Crimea will forever be Russian
Dissenting Norwegian media discourses on Russia’s annexation of Crimea
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7989592 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Marthe Handå Myhre (0000-0002-2113-7765, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University, corresponding author), Aadne Aasland (0000-0002-6516-9283, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University), Jørn Holm-Hansen (0000-0002-4859-3496, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 185-208 |
| Publication date | 2022-07-31 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | European Politics and Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2374-5126 • E-ISSN: 2374-5118 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/23745118.2022.2103286 |
| OpenAlex | W4289028862 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 24 |
The scholarly literature on Russia's influence in Europe has so far mainly focused on Russia's influence activities, discussed either as 'disinformation' or 'soft power'. Less attention has been paid to understanding the agency of European audiences receptive to Russian narratives. Through discourse analysis of Norwegian media texts (February 2014 – December 2020) where authors or interviewees accepted or were prone to accept Crimea as part of Russia, this paper investigates into the arguments put forward by these constituencies. Why were commentators, representing various political affiliations, willing to accept Crimea as part of Russia, contrary to Norway's official position? The paper shows that the Norwegian commentators used many arguments coinciding with the official Russian ones put forward to legitimize the annexation, arguments informed by political realism, pragmatism, sovereignism and in some cases anti-Americanism. However, they also used arguments structured by the socio-political and historical Norwegian context. Constituencies abroad sharing opinions with official Russia may provide Russia with a certain soft power. In this case, the fact that these dissenting discourses in Norway represent fringes of the debate on the annexation rather than a strong united opposition to Norway's official stand, speaks quite clearly of the limited scope of this soft power
Annexation · Dissenting opinion · Norwegian · Opposition (politics · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Sociology · Soft power · European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies · European Union Policy and Governance · Law · Security, Politics, and Digital Transformation
Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method
The Politics of Fear
Combating Disinformation on Social Media
Norge og Russland
Russia's Improved Information Operations
Victory without Casualties
Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis
Why Crimea was Always Ours
Norway and Russia in the Arctic
Avoiding War
An Estranged ‘marriage of convenience’
The limits of Russia’s ‘soft power’
Trickle Down Soft Power
Ideology, Geopolitics and International Law
Russia’s Public Diplomacy
Russia as an international conservative power
Conservative soft power
Partisan views of Russia
Understanding’ for Russia in Germany
Fellow travelers or Trojan horses? Similarities across pro-Russian parties’ electorates in Europe
Forced to Friendship’? Russian (Mis-)Understandings of Soft Power and the Implications for Audience Attraction in Ukraine
Making Sense of Russia's Illiberalism
Soft power and identity
Soft Power
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,75 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2024 (3) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |