Lyudmyla PAVLYUK
Associate Professor, Lviv Ivan Franko National University, Ukraine
INTERESTS
February 20, 2014 is the date stamped on the medal “For the Return of Crimea,” awarded to Russian military participating in annexation of the peninsula. Six years on, Ukraine’s own use of defense resources and the responses of actors representing the system of “international law” explain the ongoing conflict. After signing the Budapest memorandum in 1994, Ukraine was deprived of crucial argument for interstate disa-greements, such as nuclear status, and consequently, global responses became a factor that acquired critical significance in search for solutions to the current lasting conflict.
Were restrictive measures efficient, most importantly the sanctions applied in response to Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity? Could they be decisive? Without a doubt, pressure exerted on the state that invaded Ukraine was significant for creating a barrier to the further spread of Russian military in Ukraine. Yet in the long term, international reactions to the Kremlin’s aggression did not turn out to be sufficient enough to put an end to the war, especially to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty, i.e. the state’s basic right enshrined in the UN Charter. This half way state of actions corresponds to the nature of discourse dealing with information about Ukraine. The representations of the Russian-Ukrainian war in international media often contain clear markers of indifference, simulation of concerns, and ignoring international legal considerations for the sake of business interests.
The analysis below is focused on the interplay of facts and frames in Ukrainian domestic and international discourses that show the breakthroughs of adequacy and setbacks of delusions in definitions surrounding the Russian-Ukrainian political and military conflict. The struggle for proper meaning from the beginning became a part of defense strategies for Ukraine. As Ukraine continues with self-defense efforts, global partners proceed with assistance. Adherence to adequate terms and precise language instruments is supposed to bring more honesty and goodwill to all participants of the conflict-related dialogue and add efficiency to their interaction.
Associate Professor, Lviv Ivan Franko National University, Ukraine