Even though Russia’s military action is taking place in all parts of Ukraine, not just Donbas, and the military offensive against this country is a clear violation of international law, many media outlets in the region have adopted a narrative of “a special military operation” in Ukraine to justify Russia’s actions.
In the morning hours of February 24, Vladimir Putin announced the launch of “a special military operation in Donbas” to, as he claims, “eliminate a serious threat.” Putin stated that the goal of this “special military operation” is the “denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine.
One of the problems with naming current and historical events is that certain names, in addition to indicating a specific event, also contain an implicitly stated position on it. This is evidenced by numerous examples from our region, which are vigorously debated – Jasenovac, Srebrenica and “Oluja”, and the example of the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These days, a comparison of the way the website Danas (.rs) called the war in Ukraine (“A month since Russia’s brutal attack on Ukraine”) and the bombing of the FRY (“Today marks the 23rd anniversary of the beginning of the intervention in FR Yugoslavia”) has become viral on social media.
Historian Robert Berkhofer also wrote about the impossibility of establishing a consensus on certain appointments, asking the following question: should a historical event associated with the name of Christopher Columbus be called discovery, invasion, conquest, encounter, interaction or intervention?
“The process of shaping the wider context is becoming controversial because what followed Columbus in American history can be portrayed as a gift from one civilization to another, but also as genocide against the natives and enslavement of the African population”.
However, to judge the current dimensions and nature of the conflict in Ukraine, we do not have to wait for a special “time distance” or even the end of the conflict. According to all documented parameters, it is clear that it is an invasion of a sovereign state.
To consider how the media from our speaking area named the war in Ukraine, the editorial offices of FakeNews Tragac, Raskrinkavanja.ba (BiH) and Raskrinkavanja.me (Montenegro) analyzed narratives published since the beginning of the war.
Serbia: Series of invasions – Series of special operations
Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the print media from Serbia have been intensively following the development of events, but they have taken a different direction. The only thing common in the narratives of all analyzed media (Informer, Alo, Kurir, Vecernje novosti, Srpski telegraf, Objektiv) is the assessment that a “war” broke out in Ukraine. While some media described this conflict as “aggression” or “invasion” of Russia, others used euphemisms such as Russian “special military operation” or “military intervention”.
Among those who have used euphemisms before is the daily Informer, which has used the Kremlin’s recommended term “special military operation” since the beginning of the war, four times in the main body of texts (February 25, February 26; March 7 and March 8). Conflict in Ukraine is most often described as “crisis” or “war”, with the occasional mention of “total war” (February 25 and March 2), and in addition to these terms, Informer also used “military intervention” or “operation” (February 25, 26 and 28; March 3, 5, 7 and 9). The newspaper called the column dedicated to the conflict in Ukraine “the war in Europe” and, since the beginning of the conflict, the terms “aggression” or “invasion” of Russia have not been used in the main parts of its texts.
Alo reported in a similar way. The term “special military operation” (intervention) was used four times (February 25 and 27: March 4 and 12). On February 25, and March 12, Alo mentioned that this term is used by the Russians. The term “military intervention” or “operation” was most often used (February 26 and 27; March 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10). Alo called the column on these events “War in Ukraine”, and it often published texts of the correspondent from Moscow, including a photo of him wearing a hat with the Russian coat of arms. The terms “invasion” and “aggression” were used twice, and this occurred while sharing words of analysts or officials (February 25 and March 3).
Kurir reported on the war in Ukraine in a terminologically opposite manner. In almost every issue since the beginning of the war, Kurir characterized this action as an “invasion”. The only exception is March 11, when the term “invasion” appeared only within direct quotations. This was – possibly – contributed to by the author’s text of the Russian Ambassador to Serbia, Aleksandar Bocan-Kharchenko, published by Kurir that day. The phrase “special military operation” appeared twice (February 25 and March 1), but with the clear implication that it is the Russian term for the invasion. The term “aggression” was also used (March 2 and 3), and the section dedicated to these events was called “War in Ukraine”.
Vecernje novosti adhered to its established narrative in favor of Russia, and only once did it clearly characterize the attack on Ukraine as an “invasion”. This happened on February 25, at the very beginning of the war. The term “special military operation” was used six times (February 25 and 27; March 2, 4, 6 and 13), with quotation marks on two occasions. However, the terms “military operation”, “action” or “intervention” were most often used (February 25, 26 and 27; March 1, 2, 4 and 5). Until the eighth day of the war in Ukraine, the column about these events was called “Crisis in Ukraine”, and later on, it became “War in Ukraine”.
Although Srpski telegraf has been publishing a photo of the Russian president on its front page almost every day since the beginning of the war in Ukraine (except March 1), compared to all the other analyzed media, this paper used the most the term “agression” to describe the Russian attack (March 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13). Even the column dedicated to these events from March 8 is called “Russian aggression on Ukraine – eyes of the whole planet directed towards Kyiv”, while before that, it was called “War in Ukraine – eyes of the entire planet directed towards Kyiv”. This paper also used the term “Russian invasion” to a large extent (March 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12), and the phrase “special military operation” was used several times with the implication that it was a term that the Kremlin recommends.
Of the analyzed media, Objektiv wrote the least about the war in Ukraine. Objektiv did not write about it on its front pages, unlike other media. The column on these events is called the “Eastern Front”, and the war in Ukraine is most often characterized as a “conflict” (March 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11). The pro-Russian phrase “special military operation” was used twice in the analyzed period (March 2 and 9), once in quotation marks and once without it. In addition, the terms military “action”, “operation” and “intervention” were used (March 2, 5 and 9), the term “invasion” was used twice (March 2 and 10), while the term “aggression” was not used.
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Relativization of the invasion in the media from the Republic of Srpska
In BiH, some media from the Republic of Srpska entity stand out in the relativization of the Russian invasion:
LIVE Special military operation in Donbas: Zelensky signs decree on the general mobilization of the population (Glas Srpske)
Russian military operation on Ukraine; “We are closing the borders” (Independent)
FROM HOUR TO HOUR: Special military operation in Donbas, Ukraine imposes a state of war (VIDEO) (Prijedor 24h)
Russian military operation in Ukraine: Explosion near the railway station in Kyiv (Moja Banjaluka)
Reporting on the events in Ukraine, most RS media avoided using the words “aggression”, “invasion” and even “war”, replacing them with expressions such as “special military operation“, “Russian military action“, and “special operation in Ukraine with the aim of protecting the people in the Donbas region”.
These terms have been used in more than a hundred articles published on dozens of BiH websites in recent weeks.
Montenegro: IN4S terminology
Since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, the media in Montenegro, mostly those who are openly in favor of Russia, have faithfully followed the Russian narrative in which the attack on a sovereign state is called a “special operation” aimed at “denazifying” that country.
Thus, for example, IN4S has been writing about Russia’s “special operation” in Ukraine since the beginning of the war.
“Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a special address to the citizens of Russia last night that he had decided to launch a special military operation in Donbas. The head of state pointed out that Russia’s plans do not include the occupation of Ukraine”, the website announced on February 25.
In addition to such official allegations from the Kremlin, this website also published “domestic” analyses on the “justification of the denazification of Ukraine“.
“Since the beginning of the special operation of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, one of the key conditions for Ukrainian officials, which would lead to a sustainable political solution, has been emphasized by Russian state officials and that is that Ukraine will have to fulfill the denazification of its territory to liberate it from the Nazis. It is not unknown that Hitler once received a warm welcome by the Ukrainian people during the invasion of the Soviet Union. The thesis that Nazism is still present in Ukraine includes recently exploited photographs, shown to the public, where during the funeral ceremonies of Ukrainian extremists killed in the fight against the Russian army, they were buried in Nazi uniforms, and were sent to eternal rest by comrades dressed in the uniforms of former SS divisions”, states IN4S, without offering any evidence for such claims.
The website Borba (.me) also wrote about the justification of the request for “denazification” of Ukraine, and shared claims that the “special operation” prevented the Third World War. Announcing the attacks on Kyiv, Borba continued to follow the Russian narrative and wrote that “the operation is spreading”, and the same term, although it is clear that it was an invasion, was used by its columnists.
What are the facts?
Following the declaration of war, Ukrainian authorities reported explosions in several cities across Ukraine, including Kyiv, Kharkiv and the Dnieper. From the beginning of the invasion until the date of publication of this analysis, it is estimated that more than 4,500 civilians were killed and wounded, and that more than 4.5 million people fled Ukraine.
Russian military forces bombed, among other things, the largest Ukrainian cities, Kyiv and Kharkiv. It is clear that the “special military operation” is not taking place only in Donbas. The map shows that Kyiv is kilometers away from Donbas, part of which is under the control of pro-Russian separatists who formed the parastates Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.
Although Russian officials claim that what is happening in Ukraine is not war nor invasion, the parameters of international law claim otherwise.
According to the International Relations Council’s website, Russia’s attack on Ukraine directly violates Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter, which requires UN member states to refrain from “using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.
The website also states that Putin and other Russian officials have argued that their use of force in Ukraine is justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 stipulates that “nothing in the Charter may violate the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations”. However, as explained, Ukraine has not committed or threatened to carry out an armed attack on Russia or any other UN member state, so this argument from the Russian side has no factual or legal basis.
Even if Russia could prove that Ukraine committed or planned attacks in the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, Article 51 would not allow action in collective self-defense because Donetsk and Luhansk are not UN member states. According to the Council on Foreign Relations ‘ website, they do not even qualify as states under international law, despite their alleged secession from Ukraine and Russia’s recognition of their independence.
Therefore, according to international law, Russia does not have the authority to launch a “military operation” in Ukraine. Such an act is considered an invasion of the territorial integrity of a sovereign, internationally recognized state. By promoting the narrative of a “special military operation” and deliberately avoiding the use of the terms “war” and “invasion”, the media seeks to minimize the seriousness of violations of international law and openly serve Russia’s political interests.
