Abstract
This paper presents a comparative discourse analysis of media representations of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the American newspaper New York Times and the Indian newspaper Business Today. Using an extended corpus-based discourse-historical approach incorporating tools from critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics, the study identifies key differences in main themes, discursive strategies, and linguistic means modulated by each nation’s geopolitics. The analysis reveals New York Times constructs the conflict predominantly as a moral and political crisis, employing critical language and ideological framing of Russia as the villain versus Ukraine as the victim. In contrast, Business Today approaches the conflict neutrally as an economic issue with pragmatic implications for India, avoiding explicit judgments and moral evaluations. While reflecting different ideological positions, the divergent framings and discursive strategies demonstrate the traditional “us versus them” dichotomy is an oversimplification. Through nuanced linguistic analysis of modal verbs, metaphors, analogies, hyperboles, and rhetorical questions, the study shows how historical relations, geopolitical interests, economic ties and cultural values create a complex discursive continuum rather than a static binary. By extending discourse-historical analysis, the paper advocates more pluralistic, self-reflexive journalism to enable nuanced policy debates attuned to on-the-ground realities, not just propagandistic binaries.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.