1 Introduction
2 Foreign Aid
3. Language in international politics
4 Method
4.1 Sampling
5 Results
5.1 Ukrainian resistance
5.2 Russia's war of aggression
5.3 Demands
5.4 Similarities
5.5 Readiness to act
5.6 Incentives
6. Discussion
6.1 Interpretation of the results
6.2 Integration into the state of research
6.3 Criticism and limitations of the methodological approach
7 Conclusion
8 References
9 Appendix
9.1 Code System
9.2 List of Codes
9.2.1 Ukrainian resistance
9.3.1 Russia's war of aggression
9.4.1 Demand
9.5.1 Similarities
9.6.1 Readiness to act
9.7.1 Incentive
“The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride”. (Zelenskyy 2022) With these words, the Ukrainian president rejected the US offer to evacuate him on 26 February, when Russian sabotage groups had already entered Kiev. By doing so, he impressed the whole world and proved himself a courageous leader in the resistance against the Russia's war of aggression on Ukraine. A short time later, Western countries are providing unprecedented amounts of military, humanitarian, and financial aid to Ukraine, which continues to this day. As the war in Ukraine has become a global crisis, the political and academic discourse is often about what governments and international organizations can do to solve the crisis. Consequently, foreign aid to Ukraine counts as a political instrument for this purpose (Grossi/Vakulenko 2022: 470; Antezza 2022 et al.: 2). Thus, donors get to play the central role in the issue of foreign aid, while the role of the recipient is marginalized. This means that the approaches, strategies, or instruments of recipients are hardly considered when it comes to obtaining aid. Yet a high volume of aid could be as much due to the performance of the recipient as to the interest of the donor. A similar situation emerges in the state of research on foreign aid to date. In contrast to the donor perspective, the recipient perspective is neglected. It is surprising, therefore, that there have been no contributions to date on approaches, strategies, or instruments on how borrowers proceed to win foreign aid. The exception here is well-known news services such as BBC or Forbes, which analyzed Zelenskyy's speeches in journalistic style and succinctly (e.g., Adams 2022; Gallo 2022). The aim of this paper is therefore to contribute to filling this research gap.
The question of this paper is therefore as follows: How does Zelenskyy try to convince the international community in his speeches to win foreign aid in resisting Russia's war of aggression? By means of qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz (2022), categories are to be formed for this purpose, which are referred to as Zelenskyy's linguistic tools. In this way, certain patterns of persuasion in Zelenskyy's language are to be identified, which serve to win over the foreign aid. As President of Ukraine, Zelenskyy serves as the central figure in requesting foreign aid. At this point it should be noted that this paper adopts the agency1 perspective and assumes that Zelenskyy is empowered to act in winning foreign aid.
But what exactly does foreign aid mean? This is understood to mean military, humanitarian, and financial aid to a country. Military aid includes all kinds of weapons and military equipment, as well as items that explicitly go to the army, e.g., water bottles or petrol. Humanitarian aid refers to support for the civilian population, mainly with food, medicine, and other relief supplies. Financial assistance includes grants, loans, and loan guarantees to the government. There are various aid donors - states, organizations, but also private individuals and business enterprises (cf. Antezza 2022 et al.: 4 f.).
This paper approaches the research question in an exploratory way to enrich the existing state of research, which is first presented in the following (Chapter 2). This is followed by a brief illustration of the role of language in international politics (Chapter 3). Then the methodological procedure is explained, and the case selection justified (chapter 4). Afterwards follows the presentation of the results, their analysis (Chapter 4) and the subsequent discussion (Chapter 5). Finally, the results are summarized (Chapter 7).
The current state of research on foreign aid can be divided into three research strands: Impact of Foreign Aid on Conflict, Donor, and Recipient of Foreign Aid. Regarding the first strand of research, Findley (2018) has looked in detail at the impact of foreign aid on the outbreak, dynamics, and resurgence of civil wars. In his literature review, he draws on many older studies. Based on them, he concludes that there is no easy answer to whether foreign aid facilitates or hinders conflict. Older studies, on the other hand, offer contradictory results on the topic of effects on conflicts. For example, humanitarian aid can have both negative effects (Wood/Molfino 2016) and positive effects on conflict intensity (Sexton 2016). A similar pattern emerges in the findings on the impact of foreign aid on post-conflict reconstruction: Humanitarian aid can cause new conflicts in the post-conflict period (Narang 2014), but under certain conditions it can also promote development (Girod 2012). In the post-war period, what matters more is which sectors are rebuilt (Donaubauer et al. 2016).
The second strand of research looks at the perspective of the donor who is the focus of foreign aid. Here, researchers ask themselves what motivates the donor to provide aid. Does the donor provide aid “selflessly” or “selfishly”? (Heinrich 2013). On the one hand, foreign aid can be a foreign policy instrument to influence foreign powers (Morgenthau 1962), but on the other hand a form of charity (Hattori 2003). Foreign aid can also be adapted to both self-interest and the needs of recipients (Hoeffler/Outram 2011).
The third strand of research deals with the perspective of recipient states. There is surprisingly little research on this so far, even though foreign aid is always targeted at a recipient. The existing studies are about attitudes of the receiving population towards aid (Sullivan et al. 2011; Tokdemir 2017). However, there is also the study by Alesina and Dollar (2000), who examine both the donor and recipient sides. They conclude that the direction of foreign aid is determined by political and strategic considerations as well as the economic needs and political performance of recipient countries. Such studies, however, tend to be the exception. A recent, insightful study is about the recipient perspective in the Donbass conflict (Ukraine). The researchers examine the Ukrainian population's perceptions about the receipt of foreign aid. They conclude that recipients view aid from European the Union more positively as a tool for political influence than in terms of humanitarian assistance (Alrababa'h et al. 2020).
There is a consensus among scholars today that language is important for the study of international politics. It is often studied within the framework of discourse analyses (Holzscheiter 2013: 3 f.). From the perspective of constructivist approaches, language captures emotions, constructs and reflects reality, identities, and power relations (Koschut 2018). So far, language as a foreign policy factor has not been studied in the context of foreign aid.
The focus in this paper is on Zelenskyy's persuasion through language (here: linguistic tools), which he uses specifically to win foreign aid. To enable an explorative investigation, the term linguistic tools will not be defined in detail but reduced to the fact that Zelenskyy wants to achieve a certain outcome (here: more foreign aid). The exact outcome will then be determined inductively from the speeches. The methodological procedure in this regard will be explained in more detail in the following chapter.
This paper uses qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. This is a systematic and methodically controlled analysis of communication content such as texts, images, films, and other content. The core of the analysis is the formation of categories with which the material that is significant for the research question is coded. The formation of categories can be either deductive, inductive, or deductive-inductive (Kuckartz/Radiker 2022: 39). Qualitative content analysis is particularly suitable when systematics and methodological control are considered very important (ibid.: 42). Within qualitative content analysis, Kuckartz distinguishes between content-structuring, evaluative and type-forming content analysis. These three methods have different approaches and are popular in qualitative research practice (ibid.: 104). Since the aim is to systematically examine the language in Zelenskyy's speeches, the work follows a contentstructuring approach. The core aim of this approach is to identify, conceptualize and systematically describe selected aspects of content on the material (Schreier 2014). The contentstructuring content analysis is carried out in several steps that are aligned with the research question. First, the initiating text work takes place to mark important passages in the text. In the second step, thematic main categories are formed, along which the relevant text material is coded in the third step. In the fourth step, inductive subcategories are determined on the material, which are used in the fifth step to code further text material along the subcategories. Finally, the material is analyzed, and the resulting findings are illustrated in writing (Kuckartz/Radiker 2022: 132-156). In the present work, the coding process is carried out with the software MAXQDA (version 2022), which at the same time facilitates the analysis.
To examine Zelenskyy's speeches in terms of persuading the international community, five of his speeches that have enjoyed media attention were selected.2 It was considered that the speeches should differ from each other as much as possible to maximize variance and thus gain maximum insight. Thus, in all the selected speeches, the addresses to whom Zelenskyy addresses himself differ. At the same time, care was taken to ensure that the speech occurs once in each month between March and July of 2022. More specifically, five following speeches were selected: The speech at the NATO3 Summit on 24 March, at the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on 11 April, at the World Economic Forum in Davos on 23 May, to the participants of the Cannes Lions International Festival on 21 June and at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Lugano on 4 July.
Zelenskyy's first linguistic tool to convince potential helpers are the statements about Ukrainian resistance against Russia. First and foremost, it is about what Ukraine is doing. Thus, the Ukrainian army is acting bravely and putting up heroic resistance under unequal conditions. This is because Russia has built up a military advantage, having accumulated considerable military resources over the decades, and is currently deploying its best units against the Ukrainian army. Addressing NATO, Zelenskyy sees Ukraine as entitled to receive a small share of NATO tanks because Ukraine is defending its right to life.
“We want to survive! Just survive! Like any nation, we have the right to it. The right to life. The right to this one percent.” (24.03.22: 15)
Against this background, he also emphasizes that after a month of resistance against Russia, the Ukrainian army has proven compliance with NATO standards. Furthermore, in his address to Korea, he lists other rights that Ukraine defends. These include the right to live independently, the right to complete security and the right to freedom and to seek personal happiness. In doing so, he asks Korea to defend these rights together and to rebuild them together with the world after the war. However, Ukrainian defence is not limited to the various rights, but also includes the defence of freedom in a more general sense. Zelenskyy draws a parallel between the Korean War in the 1950s and Ukrainian resistance today. Ukraine wants to defend its freedom, resist the attack, and receive help - in a similar way as was the case with Korea in the 1950s. Moreover, the Ukrainian resistance has led to unity in the democratic world, with “hundreds of millions of people” (23.05.22: 27) putting pressure on their governments and companies to help Ukrainians and limit their relations with Russia. Above all, Ukraine has united the European Union and the NATO alliance. This is accompanied by the effect that Ukraine led to the realization of all basic European values.
Zelenskyy's second linguistic tool consists of the statements about the negative consequences of the Russia's war of aggression, with which he wants to convince donors to help Ukraine. Thus, Russia has violated the agreements of the Budapest Memorandum and consequently broken the peace in Ukraine. Another negative consequence is the suffering Russia is inflicting on Ukraine. Russia is holding people hostage in Ukrainian cities and causing famine there. Because of this, Ukraine is asking NATO for military aid: The fighter jets are to protect the people and the tanks are to liberate the suffering cities. Moreover, Zelenskyy accuses Russia of causing suffering not only in Ukraine but all over the world. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, he quotes George Marshall's 1947 statement about US policy “against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos” (23.05.22: 82). By means of the quote, Zelenskyy draws a parallel to the Russia's war of aggression, which causes the same negative consequences. With this parallel, he tries to give the old quotation a sense of urgency again. Adding to this, Russia brings not only suffering, but also terror and death: Ukrainians are forced to flee by Russia's terror. The terror affects not only Ukrainians, but also the helping NATO countries. As of 24.03.22, there are already three and a half million Ukrainian migrants on the territory of NATO countries. Death affects all age groups because phosphorus bombs kill both adults and children. However, death can be prevented if NATO supplies Ukraine with all the necessary weapons. Before the Korean National Assembly, Zelenskyy characterizes Russia as a state “that does not count the dead [...]” (11.04.22: 32). In this context, Ukraine needs more aid than it has received so far. Another aspect that Zelenksyy often refers to is about destruction: Russia is destroying not only Ukraine (living things and objects) with their missiles, bombs, and air strikes, but indirectly the entire global security architecture. To do this, Zelenksyy intends to illustrate the destruction pictorially by asking the Korean people to watch a Ukrainian journalist's footage of the city of Mariupol. In subsequent words, he asks for help to stop the destruction. Moreover, he emotionally charges the statements about destruction when it comes to aid to Ukraine in this context:
“But it is also necessary that world companies stop being sponsors of this barbaric state, which believes that it has the right to destroy the lives of nations.” (11.04.22: 28) “[...] We ask for help to stop this. For the cities of Ukraine and other states to never see such evil again.” (11.04.22: 39)
The third tool includes Zelenskyy's demands to help Ukraine directly or to take supporting measures. He justifies his demands by saying that they are necessary. He requests both material and immaterial assistance: First, his demands relate to the protection of Ukrainians' lives. He says, NATO must act by closing Ukrainian sky and demonstrating its power as the most powerful defense alliance. Second, he requests military assistance from both NATO and Korea to enable the Ukrainians to survive. Zelenskyy's demands more from NATO than from Korea: NATO must provide Ukraine with unrestricted military assistance and the necessary weapons (jets, tanks, MLRS systems, anti-ship weapons and air defence assets).
“To save people and our cities, Ukraine needs military assistance - without restrictions. As Russia uses without restrictions its entire arsenal against us.” (24.03.22: 11)
Compared to NATO, Korea only must give “principled answers” (11.04.22: 33) on the issues of survival and conquest and review its existing rules on arms deliveries. Zelenskyy's third demand includes rapid aid to Ukraine, which appears in all the selected speeches. He formulates the urgency differently depending on the context. Thus, peace must be restored immediately and actions to help must be taken quickly or now. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, he sets out a rule for rapid aid, making the urgency comprehensible:
“You know, this war of Russia against Ukraine convinces everyone that aid to the attacked state is more valuable the sooner it is provided.” (23.05.22: 70)
He also considers it necessary to set a precedent for “absolutely timely assistance” (23.05.22: 79). In doing so, the precedent should not only benefit Ukraine, but all other people in need of help in the world. Another demand is directed at celebrities who must maintain the media and social focus on the war in Ukraine. To do this, they must talk about Ukraine and remind world society about the Ukrainian fight for freedom. In this way, they achieve peace, save lives, what ultimately lead to the end of the war. Zelenskyy emphasizes the urgency by saying that the fight must end as soon as possible with Ukrainian victory. Fifthly, Zelenskyy talks about peacebuilding measures. For this, he says that NATO must give security guarantees to Ukraine, and in Davos he calls for preventive actions. He also expresses in the Korean National Assembly that measures alone are not enough and that Russia must be forced to make peace. The final demand is that Russia must be sanctioned. The sanctions must be directed primarily against the Russian economy:
“Russian banks' ties with the global financial system must be severed. It is necessary to limit Russia's exports of energy resources, especially oil. But it is also necessary that world companies stop being sponsors of this barbaric state [...]”. (11.04.22: 28).
In addition, statements about the scope of sanctions play an important role. On the one hand, Zelenskyy is concerned that sanctions be extended to the “maximum” (23.05.22: 37). This includes the confiscation of Russian assets and their transfer to a fund to compensate all war victims. On the other hand, the aim is to create new precedents with an intensive sanctions effect. They are intended to have the effect of deterring both Russia and other aggressors from acts of war, thereby maintaining peace. In addition, the reputation of the business enterprises that left Russia should also be preserved:
“So that your brands are not associated with war crimes. That your offices, accounts, commodities are not used by war criminals in their bloody interests.” (23.05.22: 42)
In the fourth linguistic tool, Zelenskyy tries to show the similarities between Ukraine and its supporters. Thus, he speaks of a joint “Our anti-war coalition” (11.04.22: 27) having formed in response to Russia's invasion. In this way, he is trying to create an affiliation with NATO, although Ukraine is not a NATO member. In doing so, he tries to compensate for the lack of NATO membership by presenting Ukraine on an emotional level as a participant in the Alliance. To do so, he emphasizes that Ukrainians do not distinguish between alliance and allies and expresses his sincere concern for NATO's well-being:
“I sincerely wish that you actually have a very strong Alliance. [...] And really take care of security, security in Europe and, consequently, in the world.” (24.03.22: 22)
In this context, he asks for one percent of NATO's aircraft and tanks - in case Ukraine is right in its fears and Russia truly wants to extend its aggression to NATO territory. Then he states that Ukraine has already demonstrated its ability to contribute to common security in Europe and the world. Another common feature is that Ukraine - like NATO - defends all common values. Here, the value of freedom plays a central role:
“[...] we are fighting not only for our own freedom but for the freedom of the entire democratic world [...]” (21.06.22: 22).
According to Zelenskyy, the reconstruction of Ukraine is also a common task for the entire democratic and civilized world, based on common values. In this way, all participants can prove their common strength, namely that “democratic world is stronger, Europe is more powerful, that our values cannot be destroyed” (04.07.22).
The fifth linguistic tool consists of a willingness to take steps to receive assistance and gratitude for the help and support already received. In Davos, Ukrainian representatives are available to inform companies and all other donors about details on how they can best participate in supporting Ukraine. There, Ukraine also proposes to establish a value-based food export organization, while agreeing to provide a platform for the activities of such a new organization. Furthermore, Zelenskyy informs that Ukraine has established a reconstruction fund (United24) and encourages all donors to participate in the aid through the platform. Zelenskyy does not limit United24 to Ukraine aid but expands it to the global level: He proposes to create a global platform modelled on this brand. In crisis situations (e.g., military attacks or pandemics), the platform should serve to enable all affected states to receive sufficient aid within 24 hours. In Lugano, Zelenskyy announces that Ukraine is offering a ready-made reconstruction plan. This has been constructed according to a pattern that prioritizes both the needs and the feelings of Ukrainians. Zelenskyy also promises to introduce far-reaching reforms that are necessary for both reconstruction aid and Ukrainian development. With the reforms, Zelenskyy is at the same time trying to impress the donors by announcing ambitious goals to be achieved through the reforms:
“Our goal is for Ukraine to become not only the freest country in Europe and the most convenient for life and business, but also for us to complete the political part of the work the fastest of all those who moved towards the European Union. We can do it [...]”. (04.07.22: 32-33)
As proof of the success of the announced reforms, Zelenskyy presents the example that Ukraine has already carried out the most important reform. It has led to the unification of the European Union and NATO, thus realizing all the fundamental values of Europe. Furthermore, Zelenskyy conveys that to obtain the aid, he or Ukraine are not only willing to act, but that they are also willing to accept the aid and support. To this end, Zelenskyy thanks Ukraine's donors and supporters throughout. More specifically, he expresses his gratitude not only for material aid, but also for immaterial or outstanding aid. Thus, he expresses his gratitude both to the states that have decided to sponsor the reconstruction of Ukrainian cities or industries and to the states that have only expressed their interest in doing so. He also thanks specific persons - the Swiss President Cassis for his organization of the conference in Davos and the President of the Commission von der Leyen and her proposal to create a reconstruction platform.
The final linguistic device is about Zelenskyy's intention to make aid and assistance to Ukraine attractive by presenting incentives for it. This does not make him seem desperate, but businesslike. He offers incentives in exchange for help - in the sense of a win-win exchange. His incentives relate to reconstruction aid as well as sanctions against the Russian economy and have both a material as well as immaterial character.
[...]
1 “The social determined capability to act and make a difference.” (Barker/Emma 2016: 632)
2 All speeches were taken as text files from the official website of the President at: https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/speeches.
3 The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
