Critical Discourse Analysis as a Tool for Measuring Sentiments and Strategies of Interpreting the Image and Role of Contemporary Russia in Mainstream Liberal Discourse.
The Russia-US Summit as a Mediadiscursive Fixation Zone
Dialogue between two centers of power at this level signaled to the world an increasingly evident thesis: the architecture of global security is capable of withstanding seismic shifts of any magnitude, provided there is political will for dialogue between the poles of power. In this context, the political marginalization and irrelevance of supporters of the Euro-Atlantic model’s hegemony in global security is becoming more apparent.
In the current confrontation of narratives, which is an integral part of any hybrid war, discourse – composed of verbal signals, connotations, and semantic frameworks-serves as an important indicator for measuring sentiments and strategies of interpretation.
That’s why, in today’s world of political postmodernism, where disinformation and post-truth shape the agenda, discourse is what Western political science calls the “fabrics” of public policy. In other words, it is discourse that shapes political images, meanings, and the climate in a particular political domain. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to conduct a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the Russia-US summit in Anchorage using the example of the German media landscape, serving as an effective academic-analytical tool for identifying dominant ideological attitudes and interpretations in Western liberal democracies.
Critical Discourse Analysis
The term “critical discourse analysis” (CDA) was introduced into the methodology of political research by Norman Fairclough, Teun van Dijk, and Ruth Wodak at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. According to its definition, CDA treats language “as a tool for reproducing power, ideology, and inequality.” In other words, deconstructing the discourse of mainstream media allows us to understand how a particular topic is covered and presented. For example, in the context of the Russia-US leaders’ meeting in Alaska, CDA makes it possible to reveal which narrative construct around the summit is promoted and replicated in the German media landscape. A deep understanding of such verbal constructions allows for answers to a wide range of key questions, from the formation of the public image of contemporary Russia in global politics to the perception of the crisis in the Euro-Atlantic system of relations. Thus, CDA serves as an effective tool for analyzing both linguistic strategies and hidden ideological attitudes in media discourse.
The methodology of CDA often appeals to so-called “frames” – a concept which, according to Robert Entman, is defined as “the selection and highlighting of certain aspects of reality to strengthen a particular interpretation.” In other words, a frame is a verbal-cognitive structure that sets the form of interpreting events and phenomena. Based on the conducted analysis, this study identifies five key frames reconstructed from the materials of six mainstream German media outlets:
The “Victory” Frame
The dominant narrative in the German media space was the image of the “winner,” in which President Vladimir Putin was portrayed in the media discourse. From the start, the Russia-US summit was positioned in mainstream German publications not as a platform for negotiations aimed at forming the contours of strategic cooperation between Moscow and Washington, but as a kind of “chess game,” where President Putin’s archetype as an experienced and rational negotiator a priori guaranteed him a symbolic advantage over President Trump.
This choice of tone reproduced several stable linguistic patterns reinforcing the idea of Russia’s victory, such as:
- “1:0 für Putin” (1:0 for Putin)
- “Als Gewinner gekommen, als Gewinner gegangen” (Came as a winner, left as a winner)
- “Moskau feiert Erfolg” (Moscow celebrates success).
The “Weakness” Frame
An asymmetrical role distribution in the media discourse manifested in the portrayal of President Donald Trump as an embodiment of the new West’s weakness. While Russia and its leader were depicted as the strategically winning side, the US was positioned not as an equal partner, but rather as a counterpart in a losing position.
The personification of strategic weakness in Trump’s image was reinforced by narratives emphasizing a crisis in the transatlantic security architecture. In the texts of German media, this perception was accompanied by typical expressions:
- “Trump ist in Putins Falle gegangen” (Trump fell into Putin’s trap)
- “Tiefpunkt der US-Diplomatie” (The lowest point of American diplomacy)
- “absoluter Bankrott für Europa” (Absolute bankruptcy for Europe)
- “Sprunghaftigkeit Trumps” (Trump’s unpredictability).
The “Disappointment” Frame
A significant part of the publications interpreted the summit through the prism of disappointment, linking the very fact of the meeting to the defeat of the collective West and Ukraine. Such a tone framed the talks as pointless and having no positive added value. Expressions reinforcing the idea of diplomatic stagnation and lack of results were used:
- “Tiefst enttäuschend” (highly disappointing)
- “schwarzer Freitag” (black Friday)
- “keine Fortschritte” (no progress)
- “keinen Millimeter weitergebracht” (didn’t make a millimeter of progress).
This lexis reinforced the dominance of a discourse of escalation, as opposed to diplomatic resolution following the presidents’ meeting.
The “Catastrophe” Frame
Some German publications resorted to a more radical tone, describing the summit’s consequences as catastrophic. The texts included such phrases as:
- “Tiefpunkt der US-Diplomatie” (The lowest point of American diplomacy)
- “milde Katastrophe” (a mild catastrophe)
- “schwer erträglich” (hard to endure).
Especially telling was Tagesschau’s statement, calling the meeting a “gift to Putin,” which reinforced the narrative of Russia’s strategic victory and, accordingly, the West’s defeat.
The “Useless” Frame
The “uselessness” frame reflected the ambivalence of the German media discourse: on the one hand, attention was drawn to the summit’s “catastrophic” consequences for the West; on the other, the absence of concrete results was noted, which helped negate the summit’s significance. Such delegitimization was expressed in stable formulations:
- “Nutzlos” (useless)
- “viel Lärm um nichts” (much ado about nothing)
- “kein Deal” (no deal)
- “keine klaren Zugeständnisse” (no clear concessions).
Conclusions and Interpretations
Thus, based on a critical discourse analysis of mainstream German media’s coverage of the Russia-US summit, the following conclusions can be drawn.
Firstly, the discursive optics of the German media reflect a steady systemic tendency toward the dominance of an anti-Russian narrative. Tonality, verbal constructions, and stable phraseological patterns contribute to further deepening the polarization of public opinion regarding Russia’s international role and processes associated with building strategic dialogue with Moscow. An analysis of key German media outlets forming the agenda on a daily basis revealed no signs of a systematic transformation of the anti-Russian discourse in the Western liberal mediapolitical field, nor the political will necessary for such a transformation. Today’s mainstream media in fact echo the voice of the federal government led by Chancellor Merz, whose anti-Russian rhetoric seeks monopoly in the German political field.
Secondly, the identified frames reinforce the narrative about the systemic and structural crises of transatlantic relations, while at the same time indicating the gradual consolidation of a multipolar architecture of international relations.
The Anchorage summit is presented in the media discourse as a kind of “fixation zone” for the processes of shaping a new world order, which Western media seek to challenge – on the one hand, by strengthening the anti-Russian discourse, and on the other, by undermining trust in the narrative of the preservation of America’s unipolar model of global security.
Thirdly, the discourse surrounding the summit demonstrates that the media space acts not only as an instrument of information but also as an active mechanism for constructing political reality. The representation of the meeting in terms of “victory” and “defeat,” “meaning” and “meaninglessness” shows that language and frames become a full-fledged resource of geopolitical rivalry. The perception of global politics in the era of political postmodernism confirms CDA’s key thesis: information and its interpretations today are an active zone of contestation of meanings during the geopolitical transformation of the world.
Ramiz Khodzhatov – political scientist, international observer, expert in geopolitics, international security and Russian-German relations
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
