employing accusatory and condemnatory language, it may further polarize society and undermine the possibility of dialogue with swinging sides. Moreover, the government’s crackdown on dissent, including the criminalization of certain terms and expressions, has forced resistance groups to constantly adapt their linguistic strategies. This classical cat-and-mouse game between state censorship and antagonistic discourse highlights the dynamic role of language in shaping international politics and public opinion.
Ultimately, the challenge of resistance language lies in its evolving nature. As the conflict continues and the political landscape shifts, the language used by resistance movements must get back to ever-changing realities. In political science, the dynamics of conflict, both domestically and internationally, require constant recalibration of discourse to stay relevant and up-to-date. In linguistics and lexicology, this fluidity allows resistance groups to remain agile and enduring, but it also means that language may become a moving target, with each adaptation being countered by the state’s censorship apparatus. This evolving struggle between state control and resistance movement reflects the dynamic nature of political conflict, where language is not merely a passive reflection of reality but an active force in shaping that reality.
Instead of a Conclusion
The ongoing linguistic struggle in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a timely reminder of the role that language plays in shaping not only public opinion, but the course of history itself. Whether through the manipulation of newspeak or the strategic use of plain, accessible language, words are not merely means of communication—they are mass destruction weapons of modern warfare. As both Russia and Ukraine proceed with employing language to frame and narrow the narrative of the conflict to their own advantage and detriment, they are also defining the terms of global diplomacy, international politics, and public perception. In this battle of and for words, it is clear as a day that language produced does not merely reflect the world—it actively constructs it. Understanding how language shapes the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is essential for anyone seeking to comprehend the complete scope and volume of the ongoing war, as well as its repercussions for global politics.
One of the most significant aspects of the linguistic struggle in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is the reframing of atrocities and acts of aggression. The Russian government, through its control over language, seeks to portray acts of violence as acceptable or even necessary, minimizing the perception of human suffering. Terms like collateral damage or regime change are used to cleanse and sanitize the brutal realities of war and present them as part of a larger, more lie-abundant narrative. In contrast, the language of the resistance frames these same acts as violations of international law, human rights, and personal autonomy. The stark opposition in the use of language serves not only to mobilize internal resistance but also to attract global attention to the moral and ethical dimensions of the conflict.
The ongoing linguistic battle between Russia and Ukraine is unlikely to end with the resolution of the present military engagement, as the linguistic choices made today will have long-term consequences for political and social futures of both nation states. In Russia, the continued use of euphemisms, metaphorical and phraseological wording and the manipulation of public discourse may have lasting effects on the ability of its citizens to engage in meaningful political debate and dissent. Over time, the suppression of critical language could result in a gap of generation that is disconnected from the realities of power and governance. In Ukraine, the use of clear, accessible language in the resistance may foster a culture of accountability and responsiveness, but it could also perpetuate divisions if the focus on ideological purity overshadows the necessity for a meaningful, sensible dialogue. The lessons learned from how language has been used in this conflict will foretell forthcoming political struggles, demonstrating that the battle for conscience and scruples is often as critical as the fight for sovereignty and territory.
September 11, 2025
Stanislav Roshko, IAPSS Ukraine Deputy Head Contributor, Student
Uzhhorod, Ukraine
Note: This column reflects the author’s personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the views of the organization.
Reference List
Blommaert, J. (Posthumous/Edited). (2024). Language, mobility, and identity in a changing world: Selected works of Jan Blommaert (J. Spitulnik & S. Collins, Eds.). Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2024). Analysing the language of political conflict. Critical Discourse Studies, 22(5), 477–493.
Festinger, L. (Reprint/Edited). (2024). Cognitive dissonance in authoritarian contexts: Applications to modern political psychology (J. Cooper & R. Arkin, Eds.). In Psychology of Political Conflict (pp. 89–104). Routledge.
Hopf, T. (2024). Reclaiming the future: Russia’s identity and foreign policy in the Ukraine crisis. International Affairs, 100(3), 1125–1145.
Kovalenko, A. (2024). Countering disinformation in wartime: Ukraine’s strategies for narrative resistance. Journal of Information Warfare, 23(2), 45–62.
Kuzio, T. (2024). Russian narratives and euphemisms in the Ukraine war: Propaganda and power. Europe-Asia Studies, 76(4), 567–589.
Lukin, A. (2025). Russia’s evolving diplomatic discourse: Framing the Ukraine conflict in global affairs. Russia in Global Affairs, 23(1), 45–60.
Saradzhyan, S. (2025). Russia’s information warfare: Propaganda and escalation in the Ukraine conflict. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School.
Wodak, R. (2024). The politics of fear revisited: Populist discourse in the Ukraine crisis. Critical Discourse Studies, 22(5), 477–493.
