A New Cold War? The Weaponisation of language in a multipolar world

A NEW COLD WAR? THE WEAPONISATION OF LANGUAGE IN A

MULTIPOLAR WORLD

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I – EMERGING MULTIPOLARITY, A NEW COLD WAR?

1.1 Transition to a Multipolar Global Order: from the post-World War II bipolar world

to the world without a centre.

1.2 Overview of Global Powers: The weakening of the West and the rise of new global

actors.

1.3 The Context of Contemporary Multipolarity: The Ukrainian War

CHAPTER II - WAR COMMUNICATION

2.1 Language and War: Legitimising Wars

2.2 Information Warfare and Propagandistic (DIS)INFORMATION – Modern Tools

and Techniques

2.3 The Weaponisation of Information: The power of visual imagery in War

Communication

CHAPTER III - THE RUSSIAN-UKRANIAN CONFLICT: A LINGUISTIC

ANALYSIS

3.1 Legitimising Wars and Shaping Perception through Language: The War in Ukraine

from President Vladimir Putin’s perspective.

3.2 The Political West Counter-narrative following the dynamics of The War in

Ukraine: President Joe Biden’s attitude.

3.3 Overall of a Propagandistic disinformation: Russia’s Narrative vs U.S. Counter-

Narrative 1

INTRODUCTION

The pivotal aim of this thesis is to acknowledge how do language and war fit together

and how do they penetrate the meanders of the current geopolitical context, which

consists of an emerging multipolar world, the coexistence of multiple global powers,

which has become a defining pattern of the contemporary international system. This is

the reason why the first chapter of the paper has been entrusted with a task of a

compiling nature, a contextualization and historical reconstruction of the major

geopolitical events starting from the bipolar post-World War II order under the

ideological currents of the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,

when the USA and the USSR no longer saw each other as allies but enemies in what

has gone down in history as the Cold War, a profoundly ideological clash, that long

season in our contemporary history when the world saw itself interposed in what

Winston Churchill defined as the "Iron Curtain".

The emergence of new global actors, such as China and India, begins to undermine the

foundations of the old international order, which had previously already moved from

bipolarism to unipolarity, as the United States of America won the eternal Cold War

clash against Russia.

The crucial track of this report, sifted through in the second chapter, will be to

demonstrate how, over the decades, we have moved from an ideological clash to a

verbal clash, considering that in the contemporary multipolar world, powers accuse

each other of lying. All this leads to a huge war of words, a language put at the mercy

of war rhetoric, characterized by using language and verbal exchanges as weapons.

This type of conflict involves communication strategies aimed at influencing opinions,

shaping narratives and gaining a psychological advantage over the opponent. The great

concentrations of power orchestrate political language, orienting common thought

through a subtle communicative game. A war, therefore, that can no longer be said to

be ideological but communicative, where the war front is increasingly giving way to

the communicative army and clearly to the battlefield where it is consumed: the mass

media. 2

Leaders on both sides carefully choose language to convey their messages;

The use of strong rhetoric and historical references contributes to legitimising wars,

by weaponizing words to shape the narrative each side presents.

To conclude, in the third chapter, we will consider a case study, namely the Russian-

Ukrainian conflict, analysing it from a communicative-linguistic point of view, aimed

at demonstrating the crucial importance of information and communication on the

international geopolitical chessboard. In detail, Putin's and Biden's remarks will be

analysed in consideration of the war in Ukraine: how are they pronounced, what type

of approach do they have, what is the linguistic-communicative strategy used to guide

thoughts?

The use of language represents a key component in our contemporary society to shape

narratives, manipulate perceptions and influence collective beliefs through the

weaponisation of the language itself. Indeed, the modus operandi of political leaders

consists of a wide range of strategic words, systematically used so that they can

penetrate social groups, even influencing thoughts and actions. The theories of the

American linguist Norman Fairclough and CDA formed the basis for the structural

deconstruction of the political discourses examined, which pointed out that language

is not a neutral tool, but rather a place where power relations come into play; Thus, it

cannot be simply considered as "a means of communication" but rather a mechanism

for exerting control and authority, legitimizing political actions, constructing specific

narratives and manipulating public opinion.

3

CHAPTER I

EMERGING MULTIPOLARITY, A NEW COLD WAR?

1.1 Transition to a Multipolar Global Order: from the post-World War

II bipolar world to the world without a centre.

Multipolarity refers to a global system where power is distributed among three or more

major centres rather than being concentrated in one dominant Nation or bloc.

A report titled “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World”, worked out by the US

National Intelligence Council, states that a multipolar world—that is to say, a world

characterized by multiple centres of power—is gradually emerging.

Nowadays, United States of America, People’s Republic of China, Russia, and India

are considered as to be main global actors. In a multipolar international order, these

nations, play a significant role in shaping global dynamics. Analysts typically measure

polarity by the distribution of states’ capabilities and these Nations share several

1

characteristics, such as economic growth, advanced military capabilities, and

technological innovation.

The end of World War II saw the birth of a new ideological clash, the United States

and Russia no longer saw themselves as allies but divided in the eternal contrast that

goes down in history as the Cold War, that prolonged period of geopolitical rivalry

between USA and URSS from the end of World War II in 1945 until the early 1990s.

The Cold War inaugurated a long season of our contemporary history where the world

found itself split in two halves, two ideologically opposed blocs. On this subject,

Winston Churchill, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, during the Fulton

Conference held on March 5, 1946, stated: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the

Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent” .

2

It never resulted in actual armed confrontation, but it was mainly based on ideological

opposition; in short, it resulted in a state of continuous political, economic and

diplomatic tension. The conflict between the two superpowers arose from the

irreconcilability of both sides: the West criticized the East as the embodiment of

Barry R. Posen, Current History, Vol.108, No.721, A Multipolar World? (NOVEMBER 2009),

1

pp.347-352.

Winston Churchill, Fulton Conference, Westminster College, March 5, 1946.

2 4

totalitarianism, undemocratic and communist, while the East accused the West as the

promoter of capitalism and imperialism.

The rise of the bipolar world officially came to the surface on April 4, 1949, when the

North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington by twelve Foreign Ministers,

officially establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This union

expanded the Five of Western Union with the inclusion of the United States, Canada,

Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway, and Portugal.

The creation of this Euro-American alliance was fiercely opposed by Communists

worldwide. Despite the climate of fear during the ratification process in Western

Parliaments, it only served to accelerate the treaty's acceptance. Coming into effect on

August 23, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty laid the foundation for defending Western

Europe within a transatlantic framework. In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower

and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles expanded the Truman Doctrine by

introducing the 'rollback' policy, aimed not only to contain Communism but actively

push it back, necessitating the formation of military alliances with nations facing

Communist expansion.

In response, the USSR signed the Warsaw Pact in 1955. After West Germany's

accession to the North Atlantic Treaty on May 9, 1955, the Socialist nations of Eastern

Europe also unified to form a military alliance. This mutual defence pact against

aggression also involved Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary,

Poland, and Romania.

As previously discussed, the era saw both sides struggling for global influence and

they also made themselves protagonists of a peculiar structure of clash which went

down in history as Proxy conflicts , as happened in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan,

3

where wars were fought to advance each side's interests without direct confrontation.

Amidst the context of a bipolar world, a distinct entity, later coined by Alfred Sauvy

as the "tiers monde" emerged and began to route on the economic and development

4

tracks.

This group encompassed several states deliberately opting against aligning with the

polarized forces of the bipolar world, charting an independent course, avoiding

Proxy war, a military conflict in which one or more third parties directly or indirectly support one or

3

more combatants in an effort to influence the conflict’s outcome and thereby to advance their own

strategic interests or to undermine those of their opponents. Britannica Dictionary.

4 Le Tiers Monde: Sous-développement et développement, Préface d'Alfred Sauvy, Meillassoux

Claude, 1958, pp. 604-607 5

complete alignment with either of the two major blocs Beijing regarded the

.

international order as “illegitimate, representing the triumph of the strong over the

weak, of the imperialists and colonialists over their victims” . This perspective was

5

widely shared among the countries of the Nonaligned Movement and had found

powerful international expression at the Bandung Conference in 1954. This conception

of the international order and stability encompasses a rejection of the international

order and actions and calls for its replacement by a more “democratic” international

system.

However, the Cold War era ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which began

with the reforms initiated by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in the mid-1980s. The

policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) aimed to revitalize the

Soviet system but inadvertently led to increased freedoms and revolutionary cones,

which ultimately sparked independence within Soviet republics.

In 1991, a coup attempts against Gorbachev's government failed, and the Soviet Union

dissolved. The end of the Cold War was marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989,

symbolizing the reunification of East and West Germany. The dissolution of the Soviet

Union led to the emergence of Russia as an independent state and marked the

conclusion of the bipolar power struggle that had defined the world for decades. This

period also signed a shift in global politics towards a more multipolar world order. The

dissolution of the Soviet Union and, concomitantly, the fall of the Berlin Wall marked

the beginning of a new era totally characterized by U.S. economic, military, and

cultural hegemony. The unipolar era officially began.

Unipolarity refers to an international global order dominated by a single state, which,

in the post-Cold War era, was the United States, the sole superpower holding

economic, military and cultural supremacy.

The issue concerning the U.S. monopolization of the world could be best exemplified

in a speech given by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Germany on February 10,

2007, during the Munich Security Conference. The speech emphasized significant

points of Putin Russia's future policy; therefore, President Vladimir Putin blamed a

“unipolar world”:

Jeffrey A. Bader, "How Xi Jinping Sees the World…and Why", 2016, Foreign Policy at Brookings

5 6

“…What is a unipolar world? However, one might embellish this term, at the end

of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre

of force, one centre of decision-making. It is world in which there is one master, one

sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this

system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within”. 6

Furthermore, Putin also quoted a speech by Manfred Wörner to support his position

that NATO had promised not to expand into new countries in Eastern Europe:

“I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels

on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: «the fact that we are ready not to place

a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security

guarantee» . Where are these guarantees”?

7

“I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with

the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe.

On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual

trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?”

Delving into Putin’s words, we may draw some conclusions. We may consider Putin's

words as a prelude to future Russian military actions, including the annexation of

Crimea, the war in Donbass, and the more recent large-scale invasion of Ukraine. It

becomes clear that Putin was warning the Western world and NATO to keep away from

Eastern Europe, as the alliance’s inexorable march eastward turned out to be

provocative and threatening. The Munich speech sounded like a loud diplomatic

8

wake-up call, and we might venture that the Western world failed to heed that call,

downplaying the future consequences on the international geopolitical chessboard.

President Vladimir Putin’s speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on

6

Security Policy February 10, 2007, Munich, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034.

Address by Secretary General, Manfred Wörner to the Bremer Tabak Collegium, Brussels, May

7

17,1990, https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm.

Ted Galen Carpenter, Did Putin’s 2007 Munich Speech Predict the Ukraine Crisis? National Interest,

8

January 24,2022. 7

In contrast to the claims of the President of the Russian Federation, several voices

stand in support of the stability of the unipolar system, as the structuring of power

cannot foresee imminent threats .

9

As stated by Charles Krauthammer, the collapse of the Soviet bloc has given hope for

some intellectual to advance the hypothesis of an emerging unipolar era, although in

fact that period of effectively unchallenged US and Western dominance was relatively

short-lived .

10

Paradoxically, the pursuit of US-led liberal internationalism, in the post-Cold War era,

has been read by some as the first drop of poison inoculated to accelerate a radical

liberal hegemony, that is a semi-predatory political pattern carried out by the United

States, inclined toward a Manichaean vision of the world, linked to an idea of

liberalisation and democratisation, has only turned, from the perspective of “weaker

global actors”, into a form of presumption and tyranny. A presumption that must be

translated into disrespect for the founding values of civilizations, disrespect for the

sovereignty of states, self-arrogating the right to be the vessel of absolute truth.

Therefore, the post-Cold War peace order was as unfair and unstable as the Versailles

system.

A World based on NATO expansion and Western domination would inevitably lead

to war, as Karaganda stated in his “We are witnessing the Birth of a New World

Order” .

11

As far as Russia and China are concerned, the US-led rules-based order represents a

usurpation of the rights and prerogatives vested in the UN. This turns out to be the

result of the type of politics pursued by the West, named democratic internationalism,

in which the political character of a state determines the quality of its relationship with

the political West .

12

Undoubtedly, this erodes the possibility of fruitful diplomacy and produces a Cold

War logic. To support this theory, we might consider incorporating another speech into

our discussion, particularly one delivered by China's former foreign minister, Qian

Qichen, back in 1991, where he stated: “The USA's hegemonic stance and its attempts

Barry R. Posen, Current History, Vol.108, No.721, A Multipolar World? (NOVEMBER 2009),

9

pp.347-352.

Krauthammer, “The Unipolar Moment”, Foreign Affairs, vol.70, no.1, 1990-1991, pp.23-33.

10

11 S. Karaganov, “We Are Witnessing the Birth of a New World Order”, RT.com, October 2022

Richard Sakwa, “The context of Contemporary Multipolarity?”, Multipolarity After Ukraine, Old

12

Wines in new bottles? edited by Aldo Ferraro and Eleonora Tafuro Ambrosetti, 2023, pp.30-36.

8

to interfere in the internal affairs of other states pose the greatest danger to socialist

China," and suggested that in order to "weaken pressure from Washington, China

13

must broaden relations with Japan, Russia, South Korea, and other neighbouring

countries." 14

It is worth mentioning that Qichen’s words are due to U.S. condemnation following

the Tiananmen Square events, a significant event that occurred on June 4, 1989, in

Beijing, China. Pro-democracy protesters, mainly students, had been gathering in

Tiananmen Square for weeks, calling for political reforms and democracy in the

country. The Chinese government responded by declaring martial law and sending the

military to suppress the demonstrations. On the night of June 3 and into June 4, military

used force to clear the square, firing on unarmed civilians and protesters. The exact

number of casualties is still a