Russia-Ukraine war

The significance of having an alliance was defined in the Great War when weak European and strong countries decided to ally to fight the mighty power of the Central Powers. Afterward, fragile countries decided to join strong alliances to overcome threats from their neighbors. The Second World War was another example of being allied with strong countries to cope with threats from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Japanese Empire. During the Winter War and Russia-Ukraine War, Finland, and Ukraine, respectively, resemble weak countries with limited military and economic capabilities taking on a dominant and belligerent force. Neorealism is one of the structural theories in International Relations, which states that states intend and follow the balance of power to ensure their security. Neorealism posits that security organizations and alliances are vital tools in the pursuit of balancing threats and ensuring national security. This research aims to highlight the importance of alliances with Russia's neighbors to avoid future conflicts with Russia. The main question of this research is why Russia's neighbors need to form or join alliances to hedge against Russia's aggression and assist member states in reducing the large amount of budget spent on military expenses. This research argues that Finland's position in 1939 and Ukraine's in 2022 are the consequence of self-reliance under an anarchic system without having an alliance and leading to final defeat or territory cession. This paper argues alliances can secure European countries and act as a shield from Russia's threats. This research will employ the explanatory method as its research method.

This research explored the intricacies of incitement as a speech act in political discourse, particularly in the context of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Utilizing a mixed-methods design, the study combined qualitative analyses—focusing on rhetorical structures and pragmatic strategies—with quantitative evaluations of speech act frequencies. The corpus included speeches from prominent political figures delivered between February 2022 and March 2024, selected for their relevance to incitement. The analysis revealed that incitement often straddles the boundary between illocutionary and perlocutionary acts, showcasing how politicians use indirect language to maintain plausible deniability while still mobilizing action. This ambiguity complicates traditional classifications within speech act theory. Furthermore, the study highlights various persuasive strategies employed in political rhetoric, such as emotional appeals and historical analogies.The implications of this research are significant for understanding how language functions as a tool of political power, particularly in conflict situations. It provides insights into ethical considerations surrounding incitement in political communication, suggesting that awareness of linguistic strategies can help prevent escalation of tensions and promote more responsible discourse among leaders.