The article probes into a polarization of political and media discourses in wartime. The opposition of Us and Them is analyzed with the help of van Dijk’s “ideological square.” A unique quadrilingual 357-million-word corpus of political and media discourses about the Russo-Ukrainian War assisted the critical discourse analysis. The data was collected in five countries (Ukraine, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France) from January 2022 to May 2025. The “ideological square” was operationalized with the help of a Russo-Ukrainian-English-French dictionary containing several versions of the “Us” and “Them” categories along with positive and negative words from the Harvard IV-4 dictionary. The category “Us” predictably tended to have positive collocates, whereas “Them” tended to have negative collocates. The “Us” versus “Them” polarization intensified in war-related speeches of the Russian and Ukrainian presidents as the war unfolded. Several mass media outlets constituted exceptions to this generalization, however. Their existence suggests the possibility of avoiding the sharp discursive polarization of media discourses even in wartime. The study also highlights that an emphasis on “Us” characterized political discourse compared with media discourse.
AlekseevaA (2014) ‘Krym nash’: Konfliktnye rechevye taktiki v sotsial’noj seti ‘V Kontakte’ [«Crimea is ours»: Conflict speech tactics in the social network VKontakte]. In: ChudinovA (ed.) Politicheskja kommunikatsija: Perspektivy razvitija nauchnogo napravlenija: Materialy mezhdunaronoj nauchnoj konferentsii. Ekaterinburg, pp.7−9. (in Russian)
2.
AncarnoC (2020) Corpus-assisted discourse studies. In: De FinaAGeorgakopoulouA (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies. Cambridge University Press, pp.165−185.
3.
AppletonS (2021) East, West and Westminster: A corpus-based study of UK foreign policy statements regarding the unification of Germany, October 1989 to November 1990. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies4: 39−62.
4.
BakerPGabrielatosCKhosraviNikM, et al. (2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society19(3): 273−306.
5.
BalashovaL (2014) Realizatsiia kontseptov ‘svoj-chuzhoj’ v rossijskom politicheskom diskurse nachala XXI v [Implementation of the concepts ‘friend or foe’ in Russian political discourse in the beginning of XXI century]. Politicheskaya lingvistika1(47): 40−50. (in Russian)
6.
BayshaO (2020) Dehumanizing political others: A discursive-material perspective. Critical Discourse Studies17(3): 292−307.
7.
BednarekMCapleH (2014) Why do news values matter? Towards a new methodological framework for analysing news discourse in Critical Discourse Analysis and beyond. Discourse & Society25(2): 135−158.
8.
BernardHR (2013) Social Research Methods, 2nd edn. Sage.
9.
BrezinaV (2018a) Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge University Press.
10.
BrezinaV (2018b) Statistical choices in corpus-based discourse analysis. In: TaylorCCharlotteAMarchiA (eds) Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. Routledge, pp.259−280.
11.
BrokenshaS (2011) Noticing Us and Them constructions: The pedagogical implications of a critical discourse analysis or referring in political discourse. Per Linguam27(1): 56−73.
12.
ByessonovaOGordienkoE (2021) Binary opposition ‘us/them’ in British and American media texts about conflicts. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics18(2): 91−111.
13.
CeraseALucchesiD (2022) ‘Noi,’ ‘loro’ e ‘quelli’: La ricontestualizzazione di popolo, ONG e rifugiati nel discorso sovranista. H-ermes: Journal of Communication22: 229−258.
14.
ChewPFortMChewJ (2023) Digital Disinformation: Computational Analysis of Culture and Conspiracy Theories in Russia and Eastern Europe. Springer Nature.
15.
CooperVA (2024) The good, the bad and the other: Discursive constructions of nations in Voice of America’s international news. Discourse & Society. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/09579265241304002.
16.
DeanMCPorterB (2024) Sentiment analysis of Russian-language social media posts discussing the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Armed Forces & Society. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/0095327X241235987.
17.
FaircloughN (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge.
18.
FellnhoferK (2023) Positivity and higher alertness levels facilitate discovery: Longitudinal sentiment analysis of emotions on Twitter. Technovation122: 102666.
19.
GabrielatosC (2018) Keyness analysis: Nature, metrics and techniques. In: TaylorCMarchiA (eds) Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. Routledge, pp.226−258.
20.
GirardR (1972) La violence et le sacré. Bernard Grasset.
21.
IvanovaE (2020) Lingvopragmaticheskie parametry oppozitsii ‘svoj-chuzhoj’ v sovremennom diskurse russkogo natsionalizma [Linguopragmatic parameters of the own – Alien opposition in the contemporary discourse of Russian nationalism (on the material of E. Kholmogorov’s texts)]. Vestnik Cherepovetskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta: Filologicheskie nauki5(98): 38−54. (in Russian)
22.
JonssonM (2024) Swedish intelligence, Russia and the war in Ukraine: Anticipations, course, and future implications. Intelligence and National Security39(3): 443−457.
KimYEKimKHwangY, et al. (2025) Media attributions and public’s responses to Russia–Ukraine war: The role of emotions toward nation and individuals. Social Science Quarterly106(2): e13497.
25.
KleinkeSBösB (2018) Indeterminate us and them: The complexities of referentiality, identity and group construction in a public online discussion. In: KleinkeSBösBMollinS, et al (eds) The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline: Personal – Group – Collective. John Benjamins, pp.153–176.
26.
KnightleyP (2003) The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth-maker from the Crimea to the Gulf War II. André Deutsch.
27.
KopotABulyk-VerkholaS (2025) Antinomia v promovakh prezidenta Ukrajiny [Antonymy in the speeches of the president of Ukraine]. Slobozhansky naukovy visnyk: Filologiia [Sloboda Scientific Journal: Philology] 11: 53−57. (in Ukrainian)
28.
KorolevaT (2017) Lingvisticheskie sredstva realizatsii sotsial’noj oppozitsii ‘svoj-chuzoj’ v politicheskom diskurse [Linguistic means to implement social opposition ‘the native – the outsider’]. Filologicheskie nauki: Voprosy teorij i praktiki5(71): part 2, 85–88. (in Russian)
29.
KryzhanivskaA (2022) The beginnings: Russian-Ukrainian war in European, Ukrainian, and Russian media in 2014−15. Balcania et Slavia2(1): 9−26.
30.
KukharukO (2021) Protystavlennia ‘my’-’vony’ u mizhgruppovoj vzajemodiji [Contrasting ‘we’-to-’they’ in intergroup interaction]. Problemy politychnoji psykhologiji [Problems of Political Psychology] 24(1): 174−184. (in Ukrainian)
31.
KuzioT (2001) Identity and nation-building in Ukraine Defining the ‘Other.’Ethnicities1(3): 343−365.
32.
KyrychenkoYBrikTvan der LindenS, et al. (2024) Social identity correlates of social media engagement before and after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nature Communications15: 8127.
33.
LasswellHD (1938) Propaganda Technique in the World War. Peter Smith.
34.
MaitlandKWilsonJ (1987) Pronominal selection and ideological conflict. Journal of Pragmatics11(4): 495−512.
35.
MarkinaV (2015a) Strategii reprezentatsii drugikh v smi: Teoriia i metodologiia kontent-analiza [The strategies of othering in media representations: Theory and method of content analysis]. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta: Filospfia, sotsiologiia, politologiia1(29): 82−90. (in Russian)
36.
MarkinaV (2015b) Mekhanismy proizvodstva inakovosti v diskurse: Teoriia i metodologiia analiza [The process of othering in discourse: A case of subordination of or disengagement from the Other?] Zhurnal issledovanii sotsial’noi politiki13(1): 49−64. (in Russian)
37.
MatićD (2013) Pronouns in American political speeches. Lingua Montenegrina, VI/1(11): 157−178.
38.
MatsiunovaA (2023) Semantic opposition of Us versus Them in late 2020 Russian-language Belarusian discourse: Synchronic and diachronic aspects. In: BanaśMSaduovR (eds) Protest in Late Modern Societies: Dynamics, Forms, Futures. Routledge, pp.42−55.
39.
MenneckeO (2024) ‘Kyiv regime,’ ‘junta,’ ‘neo-Nazis,’ ‘ethnic Jew’: Discursive derogation of Ukrainian authorities and enemy-other constructions in Vladimir Putin’s speeches. Canadian Slavonic Papers66(3–4): 323–347.
40.
MeyerM (2001) Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In:WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage, pp.14−31.
41.
NarteyMLadegaardHJ (2021) Constructing undesirables: A critical discourse analysis of othering of Fulani nomads in the Ghanaian news media. Discourse & Communication15(2): 184–199.
42.
NarteyMMwinlaaruIN (2019) Towards a decade of synergising corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis: A meta-analysis. Corpora14(2): 203−235.
43.
NaumovaK (2019) Kontent-analiz voenno-politicheskogo i voenno-publitsisticheskogo formatov diskursa v sopostavimom aspekte [Comparative content analysis of military-political and military-media discourse formats]. Politicheskaja lingvistika3(75): 96–105. (in Russian)
44.
NygrenGGlowackiMHökJ, et al. (2018) Journalism in the crossfire: Media coverage of the war in Ukraine in 2014. Journalism Studies19(7): 1059–1078.
45.
OakesMP (2020) Statistical significance for measures of collocation strength. In: Corpas PastorGColsonJP (eds) Computational Phraseology: IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 24. John Benjamins, pp.189–206.
46.
OddoJ (2011) War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ in four US presidential addresses. Discourse & Society22(3): 287–314.
47.
OktarL (2001) The ideological organization of representational process in the presentation of Us and Them. Discourse & Society12(3): 313–346.
48.
OleinikA (2024) Telegram channels covering Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: A comparative analysis of large multilingual corpora. Journal of Computational Social Science7(1):361–384.
49.
OleinikA (2025a) Geopolitical dimension of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: a study of states’ media footprint. International Politics. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1057/s41311-025-00715-8
50.
OleinikA (2025b) On measurement of distances between texts in dictionary-based content analysis. Quality & Quantity59(2): 125–145.
51.
OleinikA (2025c) Power of Labelling: Political and Media Discourses About the Russo-Ukrainian War. Society62(2): 234–249.
52.
OleinikA (2026) Us and Them and the imperial power motive syndrome: A comparative analysis of the political and media discourses about the Russo-Ukrainian War. Corpora25(1): 83–110.
53.
OsetrovaE (2022) ‘My’ i ‘oni’ v yazykovom predstavlenii [‘We’ and ‘They’ in linguistic representation]. DuskaevaL. (ed.) Materialy VI mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferentsii, Vol. 9. Sankt-Peterburg, pp.69–73. (in Russian)
54.
PartingtonADuguidATaylorC (2013) Patterns and Meanings in Discourse: Theory and Practice in Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). Studies in Corpus Linguistics v. 55. John Benjamins.
55.
PollachI (2012) Taming textual data: The contribution of corpus linguistics to computer-aided text analysis. Organizational Research Methods15(2): 263–287.
56.
RomanovaT (2015) Yazyk politkorrektnosti: Svoj-chuzoj [The language of political correctness: ‘ours’ or ‘theirs’]. Mir russkogo slova4: 21–26. (in Russian)
57.
SalamaAHY (2011) Ideological collocation and the recontexualization of Wahhabi-Saudi Islam post-9/11: A synergy of corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society22(3): 315–342.
58.
SavcisensG (2025) Large language models act as if they are part of a group. Nature Computational Science5: 9–10.
59.
SavoyJ (2018a) Analysis of the style and the rhetoric of the 2016 US presidential primaries. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities33(1): 143–159.
60.
SavoyJ (2018b) Trump’s and Clinton’s style and rhetoric during the 2016 presidential election. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics25(2): 168–189.
61.
SchenkC (2021) The migrant other: Exclusion without nationalism?Nationalities Papers49(3): 397–408.
62.
SchmittC ([1932] 2007) The Concept of the Political: Expanded Edition. The University of Chicago Press.
63.
SealsCA (2019) Choosing a Mother Tongue: The Politics of Language and Identity in Ukraine. Multilingual Matters.
64.
SnyderT (2018) The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Tim Duggan Books.
65.
StrukowskaME (2024) Mapping and projecting otherness in media discourse of the Russia–Ukraine war. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics60(1): 77−100.
66.
SunY (2024) The Russia-Ukraine conflict as a discursive continuum: A comparative study of Business Today and New York Times using an extended corpus-based discourse-historical approach. Journalism25(12): 2702–2722.
67.
SzabóLP (2022) It’s nothing personal? A linguistic account of the personalization of American political communication. Doctoral thesis, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest.
68.
TajfelHTurnerJ (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: AustinWGWorchelS (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Brooks/Cole, pp.33–47.
69.
TaylorCdel FanteD (2020) Comparing across languages in corpus and discourse analysis: Some issues and approaches. Meta65(1): 29–50.
70.
TaylorC (2013) Searching for similarity using corpus-assisted discourse studies. Corpora8(1): 81–113.
71.
ThorsrudLA (2020) Words are the new numbers: A newsy coincident index of business cycles. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics38(2): 393–409.
72.
TörnbergATörnbergP (2016) Muslims in social media discourse: Combining topic modeling and critical discourse analysis. Discourse, Context & Media13(B): 132–142.
73.
UshchynaVSzczyrbakM (2025) The language of power or the power of language? Presidential rhetoric and leadership. Journal of Language and Politics. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1075/jlp.24051.ush.
74.
van DijkTA (1998) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Sage.
75.
van DijkTA (2006) Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society17(3): 359–383.
76.
van DijkTA (2008) Discourse and Power. Palgrave Macmillan.
77.
VesseyR (2013) Challenges in cross-linguistic corpus-assisted discourse studies. Corpora8(1): 1–26.
78.
WarnerRM (2013) Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques. Sage.
79.
WieviorkaM (2004) The Making of Terrorism. The University of Chicago Press.
80.
WigS (2026) Othering the state: Invoking power in Cuba and beyond. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9655.70028.
81.
YakovlevaK (2018) Otsenka ekonomicheskoj aktivnosti na osnove tekstovogo analiza [Text mining-based economic activity estimation]. Den’gi i kredit [Russian Journal of Money and Finance] 77(4): 26–41. (in Russian)
82.
YasakovaN (2023) Natsional’ne ‘my’ v ukrajinskykh mediatekstakh 2022 roku [National ‘we’ in Ukrainian media texts in 2022: Construction of identity during the anti-colonial war]. Mova: Klasychne – moderne – postmoderne [Language: Classical – Modern – Postmodern] 9: 31−49. (in Ukrainian)
83.
ZdanovskayaL (2022) Obchshie zakonomernosti lingvokognitivnoj reprezentatsii kontseptual’noj oppozitivnosti ‘zhivoj chshit’ [General patterns of linguocognitive representation of the conceptual opposition of the ‘human shield’ concept (by the example of the Us-Them dichotomy)]. Filologicheskie nauki: Voprosy teorii i praktiki15(9): 2946–2953. (in Russian)
84.
ZhouXJinYWeiF (2025) The mechanism of othering: A discourse analysis of the construction of China’s image in EurActiv and Euronews. The International Communication Gazette87(8): 793–814.
