Mobilizing Emotions through Language: Authoritarian Narratives and the Justification of War

This paper examines how contemporary authoritarian regimes employ emotionally charged language, through tropes, metaphors, and master narratives, to legitimize their rule and mobilize popular support. While the primary empirical focus is on Russia’s efforts to justify its full-scale invasion of Ukraine launched on February 24, 2022, comparative references to Belarus, Serbia, and Georgia illustrate broader patterns of affective governance. These regimes all seek to consolidate domestic legitimacy, striving to win emotive popular endorsement for current policies, including their support of Russia’s war. They strategically invoke historically rooted myths and culturally resonant symbols to construct narratives of national greatness, existential threat, and moral superiority. Such discourses often portray the nation as besieged by hostile external forces while elevating the regime as the guardian of sovereignty, identity, and traditional values. Empirically, the study analyzes official governmental and presidential websites as key channels for disseminating legitimizing narratives. In the Russian case, particular attention is paid to the Kremlin’s framing of the war against Ukraine as a holy war against a depraved and malevolent West, alongside appeals to collective memory of past victories and metaphors of encirclement and survival. These emotionally laden components aim to activate fear, pride, and resentment, thereby fostering mass compliance and support for military aggression. Comparative examples from Belarus, Serbia, and Georgia reveal similar rhetorical strategies, adapted to local historical and cultural contexts. Methodologically, the paper employs qualitative content analysis and narrative analysis to uncover the structure and evolution of these discourses. By tracing how master myths and auxiliary narratives adapt to shifting geopolitical realities, the study contributes to understanding the dynamic interplay between emotion, language, and authoritarian resilience. Ultimately, it demonstrates that emotional framing is central to sustaining authoritarian legitimacy in times of crisis.