Intervention as Virtue, Obligation and Moral Duty

The Meaning of Russia’s Rhetoric on Responsibility during the Georgian and the Crimean Crises

in Russian Politics
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

During its 2008 intervention in Georgia, Russia justified its actions by appealing to its responsibility to protect compatriots, civilians and soldiers. At the international level, such justification was refuted on both legal and normative grounds. However, during the Crimean crisis of 2014, Russia yet again resorted to the same kind of rhetoric, even though the Crimean case provided even less grounds for making such justification convincing for the international audience. I argue that Russia’s rhetorical choices, instead of being a mere smokescreen for the Kremlin’s realpolitik, are symptomatic. They stem from the tensions in Russia’s political identity. Out of three semantic clusters in Russia’s responsibility discourse, only one – responsibility as moral duty – enjoyed overwhelming support among its main target audience (domestic population). I suggest that the continued references to its legal and international systemic responsibilities, puzzling for international audience, were epiphenomenal to Russia’s successful appeals to its moral duties at home.

Intervention as Virtue, Obligation and Moral Duty

The Meaning of Russia’s Rhetoric on Responsibility during the Georgian and the Crimean Crises

in Russian Politics

Sections

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 41 41 14
Full Text Views 60 60 34
PDF Downloads 6 6 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0