The Performative Failure of the “Great Russia” Narrative: A Speech Act Analysis and the Transformation of Ukrainian National Identity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54065/dieksis.6.1.2026.1080Keywords:
Speech ACT, Great Russia, Securitization, UkraineAbstract
This study is urgent because it reveals how the performative failure of the “Great Russia” narrative, rather than legitimizing domination, has unintentionally accelerated the consolidation and transformation of Ukrainian national identity, challenging prevailing assumptions about the power of hegemonic discourse in international politics. The Russia Ukraine conflict reflects not only a territorial dispute, but also a war of meaning through language and historical narratives. President Vladimir Putin often uses the narrative of ‘Greater Russia’ as a basis for political legitimacy to justify aggression against Ukraine. This narrative represents a form of speech act that aims to create a new political reality in which Ukraine is considered part of a larger Russian identity. However, the phenomenon that occurs is paradoxical: instead of strengthening Russia's cultural claims, the narrative fails performatively and triggers the consolidation of Ukrainian national identity. This study employs a qualitative-descriptive research design aimed at explaining why Russia’s “Greater Russia” narrative failed performatively and how it paradoxically strengthened Ukrainian national identity. This study aims to analyse the failure of Russian linguistic actions using a descriptive qualitative approach with the analytical tool of Speech Act theory from the Copenhagen School. Data was obtained from secondary sources such as official speeches, public opinion surveys (Pew Research, KIIS), and academic literature related to changes in Ukraine's national identity after 2014. The results of the study show that the failure of Russian political discourse was caused by changes in Ukraine's socio-political context, which eliminated Moscow's symbolic legitimacy. The ‘Greater Russia’ narrative lost its effectiveness because the intended audience rejected the constructed meaning, so that the political discourse no longer had performative power. This study confirms that in contemporary global politics, linguistic power cannot stand without audience recognition. Language, in the context of modern conflict, has become the main arena where legitimacy and identity are negotiated.
References
Aradau, C. (2018). From securitization theory to critical approaches to (in) security. European journal of international security, 3(3), 300-305. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2018.14
Averianova, N., & Voropaieva, T. (2020). Transformation of the collective identity of Ukrainian citizens after the revolution of dignity (2014–2019). Kyiv-Mohyla Humanities Journal, (7), 45-71. https://doi.org/10.18523/kmhj219654.2020-7.45-71
Baele, S. J. (2023). Twenty-five years of securitization theory: A systematic review. Politics, 43(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211069499
Curanovi?, A., & Szyma?ski, P. (2024). Mission saves us all: Great Russia and Global Britain dealing with ontological insecurity. International Relations, 38(4), 467-491. https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178221140093
Davis, H. H. (2023). Review of The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History, by Serhii Plokhy. Society, 60(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00932-y
Diffani, H., & Kholis, A. (2023). An Analysis of Speech Act in the Movie" Turning Red". Journal of Linguistics, Culture and Communication, 1(2), 100-115. https://doi.org/10.61320/jolcc.v1i2.100-115
Dzyadevych, T. (2019). Political Subjectivities in Russia and Ukraine through the Lens of Post-Soviet Literature (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago).
Freire, M. R. (2020). Vladimir Putin, Twenty Years On: Russia’s Foreign Policy. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 20(3), 449-462. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2020-20-3-449-462
Gasparatou, R. (2018). How to do things with words: Speech acts in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(5), 510-518. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1382353
Geurts, B. (2019). Communication as commitment sharing: speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical linguistics, 45(1-2), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0001
Hentschel, G., & Palinska, O. (2022). The linguistic situation on the Ukrainian Black Sea coast–Ukrainian, Russian and Suržyk as “native language”,“primary code”, frequently used codes and codes of linguistic socialization during childhood. Russian linguistics, 46(3), 259-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-022-09259-4
Homon, A., & Biletska, I. (2023). Language shifts and national identity: Sociolinguistic evidence from Ukraine. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 31(2), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsl.2023.0012
Hughes, J., & Trenin, D. (2021). Russia’s narrative warfare and its limits: Lessons from Ukraine. Journal of Strategic Studies, 44(6), 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2021.1871456
Jackson, N. (2024). The securitization of foreign disinformation. Security and Defence Quarterly, 46(2), 118-138. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4108-2650
Kappeler, A. (2014). Ukraine and Russia: Legacies of the imperial past and competing memories. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 5(2), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2014.05.005
Karyotis, G., Paterson, I., & Judge, A. (2025). Understanding securitization success: A new analytical framework. International Studies Review, 27(1), viaf006. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaf006
Krymets, L., Saienko, O., Nedvyha, O., Tserkovnyak-Horodets' ka, O., & Logvinenko, N. (2025). The formation of Ukrainian national identity in the context of Russian aggression: A philosophical and psychological analysis. International Journal on Culture, History, and Religion, 7(SI1), 518-536. https://doi.org/10.63931/ijchr.v7iSI1.153
Kulyk, V. (2025). Studying language shift: research on language practices and attitudes in wartime Ukraine. Post-Soviet Affairs, 1-9.. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2025.2560275
Plokhy, S. (2023). The Russo-Ukrainian war: The return of history. WW Norton & Company.
Pratiwi, D. A., & Saputra, T. E. Y. S. (2024). Speech Disorders in Deaf People. Jurnal Dieksis ID, 4(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.54065/dieksis.4.1.2024.457
Putri, D. A. (2020). Faktor Identitas Masyarakat Ukraina Dalam Penentangan Orientasi Kebijakan Luar Negeri Pada Era Viktor Yanukovych. Padjadjaran Journal of International Relations, 2(1), 34-53.. https://doi.org/10.24198/padjir.v2i1.24009
Salter, M. B. (2008). Securitization and desecuritization: A dramaturgical analysis of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Journal of international relations and development, 11(4), 321-349. https://doi. org/10.1057/jird.2008.20
Spargo, J. (2021). " The greatest failure in all history": a critical examination of the actual workings of Bolshevism in Russia. Good Press.
Surahim, I., & Ramli, A. (2023). An Analysis of The Language Variations of Luwunese Through Speech Acts (Fokus: Luwu, North Luwu, and East Luwu). Jurnal Dieksis ID, 3(2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.54065/dieksis.3.2.2023.356
Vuori, J. A. (2025). Securitization as a context-changing speech act. Cooperation and Conflict, 60(4), 1054-1072. https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367251364179
Widiasa, R. (2018). Bingkai identitas dalam konflik geopolitik: intervensi militer rusia di ukraina. Intermestic: Journal of International Studies, 3(1), 60-76. https://doi.org/10.24198/intermestic.v3n1.5
Xin-yu, L. U. N. (2022). The New Transformations and Prospects of Speech Act Research from the Multimodal Perspective. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, 12(6), 653-660. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5836/2022.06.010
Yarotska, G. (2023). Bilingual Linguistic and National Identity (A Case Study of the Sociolinguistic Surveys in Ukraine). Bibliotekarz Podlaski, 61(4), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.36770/bp.854
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nabilah Najwa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
License and Copyright Agreement
- Authors retain copyright and other proprietary rights related to the article.
- Authors retain the right and are permitted to use the substance of the article in their own future works, including lectures and books.
- Authors grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post or self-archive their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
