Would Russians be able to rationalize the war against Ukraine without gendered rhetoric?

Now that Vladimir Putin is 70 years old, we’re understandably getting less of his torso in official photographs, but the Kremlin nevertheless relies on tropes of masculinity to validate the regime and its actions abroad, particularly in Ukraine and when it comes to confrontation with the West. This gendered rhetoric resonates with Russians just as it does in societies and nations all over the world. The authorities and the public work together to manufacture consensus about who gets to be on top, who constitutes a threat, and what actions are legitimate.

When it comes to the invasion of Ukraine, for example, the promotion and draw of various anti-feminism and anti-gay narratives in Russia have facilitated the idea itself that an independent, Western-leaning Ukraine poses an existential threat. This language has helped make plausible for Russians a war that was inconceivable until only recently. But what happens if you take away that rhetoric? Without gender’s role in influencing Russia’s securitization process, what’s left of Moscow’s justifications for war?

These are questions inspired by a new article titled “Damsels in Distress: Fragile Masculinity in Digital War,” published in the academic journal Media, War & Conflict and written by Dr. Lisa Gaufman, an assistant professor of Russian Discourse and Politics at the University of Groningen. Also the author of “Security Threats and Public Perception: Digital Russia and the Ukraine Crisis” (2017) and the forthcoming “Everyday Foreign Policy: Performing and Consuming the Russian Nation after Crimea,” Dr. Gaufman joined The Naked Pravda to discuss her work.